. he's interviewed by the founder and president of the media research center. >> does anybody get a a real point across television? >> no. they don't. i'm guilty of it, too. you look for a smay, something that can go viral. the news, the network, 39 second clip, put on a tweet. that will go viral. it's bad. it's god for business because you get a lot of eyes but bad for conveying information. >> watch this weekend on book tv. >> at a senate judiciary committee business meeting on brett cav in a's supreme court nomination, the chair chuck grassley announced that a committee vote ll held next week. members also voted on motions to get documents.

this is an hour. ush white house. >> i am holding over the nomination. sen. blumenthal: mr. chairman, i moved to adjourn. you ruled that our hearing that my motion to adjourn was out of order at that time. i believe it was pending before this committee and so i moved to adjourn. we lack the time, we lack the documents, and we need witnesses

before we can proceed further with this meeting mr. chairman. sen. grassley: i have already taken the action of holding kavanaugh over. i would entertain your motion but as long as we have a quorum here -- sen. blumenthal: with all do respect, that motion was proper before began business. sen. grassley: you did not have the floor, i had the floor. sen. blumenthal: the motion was pending and i asked for a vote on it to proceed with any business. sen. grassley: just so anybody understands, the reason i want -- we have some people because of the weather situation in the southeast that wanted us to get some things done before we -- so that is why wanted to take the motion that i did on kavanaugh. sen. blumenthal: with all do respect -- sen. grassley: that motion is

taken. sen. blumenthal: if i may be heard. sen. grassley: we need regular has thehe chairman floor. only the chairman can recognize membership to speak. , i had the floor, i did what any one member of this committee can do, hold over the nomination of kavanaugh. i have done that and i'm ready to recognize blumenthal. sen. blumenthal: i made this motion properly at the hearing. i believe i was entitled to a vote then on the motion to adjourn. an even more urgent and pressing duty to get those documents and have witnesses after we do the documents that would enable us to evaluate the serious concerns that have been theed as a result of evasive and seemingly misleading answers given to us at the hearing. a number of my colleagues are

going to have specific motions for subpoenas, i will have one myself. i believe my motion to adjourn beforemeeting was proper we began any business. it was pending and i made it properly. thathairman, i believe this nomination is going to be tainted, it will be stained by a badly broken process that has shattered the norms and broken the traditions of this committee. it has been rushed through to judgment in a highly partisan and unfortunately failed way. i would like to say something before we put his motion to a vote. we are in executive session and to be fair, i will entertain one motion from the other side but the second motion will be mine. that motion will be to have a

final vote to report out the nomination of judge kavanaugh on september the 20th at 140 -- at 1:45. i don't need to make such a motion but this will serve to put everything and everybody on notice. i will call the roll on the motion to adjourn. sen. blumenthal: in light of the timing i am going to withdraw so we can proceed. sen. grassley: can i proceed then on getting these held over? the ones that i was going to. sen. blumenthal: if those to be held over will include judge kavanaugh's, then i will ask for a motion to vote on my motion to adjourn. sen. grassley: i have already taken all of the action that one member of this committee can take. i had the floor. and i,a quorum president

as one member of this committee held over kavanaugh's nomination. i have that right. we will hear from other senators as well. confused byttle sen. blumenthal:. he moved to adjourn after you took the action to burn the hold on judge kavanaugh. if he wants to adjourn, we have other important business on the agenda. including some important legislation, the victims of child abuse reauthorization act of 2018. then thatt to adjourn means we won't be able to get to that important piece of legislation or the other nominations on the agenda. if all we are going to hear is a repetition of the speeches that we heard during the hearing last goingi am doubtful we are

to be very productive in terms of doing what the committee's business and so i am tempted to join him to second his motion to adjourn if all we are going to hear is a repetition of speeches. i think that would be a shame given the important legislation that we have pending. i am just about ready to join him in seconding his motion. sen. grassley: i would like to do the business committee. we have about 13 judges. we have some u.s. attorneys, other people we could act on. if it is a desire of this we cany not to proceed, do that. i wouldn't peg otherwise. center, -- even you senator, as much as i respect your desire to maybe join him, i would respect the fact that we can go on our is this. >> maybe we can vote on the

motion to adjourn and proceed from there. sen. grassley: does the senator from texas to make -- does the senator from texas make a motion to adjourn? >> my understanding is the senator from connecticut has reasserted his motion to adjourn given that the cabin not has been held over. >> the purpose of the motion to adjourn, very simply, was to make sure that we have the time and information we need. the documents, the facts, the witnesses in order to proceed on the kavanaugh nomination. that was the first order of business. i made the motion before we began the business part of this meeting. i understand the chairman may disagree, i disagree with him respectfully. i think this committee has embarked on a ad lead broken process.

i made this point. i made it at the hearing, and the chairman ruled my motion out of order because we were not in executive committee. as you know, i disagreed with your interpretation of the rules and i thought it would be the first point that would be addressed i this committee before any nominations were held over. if mr. chairman, you will not grant the motion to adjourn prior to hire -- holding over the kavanaugh nomination, the rest of the committee business can proceed and i would allow it to do so. do you want the reporter to reback what took place? had a quorum,r, i i announce that as a member of this committee i was holding over the kavanaugh nomination. are you saying one member of this committee does not have the authority to do that?

if you do say that i think you you didrpreting when not have the floor and i had the floor that you misinterpreted it . do you want to go through that trouble? whitehouse: i think the parliamentary question was whether sender lumen dolls motion to adjourn from the blumenthal'snator motion to adjourn from the hearing could be the first order of business at this hearing. i understand that in effect there has been a ruling from the is not thethis proper procedure and that is where we stand right now. the question of whether to debate or to overrule that ruling of the chair is before us. i think that is the question. did senator blumenthal properly make and second a motion which

was only not granted at the time because we weren't in executive session? it does not tend into this executive session so it would be first order of his nest before anything else could be taken up. parliamentary question i think it is fair to look at one way or the other. i think that is the question. senator kennedy: is it not the case that one member of this committee cannot hold over a nomination? sen. grassley: it has been that way ever since i have been on the committee. >> is it not the case that you had the floor? sen. grassley: yes i did. kennedy: then what are we debating? sen. grassley: we are debating whether or not we should proceed with the other business. toator kennedy: do you have have a motion or approval from this committee to set up a final vote on justice kavanaugh for next week? sen. grassley: i do not have to have it, no. i was just putting people on notice that if we were going to entertain a motion to adjourn

than i had the next right to offer a motion and that is the motion i was going to offer. : yourr kennedy notice, have you not? and we will have the final vote on justice kavanaugh when? sen. grassley: it will not be a specific time but it will be september 20. i'm going to support the motion and i would like to say why. i don't understand the rush to judgment. i really do not. we have just 7% of this man's on his participation within the white house. many of us have questions. if this man is a successfully nominated, he could become the deciding vote on major legal issues that americans care deeply about. andtaking the time

really being able to make the assessments that need to be made is really critical and important. when information was put forward that 99% of elena kagan's record was available at the time of her hearing, there was debunked and said that is not really comparable, etc. that this man goes into on the existing supreme court, and probably will be there for decades is really a question for this side. you can see the concern over the nomination. with all of this concern, it seems to me that what we should get theow down, records, give us a chance to go

over them, have another discussion and then proceed. side ising here on our that there is a march to judgment that isn't necessary and a lack of information on which to make a determination. in my opening remarks, i was going to discuss this more fully and more precisely, actually going back to senator kennedy's time when he had some of the same responses which were really prevarications and not answering questions as he did with us. i think it is really important that we have the full set of data. -- the bushcision tortured, there were were broughts that forward, to understand his position on these issues.

have you withdrawn your motion? mr. chairman, i would be willing to withdraw my motion but i want to state for the that the motion is withdrawn only because it is now moved. matter ofe as a pending business at the start of this meeting. i recognize the reality. chair has the gavel. there is no way to seek justice here. i amagree with the chair, here under protest. there is a fundamental unfairness here because my motion it should have been the first order of business. allchair, in my view, with due respect, preempted that right on the part of a committee memberto insist on that

-- to insist on that motion is the first order of business. we are going to have some order here with how people speak. you arer your question, ignoring the rule that any one member can hold up a nomination. i had the floor and you are saying your motion should present my having the floor when you didn't even have the floor. sen. blumenthal: my motion was pending business before this committee. the chair simply preempted that motion. sen. grassley: it was not a business meeting you are in. from that standpoint i get the point you are making about the motion you made at the hearing. you are saying that was pending here, no it's not. here is where we are. sen. blumenthal: if that is the ruling of the chair, we have no appeal. the motion that

was out of order cannot be in order today because we were in hearing. sen. blumenthal: that is where we disagree. sen. grassley: here's what i would like to do, except for senator feinstein wanting to make a motion, i was going to hey, but when republicans want to talk i will get a republican in between. i want to be recognized for a motion too. sen. grassley: senator. move for the committee to authorize the issuance of a subpoena for the national archives for records from judge kavanaugh's service as a staff secretary in the white house from 2003-2006. mr. chairman, it is my understanding that only a subset of judge kavanaugh's white house counsel records as i have pointed out, none of his staff

secretary records have been available. that is why the committee has just 7% of the records. some have tried to blame democrats for their failure to obtain a judge kavanaugh's full secords and claim our request for documents was too broad. they also say they were unwilling to use search terms to expedite that request. that is not true. a letter3, i sent offering to work with the chairman's office to come up with search terms to prioritize the staff secretary's requests. that offer was refused. after that, all of the democratic members of the committee sent a letter to the archives requesting judge kavanaugh's full record. our request mirror the bipartisan request for elena kagan's records, no more or less. does that request was not

supported by you, mr. chairman, the archives refused to produce these documents. i have that letter of refusal. that was a disappointing blow against transparency. as against our right, minority, and the public's right for information. there are two issues that the chairman has long championed. it honestly makes me wonder, what in judge kavanaugh's records are republicans hiding? last week's hearing was further proof that we need this full record as i have said. when questioned about his white house work and views, judge kavanaugh was evasive and misleading. often, he was not able to recall exactly what he had worked on or what his specific role might have been. for instance, i asked the judge whether he worked on any issues related to reproductive health

care or choice. quote, this, and i president bush was a pro-life president and so his policy was pro-life. those who work for him therefore had to assist him of course in pursuing those policies. some of those things may have crossed my desk. i cannot remember the specifics. see this be able to record for ourselves. so we understand exactly what he worked on and the petitions that he took -- the petitions -- the positions that he took. given that his three years a staff secretary for president bush were quote, the most interesting in many ways the most instructive, to him as a judge. at this point, a subpoena for judge kavanaugh's staff secretary records i believe is

necessary and warranted. dividing advice and consent on a nominee --rt providing advice and consent of , he will court nominee be in a pivotal seat on a closely divided court. i urge all of my colleagues to support this subpoena. >> i second and ask for a vote. sen. grassley: you are calling for the question? we will vote but the next motion 20going to be on september to have a vote on a judge kavanaugh. they called a question, we will go with the question. [voting]

sen. grassley: the motion was defeated. with that i moved to report from the committee the nominee of brett kavanaugh to be an associate justice of the supreme court after debate on september 20 at 1:45 p.m. >> mr. chairman, could ask a question? sen. grassley: yes. a you are saying by setting time for that, you will break with the tradition of this committee. certainly, the tradition in the 40 some years i have been here,

giving all the members all the time they needed to debate. what you are saying by setting a , you could arrange it so that only one person will be allowed to debate it up to that time. say has never been lastin certainly over the 40 years on it neither the republican or democratic. sen. grassley: it was done in 2003 by chairman hatch. >> that is when he broke the rules on debate and everybody realized he broke the rules. the fact that you are saying you are going to set a time and you may not intend to do this but you could get the quorum when we came in and you could talk up to the time and nobody would be allowed the chance to speak. wouldn't it make a lot more thing, allowthis

debate, and then if you feel it is going too long, go ahead and break the rules? at least allow everybody a chance to speak. right now you're setting up a procedure which could easily block members of this committee from being able to speak. so much has been hidden about judge kavanaugh already. his records have been hidden. things he has done. the statements he made about the stolen property by the republican staff member. so much of that has been hidden, we have to at least show the american people that the united states senate, all voices can be heard. make clear, senator hatch did not break the rules, he set a precedent. to make a point of order about your motion. rule four of the committee reads

as follows. to bring a objection boat without a further debate, a rollcall shall be taken and debate shall be terminated if the motion to bring the matter to a vote without further debate passes with 11 votes in the affirmative, one of which must be cast by the minority. you are calling for us to end debate on the nomination of brett kavanaugh. basedrassley: braced -- on the president set by chairman hatch. >> unity vote of -- you need the 11 votes and one member from the minority. sen. grassley: the answer to your question is no we don't and we have checked with the senate parliamentarian. >> mr. chairman. sen. grassley: are you ready to call the roll? call the roll. [voting]

sen. grassley: senator. >> i would like to ask if it is within the rules that we hold over all that we hold of the nominees on the calendar today. i should say the nominees except for. sen. grassley: we have a quorum so they will be hold over, yes. >> senator whitehouse and i have

a motion that we want to bring up. we want to move that the committee authorize the issue into the subpoena to compel the production of documents that have been withheld on the basis of constitutional privilege. this is a different set of documents than what senator feinstein referred to. these are the more than 100,000 pages of documents that the white house has declared privileged. executive privilege has never been used in this way to lock the release of presidential records to the senate during a supreme court nomination. it has never happened before. nominees areourt present from both parties, we think it is outrageous that we are not given the reason why they are withheld. we would like an explanation of that and eight vote. lifetimelking about a appointment to the highest court. we want to see those documents before we have a vote on this nominee. sen. grassley: what has never been done before in the case of

supreme court nominees is to bridge the constitutional privilege. clear andwant to be if necessary i can read off the nominees i was talking about those on the agenda to be held over. those are the only ones that i was suggesting be held over according to the agenda. sen. grassley: senator whitehouse. whitehouse: the reason we are making this motion is because of the importance of an assertion of executive privilege in the separation of power balance between the executive branch any legislative branch. the process that i understand from previous assertions of executive privilege is that first of all, there has to be an assertion.

anybody in this committee can name a person who has asserted executive privilege as to these documents. it is a free-floating, anonymous, appearance of the privilege. primarily in the form of saying constitutional privilege across documents that are redacted until they are blank. of requiring an executive branch official to exert a privilege has not been met. that is the significant thing. it is customary throughout the law that if a privilege is out there, someone has to asserted. someone who has the legal capacity to assert it needs to assert it. that has not been done. once that is done, the second thing that ordinarily happens is that a privilege law is maintained so that you can go through what is being withheld and why.

the reason you have that assertion and that log is so you can actually have a contention over whether or not executive privilege has been properly asserted. i think that the assertion of executive privilege on the merit.ils they call a constitutional privilege, who knows what that is, that has never been litigated before. there has never been a proper -- we have foggy territory with executive privilege. i think in any other circumstance, this committee would be very concerned about allowing amorphous and anonymous non-assertions of executive privilege to prohibit our business, which is where we are.

the only way we get to address that question is if there is a subpoena. the subpoena doesn't overrule the assertion of executive privilege. this subpoena rings to life whether or not there is going to be a proper debate about what i view is a plainly improper assertion of executive privilege. subpoena, not just to get access to these documents, but to get the fundamental question of whether or not there has in fact been a valid assertion of executive privilege. a baselineto be question that every single member of this committee can support. we can view how we want where the executive privilege luncheon fall, but at least it will begin the process of trying to therate an assertion of

privilege, a proper log, and the opportunity for us to have a review of whether or not this so-called constitutional privilege assertion is legitimate. if we do not do this, we have ing precedent in which any future executive could simply provide documents to the committee that are stamped constitutional privilege and have all the text are removed. we are then left new dude -- neutered and unable to respond. that is not a property of -- in my view we should not surrender on this question without these basic questions even being answered. a subpoena provides us the opportunity on a continuing basis to get to the question of whether or not this anonymous assertion of so-called constitutional privilege has any merit at all. if it does, great.

if it does not, we should know that. we can't engage without the subpoena. >> that is why we want the subpoena for the documents and the subpoena for the log, so we can get an explanation. sen. grassley: i want to address the first time comments made. reaganh shows president claimed privilege. president bush similarly claimed privilege over documents from chief justice robert service. the assertion is in line with those presidents, moreover presidents haven't had to assert privileges in other nomination because we declined to request highly sensitive documents. the committee did not receive documents from his service in the office of solicitor general and the office of legal counsel. we declined to demand justice

kagan's solicitor general documents. similarly -- senator, do you still want to speak? i will go back and forth. i want to correct something that the chairman just said. >> is my motion and order? sen. grassley:'s motion is in order, could you hold for two speakers? >> sure, as long as i won't lose my place. sen. grassley: you want. dimension president reagan -- you mentioned president reagan. simply can'te accept in letter approval.

-- i recall does very well because i was in those discussions. president reagan said ok, you want it, this was on the nomination. we were given it. i also note that one republican onceoted for the injustice he saw the -- for the justice once he saw the records, he voted against justice rehnquist. we did not have an executive privilege there because president reagan, when this committee did what it should do, republicans and democrats together saying you serve executive privilege. president reagan said you are right and withdrew the request. our motion to

subpoena the 100,000 documents as well as if any law exist where they assert the privilege so we at least know why they cannot be released? sen. grassley: to correct chairman leahy, reagan waved some privileges and others he did not. the clerk will call the roll. subpoena foris the the constitutional privileges of documents. >> and any privilege log. [voting]

sen. grassley: the motion loses, senator cornyn. cornyn: i want to add briefly the reasons the committee appropriately voted no on where we find ourselves. this is not a court of law. different rules would apply if we were in a contested court case. thee we find ourselves is now absent legal compulsion like a subpoena, we rely upon like a goodwill. of the documents, the george w. bush library, voluntarily provided the documents subject to our request. in doing so, president bush in

this case, has had a lawyer review the documents like president clinton did in the kagan matter when bruce lindsey made a similar review. he asked the committee to designate certain documents as confidential. onthe chairman knows, specific request, i think senator klobuchar being the most prominent, the committee reviewed those documents when it was able to work through that claim of committee confidentiality and allow those documents to be made public. that is of course, the right way to handle that. because our colleagues across the aisle, some of them have decided to disregard those claims of committee confidentiality and not follow the appropriate process and intentionally violated committee confidentiality. thatvirtually guarantees and future nominations, we will get less voluntary cooperation

from the custodian of those records. goalnk that defeats the that our friends across the aisle claim to be advocating in favor of, more production and not less. violating those confidentiality rules result in less documents being produced. the reason we don't operate by like the senator from rhode island and others are advocating, and others across i don'te is because think the senate wants to have contested court proceedings that could go on for years. to see that stop -- at least lowdown for years, maybe longer, the nominations process. that is why these decisions are most appropriately made by the in the legislative

process. in the nominations process. that is why i believe it would be a mistake for the committee to issue a subpoena, thus setting up a court case which could go on for years before it is finally resolved as to whether the claims are privileged were valid or not. sen. grassley: senator feinstein said to me she was hoping she could use her opening statement. put my opening statement in the record if you want to go to your statement and then we will go to the business if we can. feinstein: we have motions that relate to the kavanaugh proceedings. i also have a motion when you can get to me. sen. grassley: you have a motion? your motion but i should call on senator durbin first. >> i defer to the ranking members opening statement. sen. grassley: i would like to

get these motions on the way before we do our business. >> i would like to observe that every member of this committee has gone back to their homestay and told people when asked, it is time to restore civility in the united states senate. it is time for us to try and do things in a bipartisan basis. many of us say there are a lot of things going on in a bipartisan basis. what we witnessed here this morning is the deterioration of that bipartisanship and respect for the minority and the committee. we have seen this consistently. process changes to the and the amounts meant that the bar association ratings are no longer needed. even meet with or even have a hearing for president obama's nomination, merrick garland.

we have another nomination that may have slipped by you but i hope you reflect for a moment. the committee rules set and rules that we have followed for decades. that one member of the minority had to be voting in favor of the motion to close debate on a subject. by the earlier vote that was taken, we have eliminated that et a new majority precedent. stepping on the concept to respect the right of the minority. we have seen in this nomination, something we have never seen before. i have no idea where we came up with this standard. it used to be strictly limited to questions that were so sensitive that we took them behind closed doors. now we have allowed someone named bill burke to rewrite the rules of the senate, if not the constitution. why are we giving away all this authority on this committee? we step back for a year and a half now from a relevant

investigations of this president and allowed other committees of jurisdiction to ignore our spots ability. we are a whisper, a shell of what this committee once was. it used to be the guiding committee in the united states senate. maybe the most prestigious. when it came to serious issues about constitutionality in the future of this government. we seem to be stepping away from obviously a hearing -- a hurried state to approve every nomination as quickly as possible without documents, without evidence, without due deliberation. you realize that we voted that we are going to have a final vote come hell or high water no matter what happens between now and a week from now. there's nothing i can stop us, we are going to vote. that is irresponsible. we have a responsibility to look at this nominee honestly and consider all of the evidence that which we have already received and which may come before us?

i think that is with the american people expect of us. we are stepping back from that time and time again. some of us have served on this committee and- are honored to have served on it for decades. this is not the committee to which i was appointed to. it is not the one that senator leahy new, senator feinstein, senator grassley, or senator hatch. we created this with the changes of rules. if we are going to say to our people back home that we are committed to civility, we have to prove it. we have to stick by basic rules that give the minority a voice. was done this morning sadly is a step in the wrong direction. i have a motion for a subpoena that i will withhold until ranking members make statements. leahy: the senior senator from texas is back in the room, i want to correct some things he said about elena kagan.

99% from a democratic administration. from me as chairman and jeff sessions as ranking member, we agreed on that jointly. 1%, we were shown with that was and agreed to it. those are the facts. we had all of the records. considerably more than we ever had before. was chair of this committee, the democratic administration, we got all the records that republicans and democrats asked for. >> mr. chairman. sen. grassley: i will call on you in just a minute. you conveniently leave out every time you say that, kagan's

solicitor general documents. also a comment to what senator sounds like this recently has happened that there is controversy over supreme court nominees. i would suggest it at least started with bork, or the crucifying of thomas as an example. a pretty hatch set good example after we went to the bork situation comedy thomas situation. chairman hatch, maybe he wasn't chairman then, he said we have a more careful approach to this whole thing. he worked with the clinton and you had prior get through, 87-9, you had 96-3.rg get through

sudden bush gets elected and we run into the same democratic opposition to people like estrada. weree that, culture votes very rarely used in judges. >> i want to briefly say i don't friend, the senior senator from vermont and i disagree, the point i was trying to make was it is appropriate to have a lawyer, in this case bruce lindsey for the clinton administration. burke for the mr. bush library to review the documents to see if there was a basis for claim or privilege. don't think you and i disagree on that. what i would point out is that in light of the knowledge of the committee that elena kagan, during her time as solicitor general would in all likelihood have legitimate claim to

privilege by the clinton white house, they were not requested. they were not even requested. here we have a broad request for anything and everything including privileged documents. that is the reason we find ourselves in a different posture. sen. grassley: i have two people that want to make motions. >> thank you mr. chairman. i would like to say with regard to the committee's confidential documents, it is not that such documents exist, it is how we get to the point where these documents are designated as to midi confidential. is the the issue, that question, that is the disagreement that we have. that with thegree committee confidential when it was done with the process that was not agreed upon. that is my understanding of how these documents were kept confidential and the past. and why we should have to adhere to the designation by one person

in a bipartisan agreement is totally unfair and in my view unlike you mr. chairman. i move that we issue a subpoena for the documents during the. that judge kavanaugh was staff secretary, related to native native american issues. we arty know from looking through committee confidential documents that there was one document that disclosed his view about native hawaiians and indigenous peoples. i would like to know what else there may be during the time that he was staff secretary. issuesre confronted with relating to native hawaiians. the bush administration did not choose to ignore it. i motion is very specific.

i move that we issue a subpoena relating tords native hawaiians, alaska natives and native americans during the judge kavanaugh was white house staff secretary. i move the previous question from the senator is a motion. sen. grassley: would you restate your motion? issued forna be records relating to native hawaiians, alaska natives, and native americans during the time when judge kavanaugh was white house staff secretary. [voting]

sen. grassley: the motion is defeated. senator kennedy, i promised you that you could make a motion. kennedy: may i inquire of the chair, what other business you were hoping to accomplish today. i'm a little confused in light of the motions to hold some over. some of the nominees over. i would hope we could had the pieces of legislation that have not been held over yet. me and i in front of hope we could hold those over as well.

kennedy: is a motion in order? there is a motion in order to 296133.proval of s- sen. grassley: the practice in this committee is to do the nominees before we vote on the legislation. senator kennedy: which nominees are still on the table if i may inquire? sen. grassley: is ok if we go on with the business of the committee. senator kennedy: mr. chairman, i thought i had the floor. sen. grassley: i'm sorry i thought you were done. i understanddy: our colleagues want to make motions to subpoena, that is their right. if we could get an idea of how many more we are going to have and when we are going to get to

committee business. if we are not, if we are just going to relitigate the confirmation, i am prepared to make a motion to adjourn. sen. grassley: i cannot answer your question, i will last the other side, at least one, senator blumenthal, number two is senator durbin, then to me go to the business of the committee? blumenthal, kunz, and urban -- and durbin. senator kennedy then we will move to committee business? ok i will hold my motion. sen. grassley: senator blumenthal. sen. blumenthal: it was to give my colleagues an opportunity to make these motions that i did not move forward with the motion to adjourn.

i would like to make a motion to subpoena the following individuals for interviews and then testimony before this committee. manny miranda, jason when dell, don lewis, william pickle. i am willing to add others if colleagues think they should be -- if this testimony is vital. to resolve key questions of fact that were raised in the hearing and by documents that have been released, thank you mr. chairman for waving the committee confidential designation as to those documents. our colleague, senator leahy, very pointedly raise questions morein my view leave questions than answers. the only way to resolve them, the only way to address these concerns about judge kavanaugh's

credibility before this committee is to hear from those witnesses. if we do our job we will hear from those witnesses. if we fail to hear from them, we are in effect failing to do our job. the motion is clear, the clerk will call the roll. ]voting sen. grassley: the motion has lost, senator durbin.

durbin: there's a testimony, during the course of veryestimony he made it declarative and saying he had no involvement with issues involved with interrogation. it turns out that at least in three specific instances where we have written document that this was not true. he was involved in discussions about access to counsel from detainees. he was involved with president bush's signing statement on the mccain torture but refused to tell us the advice he gave. what is it worth for these witnesses to stand before a committee, raise their hand, and take an oath if they then turn around and say things that are not true and not held accountable? is there credibility in this committee? what credibility is there for the witness? this request for subpoena documents related to the rules

governing detention of combatants and why we even administer even an oath before the committee, what is the purpose of it if we are not holding witnesses to tell the truth and when they tell to truth -- and when they fail to tell the truth not holding them accountable? why do we waste time in his commodity -- why we waste time in his committee doing it? i think there were contradictions on the face, so be it. if they don't, it is a very serious matter for a man seeking a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land. sen. grassley: i disagree with your point, i will put a statement in the record and if we could call the roll on the durbin recommendation. [voting]

sen. grassley: the motion has lost. >> thank you mr. chairman, for reasons i hope my questioning of the witnesses made clear, during confirmation hearings i am significantly concerned about his views on presidential power. i move the committee authorize the issue and to subpoena the national archives for the full record of the nominees service the way that might bear on subject of whether a president can be subject to an investigation or fiery special counsel at will. role.rassley: call the

[voting] sen. grassley: the motion lost. would it be possible for us to vote and we will stay for the opening statement at the end? >> i would like to make one brief >> my comment is that, with what

you said senator. >> it was on, i turned it off. >> with what you said, if i may. as i understand it, we did not documents from the document -- library. and that is the problem. my lawyer was sent in to select the documents. and i see that as a problem. documents coming from anybody's me, for aeems to purpose like this, should not be selected by a president's lawyer. they ought to be selected by the archives. >> mr. chairman, since the senator invoked my name, let me just respond to my friend. it is the same practice that has been used by previous presidents

because the archives have no way of knowing, absent the intervention of the lawyer, whether or not there is a valid claim of executive or some other privilege. bythere has to be a process which the request for documents is reviewed by the lawyer for the president. that is exactly what happened here. and that is exactly the same practice that has been engaged in by previous announcer: today on c-span, washington journal is next with your phone calls and then the american enterprise institute hosting a discussion about the 20 -- 2008 financial crisis. aboutose andres talks puerto rico after hurricane maria. in about 45 minutes, we will talk to retired lieutenant

general russel honore. also, new republic staff writer emily atkin on the environmental impacts and public health impacts of the hurricane. ♪ 'sst: hurricane florence moments away from making landfall in the carolinas on this friday morning, september 14th. wind gusts up to 90 miles per hour in some areas and power gone for hundreds of thousands. the government is warning it is a slow-moving, wide storm that could cause life-threatening storm surge. we want to know your calls on the government's preparedness as florence makes landfall. eastern, central part of the country, 202-748-8000. mountain-pacific, call in at 202-748-8001. those of you impacted by this hurricane or others in recent history, 202-748-8002.