Thom Tillis

Mr. TILLIS

Mr. TILLIS. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. TILLIS. I do not yield.

Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, I come to the floor to join my colleagues in expressing concern over the maybe well-intended but poorly constructed policy in the Green New Deal. First, I want to start by saying I have no intention of yielding until the end of my remarks, but the one question I would have for people across the aisle is, Do you actually support the Green New Deal? Do you support it in the form it has been proposed? I can't imagine that you do because you understand the math, you understand the challenges, and you understand the reality that $65,000 a year is the median household income in North Carolina. So what we are talking about--the cost of the bill over 10 years is roughly what the average North Carolinian family makes. We know that is not sustainable. We know it is not sustainable to have our electric bills increase by $3,800 a year. We know it is not sustainable to go beyond just the energy components of the Green New Deal to other aspects of the Green New Deal that just don't make sense. So $93 trillion is not something I can get my head wrapped around. I know that is the number we are talking about. But I think we can get to the household impact and recognize that it is not sustainable, right? So why are we having this discussion?

Mr. TILLIS

Mr. TILLIS. Madam President, I come to the floor to thank my colleagues who voted and who will be voting to move forward the nomination of Allison Joan Rushing to be the U.S. Circuit Court judge for the Fourth Circuit. Ms. Rushing has a great history in North Carolina. She is actually from East Flat Rock, NC. Both of her parents were educators who taught in the North Carolina public school system. She received her degree with honors from Wake Forest, and she received her law degree from Duke University. She now has over 11 years of experience practicing law and is really considered one of the fast-rising stars of the legal profession. I have had the opportunity to get to know Ms. Rushing through the nomination process, and I know she is going to do a great job as a circuit court judge on the Fourth Circuit. From the ABA, she has received from a substantial majority a ``qualified'' rating and from a minority a ``well qualified'' rating. She is clearly qualified to do this job. She is young. She is bright. She is a topnotch litigator, and I look forward to casting my vote here in a couple of minutes. Again, I think my colleagues will also be casting a vote in support of confirming this nomination.

Mr. TILLIS. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. TILLIS

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

Mr. TILLIS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to finish my comments before the vote. I expect it to take not more than about 3 or 4 minutes.

Mr. TILLIS

Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, I have a request for one committee to meet during today's session of the Senate. It has the approval of the Majority and Minority leaders. Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committee is 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, February 26, 2019, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing on the Semiannual Monetary Policy Report to the Congress and the following nominations: Mark Anthony Calabria, of Virginia, to be Director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, Bimal Patel, of Georgia, to be an Assistant Secretary, and Dino Falasrnetti, of Montana, to be Director, Office of Financial Research, both of the Department of the Treasury, Todd M. Harper, of Virginia, and Rodney Hood, of North Carolina, both to be a Member of the National Credit Union Administration Board, Spencer Bachus III, of Alabama, and Judith DelZoppo Pryor, of Ohio, both to be a Member of the Board of Directors, and Kimberly A. Reed, of West Virginia, to be President, all of the Export-Import Bank of the United States, and Seth Daniel Appleton, of Missouri, and Robert Hunter Kurtz, of Virginia, both to be an Assistant Secretary of Housing and, Urban Development; to be immediately followed by a hearing to examine.

Mr. TILLIS

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

Mr. TILLIS

Mr. TILLIS. Well, ladies and gentlemen, yesterday I took a position that I think some people consider to be unpopular--particularly some of my friends back in my State--that I thought I would come back and explain. It has to do with the President's Executive action. It also has to do with communicating an important and somber subject. There is a crisis at the border. I have been there. I didn't read about it. I didn't watch it on TV. I didn't read a tweet about it. I invested time down there, hours and hours with border security. I was on shallow draft boats. I was on horseback. I have been on ATVs. I spent a lot of time down at the border, and the one thing I will tell you is that the President is absolutely right. There is a crisis on the border--and not only on the southern border, but I will state that ranchers on the northern border also believe they have challenges that this President is right to address. I also happen to agree with a good portion of how the President is going to do it after Congress failed to do its job. Keep in mind that over the last year, we have had on this floor Democrats and Republicans voting for as much as $25 billion for border security--Democrats and Republicans--and now we are fighting over a fraction of that. The President needs to act. He got an appropriation of about $1.5 billion through the negotiated settlement a couple of weeks ago, and now he is taking the only action he can until Congress acts, and that is to figure out other sources of funding that he believes he can use within current statutory limits. The way he has done that is he has first taken the $1.3 billion that Congress did appropriate. He has another $2.5 billion and another $600 million that I believe he is right to reprogram, send to the southern border, and probably make some investment in the northern border. Here is where I have a respectful difference of opinion with the President and the administration: It is the emergency order, that under the emergency powers act, he is using his authority to appropriate the remaining funds. First off, those funds will come what we call the MILCON budget. That is military construction. Right now, we are trying to find out what that means--which projects we think are critical to help the readiness of our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines; which investments that we were going to make, that we have already determined we should make in military construction, are going to be put on hold while we reprogram those dollars to go to the southern border. The real problem I have is that this is only a fraction of what we all know we need to secure the border. I want to go back to the humanitarian crisis, though. My wife and I had an interesting discussion the other night. She wasn't too happy when I took this position originally. I am still not sure if she is happy. But to understand why I respectfully disagree with the President, you have to understand, again, as I started this discussion, that there is a crisis. There are people dying. There are millions of doses of poison coming across the border every single year that are killing tens of thousands of people. That is a crisis. There are thousands of people crossing the border and dying. They have what they call coyotes, human traffickers who will get them across the border, get people who will pay thousands of dollars to cross the border, and then they will say: Civilization is just an hour away. It is an hour plane ride away. Most people don't understand the sheer size and scale of Texas, particularly those crossing the border in the dead of night, working with basically organized crime. You have to pay a toll to get through the so-called plazas that run the northern border of Mexico. My problem right now has to do with an Executive order, the emergency declaration that the President intends to send to Congress. My wife and I were having a discussion. She said: You just said you agree with the President that there is a crisis on the border; you agree with the President that we need to send resources down to the southern border and work on the northern border; you agree that Congress has failed to act; and you agree that if you were President, you would do exactly what he is doing. I said yes. She said: Why don't you support it? I said: Because I am not the President. I am a Member of the U.S. Senate. I am a Member of a coequal branch who actually believes that this action falls within our purview. Now we are going to find out because I am sure we are going to be challenged in the courts. But I also worry not so much about this one--frankly, even the way this money is going to be programmed, I agree with. What I worry about are future Presidents and what they may do if we set this precedent going into the future. We actually have a Democratic candidate running for President--this is one hypothetical. There have been some far-flung ones that I am not sure I completely agree with, but let me give this one. It relates to border security. We have someone who is a Member of this body who has publicly said that their priority, if they were elected to be President, would be to tear down borders, tear down walls, build bridges, and open the borders. Well, if you argue that there is a humanitarian crisis--and I have said there is already is one--what would prevent that President from issuing an Executive order that would divert military construction funding to tear down the walls that are going to be built now? If we give this President--a President I support and a President whose policies and priorities I agree with--that authority, that could be aiding and abetting a future President and empowering them beyond what I believe their authorities are, vested in the Constitution in article II. So I have come here today in part to maybe take another stab at explaining to my wife why I have taken this position but also to explain to the American people and folks in North Carolina and across this country. I agree with the President. I know we have a crisis we have to take care of. We have a national security crisis, a homeland security crisis, and a humanitarian crisis. It is not the end; it is a portion of the means. I applaud the President for taking the action up here and getting things going. I hope that over time, we can find a way to fully fund the border strategy on a bipartisan basis and also address other immigration issues that I believe are pressing for this Nation. Madam President, thank you for allowing me to come to the floor and explain my position. If anybody in North Carolina has any questions, I know they know how to get ahold of me because my phones are blowing up right now. But I do want to explain it to them in a way that makes sense. I am a steward of the U.S. Senate. I am a steward of the article I branch. That matters to me. Thank you, Madam President.

Mr. TILLIS

Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, one of the reasons why I continue to be here in Washington rather than visiting with family and friends of Congressman Jones is that we have a very important vote that we expect the Senate to take up here sometime this afternoon. It is a vote that is borne out of compromise. To quote Winston Churchill--I think it was--it is the worst possible option except for all the other options considered up to this point. It is not perfect, but it is important that we get the votes and that we encourage the President to sign this bill into law. Now, I walked through the hallway this morning, and I had the press come up to me. Some in the press probably want to report honestly, but others want to create a narrative. So the latest narrative is this: Senator, how do you feel about a bill that just got published last night--1,200 pages--and you are going to be asked to vote on it today? I told them, specifically, because I have been following this measure since the last Congress. I said: Are you referring to the almost-1,200- page bill, of which all but 41 pages were matters that were taken up in the Appropriations Committee, voted out of committee unanimously in all but one case and with 26 votes in the other case? Are you referring to that bill? If the Senators are doing their job and the Congressmen are doing their job, they read that months ago when they were passed out of the Appropriations Committee. Most of this is not new information. About 41 pages of it relates to the compromise that ultimately--because we couldn't get a compromise back in December--resulted in the government shutdown. It absolutely funds some of the President's priorities for border security. There are people that get caught up on either end of the spectrum. It reminds me of how my kids used to fight in the back of the minivan when we used to take them on vacations. It is a childish argument: It is a wall. No, it is not. It is a wall. No, it is not. Look, it is steps taken forward in a positive way for border security. It is a structure that makes sense. It is technology. It is personnel. It is what we need to ultimately secure the border. Some people can call it a wall because you could argue that in total it is. Other people could say it is not a wall. I don't care as long as you ultimately recognize that voting for this measure and sending the signal to the President that we have his back, that we understand his priorities, and that we will continue to work on other measures on a bipartisan basis makes sense. So I intend to support it today. It is not a vote that I am going to enjoy, but sometimes we have to do things here to make progress, to compromise, and to move on. We owe it to the American people to keep the government open. We owe it to border security to listen to their recommendations to fund people, technology, and infrastructure. This is a step in the right direction.

Mr. TILLIS

Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, it was a year ago today that I was presiding and something occurred to me. One is that in the 12 years that I have been in public service, I have virtually spent none of those Valentine's Days at home. Last year, I was thinking about how I messed up. I didn't even order flowers or do the things that I would normally do, although, I usually get flowers on Valentine's Day. But then I started contemplating the Senate rules, and I know that there are a number of, well, things you just can't do on the floor. I determined, for example, that you can't do an ad hoc prop and say something because it would be a violation of the rules. So although I thought about putting this heart up and presenting this and saying, ``I love my wife Susan Tillis of 32 years,'' I am not going to do that because I think it would be a violation of the rules. But in the event that someday we do change the rules and we are able to come to the floor and express our love for our spouses and people who sacrifice as much as we do, I hope someday to be able to give that speech on the Senate floor. I yield the floor.

Mr. TILLIS

Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, I come to the floor with a heavy heart today. A colleague in the House passed away, and right at this very moment, down in Greenville, NC, we have a number of Congressmen and friends and family members congregated to celebrate the life and mourn the death of Congressman Jones. Congressman Jones served in Congress for over 24 years. His dad served before that. Between the two of them, the Jones family has represented the eastern portion of North Carolina for 50 out of the last 53 years. Now, Congressman Jones was somebody who was a bit of a maverick and a bit of an independent spirit on the House side, and we didn't agree on certain measures. But I never doubted his sincerity and his heart and his commitment to North Carolina and to this great Nation. He is survived by his wife Joe Anne of over 50 years. In fact, they were married in 1966. He has a number of people in the statehouse who served with him, in a chamber where I was speaker of the house. They are mourning his death today. I couldn't be there in person because we have to be here for the votes that we are taking up this afternoon, but I wanted the Jones family to know, and all the people in Eastern North Carolina, how much I cared for and loved Walter Jones.

Mr. TILLIS

Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, I am here for what I hope will be the last time to talk about a subject I have come to the floor and discussed virtually every week we have been here since I went and visited a man who has been in a Turkish prison since October 7, 2016. His name is Andrew Brunson. He is a Presbyterian minister from North Carolina who, in 2016, under emergency orders in Turkey, President Erdogan ended up ordering the arrest of a number of people, many of whom I think were probably involved in the illegal coup attempt. To the extent that evidence demonstrates they were, they should be held accountable for their actions, but, unfortunately, thousands of people--journalists, people of faith, and a number of other people who were in the wrong place at the wrong time, like a NASA scientist who already spent 2\1/2\ years in prison--were also arrested. They were also put in prison. In the case of Pastor Brunson, he spent almost 17 months in a Turkish prison, in a cell designed for 8 people that had 21 people in it. None of the others were even English-speaking. Then, about 17 months into it, he had an indictment against him. It was about a 70-page document. It is a document I have read. Quite honestly, I don't think a first- year law student or a magistrate anywhere would consider the allegations in this indictment as worthy of any prosecution--certainly not enough to keep somebody in our U.S. justice system in prison overnight, let alone now 734 days. The 2-year anniversary was just on Sunday. I called Pastor Brunson Sunday morning to speak with him, to see how he is doing and how his wife Noreen is doing. Noreen has been in the country the whole time because she is afraid that if she leaves the country, they will not let her come back. After the last hearing, the Turkish officials allowed Pastor Brunson to be placed under house arrest. He can't leave his house. He has an electric monitor, but the fact is, he is still incarcerated. He is still worried about the very real possibility that he could be convicted for up to 35 years in prison. The reason I hope this is the last speech I have to give is, tomorrow is what many of us believe may be the last time that he is in a courtroom. I hope President Erdogan and their justice system find justice for Pastor Brunson. What that justice looks like to me, regardless of whatever conclusion the Turkish courts draw--innocence or guilt--is that they simply complete the judicial process in Turkey and return Pastor Brunson and his wife Noreen back to the United States, most likely back to Western North Carolina. I visited Pastor Brunson in a Turkish prison about 6 months ago, after I heard he was concerned that once the indictment was issued against him, the American people would read that indictment and just forget about him. It was important for me to go to Turkey, to go to that Turkish prison just outside of Izmir, Turkey--one of the major cities in Turkey--and look him eye to eye and say: I will never forget you. Since that meeting, and after that meeting in prison, we had some 70 Members of the U.S. Senate from both sides of the aisle sign on to a letter to send a very clear message to Pastor Brunson that we are not going to forget him and also a very clear message to Turkey that there will be a consequence if we have a miscarriage of justice in this case. I went back to the Turkish courtroom almost 2 months after I met him in prison, and I saw firsthand how the Turkish justice system works. It is not like ours, which is largely devoid of any political influence or what I view as completely devoid of political influence. The President can't call a judge and tell them to put their thumb on the scale of justice here in the United States, but sometimes it looks that way in Turkey. I am asking President Erdogan, the Turkish judiciary, the Foreign Ministers, and the others I have spoken with over the past several months: Please, let's have justice for Pastor Brunson. Regardless of what the outcome is tomorrow in the courts, get him home. I hope that happens tomorrow or early next week. If, on the other hand, his hearing is continued again or he is found guilty and is likely to be sentenced to 35 years, I will have to take a different tack--a tack very similar to what we took in putting a provision in the National Defense Authorization Act, really questioning our long-term relationship with Turkey in terms of sharing technology with the Joint Strike Fighter. When we went through that process, we identified a number of other measures where I believe we can get strong support in the House and Senate that would take our relationship with Turkey in the wrong direction. I want Turkey to be a strong NATO ally. I want Turkey to be a strong trading partner. I want the Turkish people to have a vibrant economy, but at the end of the day, I will have to be motivated to convince the Members of Congress and the President, who has been very helpful to this point, and Secretary of State Pompeo that absent a just outcome for Pastor Brunson, we will have to take a look at how we can continue to fight for justice. I sincerely hope I will never have to go down that path. Over the next 24 hours, Pastor Brunson is scheduled to be in a courtroom--within about the next 16 hours. I hope the American people will keep him in their prayers. I hope the Turkish people and the Turkish leadership will do the right thing--and the right thing is having Pastor Brunson and Noreen come home. Thank you.

Mr. TILLIS

Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. TILLIS

Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, I would like to summarize. The Presiding Officer and I have had a front row seat in this process. We both serve on the Judiciary Committee. I think oftentimes people come to the floor, and they want to just give the American public a little slice of what is going on that benefits their narrative rather than stepping back and thinking about what has happened since early July when Judge Kavanaugh was nominated to be on the Supreme Court. That happened on July 9. Before July 9, there were many people on the other side of the aisle who had already announced their opposition not to Judge Kavanaugh but to anyone whom President Trump would nominate. We know who they are. They are very well publicized. I understand that. As a Member of the Democratic conference, I wouldn't deny them their right to do that. They oppose the President and anything he stands for. Then, on July 10, there was a press conference, now that we knew who the nominee was, and a majority of the Democratic Members also said they opposed him. As a matter of fact, the minority leader said he would fight the nomination with everything he has, and he has, but there are some pieces to the mechanics that I think are important for people to understand. Briefly, after Judge Kavanaugh was nominated, the chair and the ranking member got together, and they tried to come up with a framework for releasing as many documents as possible. In fact, that went on for 2 or 3 weeks. In fact, the documents some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle said the Republicans refused to produce were going to be made available on a very focused basis but with what they call search terms--the way to get into those 100,000 secret documents they are talking about. We estimate that if our colleagues on the other side of the aisle would have done what they have traditionally done--that is, come up with an agreement on document production--they would have gained a lot of insights into the documents we considered relevant but not necessarily the documents they would like to use to create another political narrative, but they refused to cooperate, and we moved forward. As a matter of fact, we moved forward and provided more documents for this Supreme Court nominee than the total number of documents provided for all, in total, of the last three or four Supreme Court nominees. We also went on to question--they call it questions for the record. What that means is that any member on the committee is entitled to compel the nominee to answer questions after the hearing. Judge Kavanaugh was subjected to over 1,200 questions for the record, under oath, that he had to submit back to the committee members. Those questions for the record are a multiple of any one nominee in the past; and, in fact, I understand it is probably the sum total of questions for the record that all the nominees on the bench were subjected to. So the questions were asked. The documents were presented. All of that document production was going on in the latter part of July and August; the first tranche of documents came in about the second week of August. What else was going on in the latter part of July and August? A letter, which was first submitted to a Congresswoman from California, was then routed to the ranking member, the senior Senator from California, at the end of July--a document that was expected to be held in confidence. It is a document we now know was authored by Dr. Ford, provided to the Judiciary Committee, with the understanding that her name would not become public. In the past, the chair and the ranking member have a great relationship. They have a trusting relationship. In the past, when you had something you thought was material to the consideration of a nominee, a ranking member and a chair would try to figure out how to actually assess that information to treat the person in question--in this case, Dr. Ford--fairly and to hold her information in confidence. That didn't happen here. Actually, there was no communication with the chair by the ranking member. A few weeks into it, we do know there was some consultation from what Dr. Ford says was a committee staffer to retain an attorney who has a very well-publicized reputation for being partisan. I don't have any problem with that because we have partisan attorneys on both sides of the aisle, but at the recommendation of the committee staff, which is what Dr. Ford said under oath, they retained an attorney who is working pro bono. Now, I am really wondering whether some--not all but some--of the people on the other side of the aisle genuinely cared about what I believe is a traumatic experience in Dr. Ford's life, genuinely care about trying to go through a process that would provide Dr. Ford with some closure because if they had, maybe they would have gotten someone who could interview her in the way that people experienced with sex crimes interview persons who have experienced a traumatic event. These attorneys who were retained didn't do that. Maybe, when the attorneys she retained, who are pro bono attorneys--that means they are not being paid, they are doing it at no cost or at least no cost to Dr. Ford--if the attorneys really cared about Dr. Ford versus the outcome, maybe they should have recommended to Dr. Ford to have the hearing, but that didn't happen either. Now we move further through, and at the hearing--we had 32 hours of hearings. The letter was known to the ranking member. I don't believe it was known to any other member on the committee--32 hours of hearings. Each one of us had two rounds, virtually an hour to ask questions of Judge Kavanaugh, not even an abstracted series of questions protecting the identity of Dr. Ford but questions that could have potentially raised the issues we now saw after the hearing. Thirty-two hours of hearings, nothing mentioned. An hour and a half private hearing that, unfortunately, Senator Feinstein, for whatever reason, wasn't able to attend, never brought up. After the hearing, then we heard about these allegations. Now, I have had some people on the other side of the aisle say we rushed the committee process. The fact is, it was delayed for 2 weeks after we found out about the allegation; 1 week was to get to a point to where we could accommodate Dr. Ford and have her come and testify before the committee. Chairman Grassley was criticized by some of the folks on my side of the aisle because they said he shouldn't be accommodating, delaying; set a deadline and moving forward. He didn't. He spent the weekend trying to figure out a setting, a method, that Dr. Ford would be comfortable with. Let me back up a week earlier. A week earlier, the chairman and the committee offered to Dr. Ford to go to California to interview her outside of the lights, outside of the circus that sometimes occurs here, and have the attorneys present during the interview. In the hearing we had with Dr. Ford, the question was asked: Were you aware that the committee offered to come to California in a confidential setting and allow you to give your testimony? Her response to that question was: I did not understand that. So that really raises a lot of doubts in my mind about either the competence or the agenda of her counsel. So now, at this point, I believe there are two sets of people who are opposed to Judge Kavanaugh's nomination. There are some who just genuinely disagree with his judicial philosophy. I actually vote for some judges when I disagree with their judicial philosophy. There are some on the agenda that I will again, but I am going to vote for them-- and I am going to get criticized by people on the right side of the aisle--because they are considered unanimously ``well qualified'' and just because I don't like the way they rule in certain cases, that is not enough reason to vote against them, but maybe for people on the other side of the aisle there is. Then there is another group of people over there who I genuinely believe have used witnesses, have used this process, to just advance a political message and a political agenda. Another reason I believe that is how the narrative changes depending on what sticks. We have received the additional background investigation. I should mention Judge Kavanaugh has had seven background investigations over the last 25 years. I saw a stack of documents in a secure facility that is about that thick; I would estimate 600 to 1,000 pages of prior Federal FBI background investigations to clear him for other roles he has had, as well as in this case. Over 25 years talking to 150 people, some as recently as about 10 years, or less than 10 years after he was in college, and not a whiff of any of the allegations we have seen put forward--not a single note. So as more information comes up, we see the narrative going from the weight of the allegations--because, honestly, in every instance where an accuser has made an allegation and said these people were present, those people have been interviewed if they were willing to, and none of them have corroborated the allegations that were made--none. In the followup investigation, it even further undermined the sort of inference you draw when somebody says: Yes, these people were there. Check with them. We went back and checked with them, and it further undermined the veracity of the allegations that were made. Now it looks like the narrative on the allegations is beginning to wane, so now the new narrative--and this is the last I will be talking about--is that, well, even if the allegations are untrue, the way Judge Kavanaugh behaved in the hearing--he was angry--raises a question about his judicial temperament. Ladies and gentlemen, first, the American Bar Association has voted Judge Kavanaugh unanimously ``well qualified'' twice. In at least the most recent rating, they even spoke specifically to his temperament on the bench. I saw his temperament during the hearing for 32 hours. He sat in that chair in some cases for 2 or 3 hours without getting up and was patient when some unfair questions were being asked. He was cut off repeatedly, and he maintained his composure. He did well in about 31, 32 hours' worth of testimony. Last week, I didn't see Judge Kavanaugh in the hearing; I saw Brett Kavanaugh. I saw a father, I saw a husband, I saw a son who was defending his honor. I saw somebody dragged through the mud without a single allegation with any corroborating testimony defending himself as a human being, and he did well for about 2 hours. One final note. I firmly believe that Judge Kavanaugh is going to go to the Bench, and I firmly believe that because of his independence, he is going to make some rulings that I am not going to like, but he is going to do it for the right reasons. What he is going to say is ``Instead of treating us like a nine- member legislature, go do your job, Congress. Change the law if you want me to have a different opinion'' when it comes to the Court. We should now be in that light, thinking about how we work together on a bipartisan basis to change things that we don't like, not expecting a nine-member legislature to do our job. This has been a very difficult process. I know it has been extraordinarily difficult for the Kavanaugh family and for Dr. Ford. I pray for Dr. Ford's peace. I hope she finds closure. I hope there is some way she will be able to reexamine the facts of that summer in 1982 or 1983 and identify precisely what happened, precisely who can corroborate it, and have someone held accountable for that act. But I don't believe by any stretch of the imagination, based on the information presented to us, that that is Judge Brett Kavanaugh. For that reason, I will be voting no tomorrow--I will not be voting no tomorrow; I will be voting yes tomorrow. I yield the floor.

Mr. TILLIS

Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, I have 4 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 Commerce, Science, and Transportation The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, October 4, 2018, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Broadband: Opportunities and Challenges in Rural America.'' 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 Thursday, October 4, 2018, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Combating Money Laundering and other Forms of Illicit Finance: Regulators and Law Enforcement Perspectives on Reform.'' Committee on Foreign Relations The Committee on Foreign Relations is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, October 4, 2018, at 11 a.m., to conduct a hearing on the following nominations: Earle D. Litzenberger, of California, to be Ambassador to the Republic of Azerbaijan, Eric George Nelson, of Texas, to be Ambassador to Bosnia and Herzegovina, Judith Gail Garber, of Virginia, to be Ambassador to the Republic of Cyprus, and Jeffrey Ross Gunter, of California, to be Ambassador to the Republic of Iceland, all of the Department of State. Select Committee on Intelligence The Select Committee on Intelligence is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, October 4, 2018, at 2 p.m., to conduct a closed briefing.

Mr. TILLIS

Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, I know that the Presiding Officer has been present in the Chair a few times when I have given this speech. It is not a prepared speech. It is an update on a travesty of justice that is continuing in Turkey. Today is October 4. On October 7, 2016, a man named Andrew Brunson, a Presbyterian minister from my State of North Carolina, up near Black Mountain, was arrested by Turkish authorities. Pastor Brunson has been a missionary in Turkey for about 20 years. In 2016, there was an illegal coup attempt. The people associated with it should go to prison because there should not be violent changes of power in nations. They have an election process, and they should honor it. I have no problem when there is evidence of people who have been associated with an illegal coup going to prison, but I have a real problem with a man who for the last 2 years has been in a Turkish prison and went 19 months without an indictment. He was held without charges for 19 months. Over the last couple of months, we finally got him into house arrest. Then they put together an indictment that is truly something that I don't think could keep someone in an American jail overnight. I read it and felt so strongly about it that I decided to go to Turkey and be in the courtroom for 16 hours when he sat through his nearly 12-hour hearing. I was in that courtroom for the whole time, a courtroom just outside of Izmir. It was the second time I was there. I was there 2 months earlier to visit him in prison and to let him know that the U.S. Senate and the U.S. Congress knows he is there and we are not going to forget him. We had nearly 70 Senators sign on to a letter to that effect. The reason I do this speech is to remind the American people about Pastor Brunson and to remind them about other Americans and Turkish- Americans who are in prison, suggesting that they were a part of trying to overthrow President Erdogan's government. It will be 2 years on the 7th of this month. That is 727 days that he has been held in prison. But what I want to talk about is kind of related to a subject we are discussing on the floor in another matter, and that is unsubstantiated allegations. This man has over 11 unsubstantiated allegations. What does that mean? Somebody says: I saw somebody do this. Yet they produce nobody else that can actually corroborate it, in other words, saying: Yes, I remember that happening; I agree with that testimony. There were 11 different allegations. Many of the people who testified wouldn't even show their faces. They were on a video screen with digital blocking and with their voices hidden. Some of them we now know are in Turkish prisons themselves. None of the allegations have been corroborated by a single person. Yet this American, this man who was bringing the word of God to the people who wanted to hear it--he wasn't forcing it on them; he was asking them into the church if they wanted to sit through a service on a Sunday or during the week--was put in prison. He was put in prison for allegations. One person who is also in prison said that one night they saw a light on up in the upstairs part of this very small church. It only fits about 100 people, and there is a little office upstairs. There was a light on for 4 hours, and, therefore, something bad must have been happening in there. There is another real problem with that allegation. It turns out that when I went to Izmir and to that church, there is no window in that upstairs room. Yet that is an unsubstantiated allegation that has landed this man in prison and subjected him to a possible 35-year prison sentence in Turkey. Another was a media post by his daughter, who ate a meal that the Turkish authorities said is a meal that is commonly eaten by terrorist organizations and so, therefore, she must be associated with that organization. That is the level of the allegation. In fact, it is one the more popular dishes enjoyed by many people--Kurds, Turks, and a number of people in the Middle East--but those are the unsubstantiated allegations that have kept this man in prison for 2 years and could potentially keep him in prison for 35 years. He is coming up on his final court date, where they will either release him or imprison him. I want to thank President Trump for making this a priority. I want to thank Secretary of State Pompeo for making this a priority. I want to thank my colleagues, including the Presiding Officer, who voted on a provision in the National Defense Authorization Act that says: Turkey, if you go down this path, there will be consequences. If you go down this path, you may not see the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter ever on Turkish territory. We may have to rethink the supply chain that runs through Turkey to build the F-35. We may actually have to take additional measures. I am watching them. Right now, I am trying to show them respect and hope that they do the right thing, but I want Pastor Brunson and his wife Norine and all of the people who belong to his church--the same church that the Reverend Billy Graham was associated with--to know that if justice is not served, then, we will continue to put the pressure on Turkey in any way that I can for as long as I am a U.S. Senator. Tonight I would just ask anybody watching this on C-Span and all of my colleagues to just pray for Pastor Brunson, to pray for his release. I hope that I don't have to come to you for additional support to remind Turkey that our American justice system would never put a Turkish person in prison and our NATO ally should understand that we want him treated with respect and their very strong partner, the United States of America, treated with respect. I yield the floor.

Mr. TILLIS

Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Jay Nathan, a fellow in Senator Kennedy's office, be granted floor privileges for the day.

Mr. TILLIS

Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, today I would like to honor a constituent of mine who was recently awarded one of the highest honors in his industry. Jack Salzman, owner of Lake Norman Chrysler-Dodge-Jeep-RAM in Cornelius, NC, was named 2018 TIME Magazine Dealer of the Year, a national award that recognizes new-car dealers who exhibit exceptional performance in their dealerships and perform distinguished community service. The TIME Magazine Dealer of the Year award is held in partnership with Ally Financial and the National Automobile Dealers Association, NADA. Representatives from TIME and Ally Financial presented the award at the 2018 NADA Show in Las Vegas, NV. He dedicated his award to his wife, Robin Smith-Salzman. Mr. Salzman was recognized for his exceptional commitment to giving back to his community focusing his philanthropic time and attention in three areas: animals in need, children in need, and women in need. To this end, he is a contributor to the Humane Society of Charlotte, NC, as well as a founding board member of Lake Norman Humane Society. He also supports Lake Norman Lucky Cats, which provides trap-neuter- return services, as well as Holly'z Hope, an organization that helps unchain dogs by building fences for homeowners in need. To assist women and children in need, Mr. Salzman is a longtime supporter of the Dove House Children's Advocacy Center in Statesville, NC, Pat's Place Child Advocacy Center in Charlotte, NC, Amy's House in Lincolnton, NC, and the Shelter of Gaston County in Gastonia, NC. Mr. Salzman has stated, ``We believe these organizations serve a critical need in our community.'' Other national groups Mr. Salzman contributes to include Make-A-Wish, Big Brothers Big Sisters, Habitat for Humanity, Susan G. Komen, and the American Cancer Society. Mr. Salzman is also an accomplished swimmer in the 200-meter backstroke and competed in the U.S. Olympic trials for the summer games in Moscow. He was nominated for the TIME Magazine Dealer of the Year award by Robert Glaser, president of the North Carolina Automobile Dealers Association. On behalf of all the constituents of North Carolina, please join me in congratulating Mr. Salzman on being named the 2018 TIME Magazine Dealer of the Year. I wish him and his family continued success and a prosperous future.

Mr. TILLIS

Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be able to complete my brief remarks.

Mr. TILLIS

Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, I have a request for one committee to meet during today's session of the Senate. It has the approval of the Majority and Minority leaders. Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committee is authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate: 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, August 28, 2018, at 2:30 p.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``Harmful Algal Blooms: The Impact on Our Nation's Waters.''

Mr. TILLIS

Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, before I speak on another topic I sadly have to come to the floor every week and speak on, I want to offer my heartfelt condolences to the McCain family and all of his friends and supporters. I had the privilege of serving on the Senate Armed Services Committee with Senator McCain for 3 years. I learned a lot from him. During his entire time in Congress, he did a wonderful job of standing up for the men and women in uniform and standing up for veterans. I also wanted to share this one story. I had a reporter ask me yesterday: What kinds of experiences have you had with him that were most memorable? It was a day I spent with him in North Carolina back in 2014. I think you can really judge a politician by how they behave when they are not in front of the camera or here at one of the desks in the Senate. When you saw him interacting with men and women in uniform and with veterans, you saw a man with a heart of gold and a commitment to those men and women in uniform. I want to again tell the McCain family that our prayers are with them and our hearts are with them. We thank them for allowing him to share some of his life here with us in the Senate.

Mr. TILLIS

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

Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, I have come to the floor every week for the past several months to draw attention to a matter that I think should be important to anybody who travels overseas, anybody who does missionary work, anybody who can go to a country and potentially get detained for false charges and imprisoned for nearly 2 years. I am talking about a Presbyterian minister from North Carolina who has been in Turkey for the better part of 20 years. He was a missionary that entire time. He created a church in Izmir and has lived there peacefully and lawfully for two decades. In October of 2016, after the coup attempt--an illegal coup attempt, and the people responsible for it should actually have to answer to the Turkish justice system--they swept Pastor Brunson and thousands of other people into the Turkish justice system, and he has been in prison since 2016. He was in prison for nearly 19 months before he was ever charged with anything. In fact, he lost 50 pounds over the course of about a year. He was in a cell that was designed for 8 people but had 21 people in it. I don't believe any of the others even spoke English. He was then transferred to another prison where he was kept in a cell with one other person, given virtually no access to the outside world. He has experienced medical challenges, as anyone would expect when you are in prison without charges, and we found out the charges were bogus. That would weigh on you mentally. We started working to try to first let Pastor Brunson know we knew about him and that I, as a Senator from North Carolina, cared about him. I cared enough to go to Turkey to visit him in prison several months ago. I told him I wanted to assure him face-to-face that as long as he is in prison, I will be working for his release. As a matter of fact, we have more than 70 Senators who have signed on to a letter who share my concern that he is illegally in prison. What have we done? We actually put a provision in the National Defense Authorization Act that holds Turkey accountable. They are a partner in developing the Joint Strike Fighter. It is a capability I sincerely hope someday Turkey may have. There is no way on Earth we should transfer that technology to Turkey as long as they are illegally imprisoning Pastor Brunson and others whom I will talk about shortly. We did make some positive progress a few weeks ago. After he had been in prison for nearly 20 months, a little over, he was released on house arrest. At least he is now in his apartment near Izmir. He has an ankle bracelet on and is not allowed to go out of his house. He has had several hearings. I actually attended one earlier in the spring. I was in that courtroom for almost 12 hours. I heard some of the most absurd claims you could ever allege as a basis for keeping somebody in prison overnight, let alone 2 years in October. We are working with the administration, and I want to give the President a lot of credit for making this a priority. If you have read the newspapers recently, it would be hard for you not to hear about the Presbyterian minister, Pastor Brunson, and the difference of opinion between Turkey and the United States on what should be done. When I talk to a lot of the Turkish officials, they say you have to respect our justice system; this has to play out, no matter how absurd the claims may be. Those are my words, not theirs. I wonder if they are sincere. Here is why. Several months ago, President Erdogan, the President of Turkey, made a public statement saying: How about this? We will give you your pastor if you give us our pastor? There is a person living in the United States named Gulen, who they believe may have had something to do with the coup. We have an extradition treaty with Turkey. We said: Honor the requirements of the extradition treaty, present credible evidence that Gulen is guilty of having conspired, and then we will let our process take its course. Let me tell you what is interesting about making that offer in the context of the other elected officials, including Erdogan, saying: We have to let our legal process play out. On the one hand, how can you say your hands are tied but on the other hand make a hostage swap request--or what they would consider to be a hostage swap request. Maybe he just misspoke. Presidents do that from time to time. Let's take a look at what we are dealing with now. A week ago, instead of offering Pastor Brunson for Mr. Gulen, now there is a new exchange on the table: If we drop a case against a Turkish bank, which has risen to our level of jurisprudence, the allegations against them are going to have to go through the legal process. Apparently, their judicial system does allow you to say: Well, if you drop that case in the gold standard for judicial systems--that is the U.S. judicial system--then, we will release Pastor Brunson. Clearly, Turkey has the authority to release Pastor Brunson. Turkey has the authority to release a NASA scientist who happened to be visiting his family, who has been in prison for almost 3 years now, and has a 7-year sentence or another 4\1/2\ years ahead of him. They had the authority to release him. The only thing he seems to be guilty of is having been in Turkey visiting relatives when the coup attempt occurred. They have the authority to release a DEA agent who they said was involved in the coup attempt. They have the authority to release a number of Turkish nationals who have worked with our Embassy for years. All they were doing was their job, and they were swept up, as thousands more have been. Thank you again for the opportunity for me to come to the floor and make sure the American people understand what is at stake. Turkey is a NATO ally. No NATO ally in the history of the alliance has ever illegally detained a citizen from one of their partner countries, but that is exactly what has happened here since October of 2016. So I hope this is the last time I have to come to this floor to talk about releasing Pastor Brunson. I hope next week I am coming to the floor thanking the Turkish leadership for doing the right thing, thanking them for letting Pastor Brunson and his wife Norine come back to the United States, and advocating for a great relationship with Turkey as a NATO partner, which is very important. But none of that can happen as long as Pastor Brunson and the others that I have mentioned are illegally in prison. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.