Jeff Flake

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. I ask unanimous consent that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. FLAKE. I know of no further debate on the bill.

Mr. FLAKE. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time.

Mr. FLAKE. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 4854.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. FLAKE. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 3509 introduced earlier today.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following leader remarks on Thursday, September 27, the Senate proceed to executive session for the consideration of the following nomination: Executive Calendar No. 867. I further ask that the time until 12:40 be equally divided in the usual form; that following the use or yielding back of time, the Senate vote on the nomination with no motions in order and without intervening action or debate; that if confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action; that no further motions be in order; and that any statements related to the nomination be printed in the Record.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to legislative session for a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Madam President, I rise today to say a few words about the two human beings who will be providing extraordinarily important testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee tomorrow, Dr. Christine Blasey Ford and Judge Brett Kavanaugh, who will testify in that order. Two human beings--it feels a bit odd in this political setting to specify their humanity, but we need to. I admit it feels strange to have to do that, but we in this political culture, in this city, and in this building, even in this Chamber, seem to sometimes forget that before this woman and this man are anything else, they are human beings. We sometimes seem intent on stripping people of their humanity so that we might more easily denigrate or defame them or put them through the grinder that our politics requires. We seem sometimes even to enjoy it. For the past 2 weeks we certainly have seen that happen to both of these human beings, for whatever reason--because we think that we are right and they are wrong, because we think our ideological struggle is more important than their humanity, because we are so practiced in dehumanizing people that we have also dehumanized ourselves. Whatever else they are or have become to us, whatever grotesque caricature we have made of them or ourselves, before we are Democrats or Republicans and before we are even Americans, we are human beings. As President Kennedy said: We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children's future. And we are all mortal. These witnesses who will testify in a very important hearing tomorrow, these unwitting combatants in an undeclared war--these people are not props for us to make our political points, nor are they to be ``demolished like Anita Hill'' as was said on conservative media the other night, nor is one of them a ``proven sex criminal'' as has been circulating on the left side of the internet. These are human beings with families and children--people who love them and people whom they love and live for--and each is suffering through a very ugly process that we have created. I will not review the unseemly process that brought us to this point because that is for another time, and, in any case, it didn't start with this particular nomination. But here we are. There was an earlier case, 27 years ago, from which you might have thought we would have learned something, but the past couple of weeks makes it clear that we haven't learned much at all. Consequently, there have been cries from both sides of these proceedings that each of the witnesses has fallen victim to character assassination. Both of these claims are absolutely correct, so I will say to these witnesses, these human beings, we owe you both a sincere apology. An apology is inadequate, of course, but it is a start. We can't very well undo the damage that has been done. But we can govern our own behavior as we go through this painful hearing tomorrow and in the days afterward. We must do that, lest we do any even more damage. Some of the public comments about these witnesses have been vile. Not unrelated to those comments, each of these witnesses has reportedly been subject to death threats, and for that we should be ashamed. The toxic political culture that we have created has infected everything, and we have done little to stop it. In fact, we have only indulged it and fanned the flames, taken partisan advantage at every turn, and deepened the ugly divisions that exist in our country. These past 2 years, we have tested the limits of how low we can go, and, my colleagues, I say that winning at all costs is too high a cost. If we cannot have a human rather than a political response to these witnesses, if we are heedless to the capacity that we have to do real and lasting damage, then we shouldn't be here. When Dr. Ford came forward, I felt strongly that her voice needed to be heard. That is why I informed Chairman Grassley that the Judiciary Committee could not and should not proceed to a vote until she had an opportunity to make her voice heard, until such time that her claims were fully aired and carefully considered and her credibility gauged. This is a lifetime appointment. This is said to be a deliberative body. In the interest of due diligence and fairness, it seemed to me to be the only thing to do. Not everybody felt this way. One man, somewhere in the country, called my office in Arizona and left a message saying that he was tired of my ``interrupting our President,'' and for the offense of allowing Dr. Ford to be heard--for this offense, my family and I would be ``taken out.'' I mention this with reluctance, but only to say that we have lit a match, my colleagues. The question is, Do we appreciate how close the powder keg is? Tomorrow, we will have a hearing. Many Members of this body from both parties have already made up their minds on the record, in advance of this hearing. They will presumably hear what they want to hear and disregard the rest. One is tempted to ask: Why even bother having a hearing? I do not know how I will assess the credibility of these witnesses-- these human beings--on the grave matters that will be testified to because I have not yet heard a word of their testimony and because I am not psychic. I am not gifted with clairvoyance. Given these limitations, I will have to listen to the testimony before I make up my mind about the testimony. What I do know is that I don't believe that Dr. Ford is part of some vast conspiracy from start to finish to smear Judge Kavanaugh, as has been alleged by some on the right. I also do not believe that Judge Kavanaugh is some serial sexual predator, as some have alleged on the left. I must also say that separate and apart from this nomination and the facts that pertain to it, I do not believe that the claim of sexual assault is invalid because a 15-year-old girl didn't promptly report the assault to authorities, as the President of the United States said just 2 days ago. How uninformed and uncaring do we have to be to say things like that, much less believe them? Do we have any idea what kind of message that sends, especially to young women? How many times do we have to marginalize and ignore women before we learn that important lesson? Now I wish to say a word or two about the human beings, first on the Judiciary Committee and then in the full Senate, who will have to weigh the testimony that we will hear tomorrow and then come to some kind of decision on this nomination. The Judiciary Committee is scheduled to vote on Judge Kavanaugh's nomination on Friday. I hope that tomorrow's hearing gives us some guidance on how we are to vote. But those of us on the Committee have to be prepared for the possibility--indeed, the likelihood--that there will be no definitive answers to the large questions before us. In legal terms, the outcome might not be dispositive. While we can only vote yes or no, I hope that we in this body will acknowledge that we don't have all the answers. We are imperfect humans. We will make imperfect decisions. This monumental decision will no doubt fit that description. Up or down, yes or no, however this vote goes, I am confident in saying that it will forever be steeped in doubt. This doubt is the only thing of which I am confident in this process. I say to all of my colleagues, for this process to be a process, we have to have open minds. We must listen. We must do our best, seek the truth, in good faith. That is our only duty. Thank you. I yield the floor.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I have 11 requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority leaders. Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate: committee on banking, housing, and urban affairs The Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, September 18, 2018, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Fintech: Examining Digitization, Data, and Technology''. committee on environment and public works The Committee on Environment and Public Works is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, September 18, 2018, at 9:55 a.m., to conduct a business meeting. committee on finance The Committee on Finance is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, September 18, 2018, during votes to conduct a hearing on the following nominations: Michael Faulkender, of Maryland, to be an Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, and Elizabeth Darling, of Texas, to be Commissioner on Children, Youth, and Families, Department of Health and Human Services. committee on foreign relations The Committee on Foreign Relations is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, September 18, 2018, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing. committee on foreign relations The Committee on Foreign Relations is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, September 18, 2018, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Status of U.S.-Russia Arms Control Efforts.'' committee on health, education, labor, and pensions The Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, September 18, 2018, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Reducing Healthcare Costs: Examining how transparency can lower spending and empower patients.'' committee on homeland security and governmental affairs The Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, September 18, 2018, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``The Implications of the Reinterpretation of the Flores Settlement Agreement for Border Security and Illegal Immigrations incentives.'' committee on veterans' affairs The Committee on Veterans' Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, September 18, 2018, during votes to conduct a hearing on the following nominations: Tamara Bonzanto, of New Jersey, to be an Assistant Secretary (Office of Accountability and Whistleblower Protection), and James Paul Gfrerer, of Virginia, to be an Assistant Secretary (Information and Technology), both of the Department of Veterans Affairs. select committee on intelligence The Select Committee on Intelligence is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, September 18, 2018, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a closed hearing. subcommittee on cybersecurity The Subcommittee on Cybersecurity of the Committee on Armed Services is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, September 18, 2018, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a closed hearing. subcommittee on oceans, atmosphere, fisheries, and coast guard The Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, September 18, 2018, at 10:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Fish Fights: An examination of conflicts over ocean resources.''

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. I ask unanimous consent that the preamble be agreed to and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session for the en bloc consideration of the following nominations: Executive Calendar Nos. 933, 934.

Mr. FLAKE. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate vote on the nominations en bloc with no intervening action or debate; that if confirmed, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table en bloc; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action; that no further motions be in order; and that any statements relating to the nominations be printed in the Record.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, in the annals of ``President's Say the Darndest Things,'' last week's Twitter outburst will stand out, at least for me, because the President attacked the Attorney General of the United States for simply doing the job he swore an oath to do. Of course, it wasn't the first time the President has so diminished himself, but this particular slander was leveled at the Attorney General for having the temerity to prosecute public corruption by Members of Congress who also happen to belong to the President's political party. That is right. The President attacked Mr. Sessions by name for refusing to cover up allegations of Republican misconduct. The President's concern was not for justice but for the political fortunes of the accused, because their congressional seats might now be at risk of falling to Democrats. In doing this, the President is projecting a vision onto the system of American justice that is both bizarre and, more importantly, destructive. Of course, the only truly shocking thing about this statement from the President is that, given what all of us have become accustomed to during this Presidency--or, even worse, have become numb to--this Twitter eruption was not at all surprising. This numb acceptance is an appalling statement on the very real threat to our democratic institutions. At this point, it might be too late for tutorials on the American justice system, but it certainly bears repeating that in order for justice to truly be served, justice must be based in empirical truth and must be absolutely carried out independent of politics, period. No President--any President--administers the justice system in America, any more than he or she decrees what is objective truth. In this country, justice and truth operate quite independent of the dictates of even the most powerful of offices. The reasons for this point are obvious to most, but we know by now that this particular President seems to have a profound unease with both justice and truth and so has been at unrelenting war with both, virtually since the moment he swore the oath--not because there is any deficiency in justice or truth that requires his intervention, mind you, but for other less noble reasons. The President seems to think that the office confers on him the ability to decide who and what gets investigated in the United States and who and what does not. Weekly, it seems, this President has been threatening to ``get involved'' in the function of the Justice Department--sometimes intimidating, sometimes plainly threatening to corrupt the independence of justice in America. He has overtly expressed a desire for his political opponents to be investigated, and almost 2 years into his Presidency, he presides over boisterous rallies where the last election is relitigated and chants of ``lock her up'' fill the halls. None of this is normal or acceptable, but his is not mere recklessness. It seems to be a deliberate program, by which he intends to weaken the institution of American justice, threaten its independence, and perhaps set the stage for some future assault on it-- the firing of the attorney general, the deputy attorney general, and perhaps even the special counsel. It has been said that the President deserves to have an attorney general of his choice, a top lawyer with whom he is compatible. This is true. The President's appointment powers are clear, and all of his appointees serve at the pleasure of the President. But what no President deserves is a top lawyer who is simply there to do his bidding. The Attorney General is not the President's personal lawyer, and his job is not to protect the President from damaging facts or to turn the power of American justice onto the President's enemies or to direct Justice Department investigations in any particular way that is either politically motivated or presupposes guilt or innocence or favors any outcome whatsoever, other than that which is supported by the evidence and truth. The Attorney General's job description, as tweeted last week by the President, bears scant resemblance to the Attorney General's job in a constitutional democracy. So I rise today because the Founders gave us the article I branch of this government that they conceived and the responsibility to curb such reckless behavior. Thus far, I believe we have all been so incredulous at the daily excess and ever hopeful--hopeful beyond any reason--that this President would at last begin to inhabit the office in a more responsible fashion that we have been somewhat uncertain what to do. First and foremost, we must speak out. We cannot be quiet when the moment requires us to defend the democratic norms under which this system functions, and without which our system ceases to function. The President has repeatedly and over time heedlessly breached these norms. If we say nothing, then, we become accomplices in the destruction of these democratic norms. The Senate is not the place to come for deniability. We must do what we can to curb the destructive impulses of this White House. We must encourage the administration of justice. That means voicing our support for Mr. Mueller and his team. We have passed bipartisan legislation out of the Senate Judiciary Committee--legislation to protect the special counsel. I call on the majority leader to bring this legislation to the Senate floor. We must also say in no uncertain terms that to call this investigation a ``witch hunt'' is wrong. To call Mr. Mueller's team ``thugs'' is wrong. Relentlessly slandering the Attorney General of the United States is wrong. It is a travesty, and it is unbecoming of the Office of the Presidency. I would say to the Attorney General: Stand firm. You spent your life in public service, in the service of your country. At the risk of being presumptuous, I will say that these days of your service, right now, during this crucial period in which we have a President who in a malign fashion is actively testing the limits of his power and the independence of American justice, your determination to safeguard the independence of the Justice Department at the same time that you have been under assault by the President has verged on heroic. In your long career, you will render no more consequential service to your country. Stand firm, Attorney General Sessions. I appeal to the leadership of this body to speak out. You don't have to speak out at every Twitter outburst, but when the President so blatantly calls for the Department of Justice to act as an arm of the Republican Party, then, the leaders of the Republican Party in this body need to stand and say that the President is out of bounds. We all have our pulls to conscience. Most recently for me, I hear the whisper so well described a few weeks ago--the whisper over my shoulder that says: We are better than this. America is better than this. In a time of rank tribalism, we need to remember that we are all Americans. That is our only tribe. It is to the rule of law and the ideals of our founding that we owe our allegiance. I yield the floor.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be discharged from further consideration of S. 1050 and that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. FLAKE. I ask unanimous consent that the Duckworth amendment which is at the desk be agreed to and that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time.

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I know of no further debate on the bill, as amended.

Mr. FLAKE. I ask unanimous consent that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to legislative session for a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 503, S. 3029.

Mr. FLAKE. I ask unanimous consent that the Alexander amendment at the desk be agreed to; that the committee-reported substitute amendment be agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 576 and that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. FLAKE. I further ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.