mr. grassley: i was going to ask you, mr. president, i was going to -- the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: i was going to ask unanimous consent to that extent so i guess you've already announced it's in place. is that right? i'm going to add something to what you just said. so let me start over again. i ask unanimous consent that the senate until 10:45 be equally divided between senator feinstein or her designee or myself or my designee and the time from 10:45 to 11:00 be reserved for senator schumer's leader's remarks. the presiding officer: is there objection? seeing none. it's agreed. mr. durbin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the democratic whip. mr. durbin: i'd like to ask for clarification is that the remaining 17 or 18 minutes is equally divided? the presiding officer: the senator is correct. mr. grassley: that's what my unanimous consent said. mr. durbin: i wanted to get more specific, senator. i'm not questioning what you asked for. so we have nine minutes each or eight minutes each? mr

mr. grassley: i was going to ask you, mr. president, i was going to -- the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: i was going to ask unanimous consent to that extent so i guess you've already announced it's in place. is that right? i'm going to add something to what you just said. so let me start over again. i ask unanimous consent that the senate until 10:45 be equally divided between senator feinstein or her designee or myself or my designee and the time from 10:45 to 11:00 be reserved for senator schumer's leader's remarks. the presiding officer: is there objection? seeing none. it's agreed. mr. durbin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the democratic whip. mr. durbin: i'd like to ask for clarification is that the remaining 17 or 18 minutes is equally divided? the presiding officer: the senator is correct. mr. grassley: that's what my unanimous consent said. mr. durbin: i wanted to get more specific, senator. i'm not questioning what you asked for. so we have nine minutes each or eight minutes each? mr

mr. grassley: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: we're continuing to debate the nomination of judge gorsuch to serve as associate justice of the united states supreme court. my colleagues on both sides of the aisle have said that this is an important moment for the united states senate. i couldn't agree more. i think it's important to reflect on why we're here and how we got here. before i turn to the supreme court and the current debate, let me take it just -- let me take just a few minutes to talk about lower-court nominees and provide a little bit of history and context, especially for the benefit of some of the senators who weren't here over the last few years. i'm going to start way back in the spring of 2001. president george w. bush had just been elected president. as we know -- we all know in fact -- it was a close election and it was heartedly fought. the senate was closely divided with the republicans in control. given how close the presidential election was, there were elements of the hard left who refused to ac

mr. grassley: thank you, mr. president. i there's some people that need to have a thank you for what we just completed here. people that hardly ever get any attention, to thank them. so i take a couple of minutes to express my appreciation to some of the staff who worked on this supreme court nomination. staff for both the majority and minority put in a lot of hours and reviewed a lot of material. their work ensured that the hearing we held for judge gorsuch went smoothly and was fair to all the members. the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. mr. grassley: our staff reviewed all the 2,700 cases judge gorsuch participated in. do you want me to wait, mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator will suspend. could senators please take their conversations out of the chamber. the senator from iowa. the senate will be in order. mr. grassley: going back to my thank yous, our staff reviewed all 2,700 cases judge gorsuch participated in as well as 180,000 pages of documents produced by the department of justice an

mr. grassley: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: i ask that the equaling of the quorum be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. grassley: mr. president, we're now well on our way to confirming judge gorsuch as the next justice of the supreme court. now, i have a few things to say about the way that we've gotten here. earlier today the other side, meaning the democrats, made a very unprecedented break with senate history and with senate tradition. they launched the first partisan filibuster of a supreme court nominee in our nation's history. for our part, we republicans insisted that we follow the practice of the senate. we don't engage in partisan filibusters of supreme court nominees. yesterday i came to the floor to speak about the path that brought us to this point as i discussed way back in 2001 -- referring to the year 2001, the current minority leader and some of his allies on the far left hatched a plan to, in their words, ch

mr. grassley: mr. president, we're now well on our way to confirming judge gorsuch as the next justice of the supreme court. now, i have a few things to say about the way that we've gotten here. earlier today the other side, meaning the democrats, made a very unprecedented break with senate history and with senate tradition. they launched the first partisan filibuster of a supreme court nominee in our nation's history. for our part, we republicans insisted that we follow the practice of the senate. we don't engage in partisan filibusters of supreme court nominees. yesterday i came to the floor to speak about the path that brought us to this point as i discussed way back in 2001 -- referring to the year 2001, the current minority leader and some of his allies on the far left hatched a plan to, in their words, change the ground rules with regard to lower-court nominees. i noted a "new york times" article describing the democrat senatorial caucus retreat where the new approach to nominees was discussed. i

mr. grassley: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: we're about to vote on the nomination of judge gorsuch. so i would like to say to my colleagues why i'm so pleased that we'll soon be referring to him as justice gorsuch. i opened our judiciary committee hearing with this. as justice scalia said, it is, quote, the proud boast of our democracy that we have a government of law and not man. without a secure structure of separated powers, our bill of rights would be worthless. end of scalia's quote. the separation of powers in our constitution is the guardian of our liberty. judge gorsuch understands that. his deep understanding of the separation of powers enlivens his opinions. by faithfully enforcing the boundaries among the branches of government and the power of the federal government in our lives, this justice will ensure that the law protects our liberties. and here's the other thing that's important about a judge who respects the separation of powers. we know that he'll be independent. he told us that he is his own man, t

mr. grassley: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: we're continuing to debate the nomination of judge gorsuch to serve as associate justice of the united states supreme court. my colleagues on both sides of the aisle have said that this is an important moment for the united states senate. i couldn't agree more. i think it's important to reflect on why we're here and how we got here. before i turn to the supreme court and the current debate, let me take it just -- let me take just a few minutes to talk about lower-court nominees and provide a little bit of history and context, especially for the benefit of some of the senators who weren't here over the last few years. i'm going to start way back in the spring of 2001. president george w. bush had just been elected president. as we know -- we all know in fact -- it was a close election and it was heartedly fought. the senate was closely divided with the republicans in control. given how close the presidential election was, there were elements of the hard left who refused to ac

mr. grassley: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: before i start, i ask unanimous consent that the debate time on the nomination of judge gorsuch during tuesday's session of the senate be divided as follows: the time until 3:30 under the control of the chairman of the judiciary committee, the time from 3:30 until 4:30 to be under the control of the minority, the time from 4:30 to 5:30 be under the control of the majority, 5:30 to 6:30 under the control of the minority, and finally the control from 6:30 to 6:45 be under the control of the majority. the presiding officer: is there objection? hearing none, without objection. mr. grassley: mr. president, today we'll continue to debate the nomination of judge neil m. gorsuch to serve as associate justice of the supreme court of the united states. the judiciary committee held four full days of hearings last month. the judge testified for more than 20 hours. he answered more than a thousand questions during his testimony and hundreds more questions for the record. we've had the op

mr. grassley: mr. president, i think i'm only going to speak for -- i think i have 15 minutes to speak. when i get about 13 minutes, would you raise your thumb or something and tell me, please? the presiding officer: i certainly will. mr. grassley: thank you. i come to the floor today to spotlight a potential failure of leadership at the defense department office of inspector general. a large number of hotline cases have been set aside, neglected and possibly forgotten. the hotline plays a very critical role in the inspector general's core mission of rooting out fraud, waste and abuse. the problem is the command and control link between whistle-blowers on the one hand and investigators on the other hand. to succeed, hotline tips need quick and decisive action, but speed is not one of the chief assets of this unit. without quick response, the full value then of whistle-blower information is lessened. last year, at my request, i was given a 12-page spread sheet dated november 8, 2016. it listed 406 hotli

mr. mccabe now the background first. mccabe is the fbi's deb out -- deputy director and the charges are laid out to director james comey. it points out mccabe is already under investigation from the fbi inspector general in his role in the hillary clinton e-mail investigation and his wife was running for the virginia state senate in 2015 received $750,000 in donations by a friend of hillary clinton and rights while he recused himself from public corruption cases in virginia he failed to recuse himself from the clinton e-mail investigation despite the appearance of a conflict created by his wife's campaign accepting $700,000 from a close clinton associate during the investigation. grassley's letter then turns to the trump-russia investigation and in particular a discussion within the fbi about whether the pay former british spy that drew up a dossier that had information on mr. trump that could embarrass him. mr. grassley rights there's more conflict of interest questions if he was involve

grassley and nancy well, first of all pelosi. all the senators having their reform packages out there. there was a lot of debate, what appropriate in terms of waivers, so that we can work a solution. i actually heard mr. schumer waivers for his constituents in new york who are orking for the airline industry. he also wanted -- please, i hope i can say this because schumer said it, mutilation of clitoris girls coming into the country. kinds of waivers were on the table for him. e also wanted some other waivers, but i won't go into those. ut mr. rubio was not -- he was like in the background. nd we saw here in florida, we thought we had gotten rid of him because he was not being hopb eftd with the immigration here.ion host: okay. because we're running out of time, what would you like to guest, m our specifically? caller: i want them to say we and the senators were to go back to the table and talk about that all over again, even be a possibility at this point? host: okay. thanks. >> the caller was referring to reform debate where se

senator grassley -- where is senator grassley? [applause] mr. trump: thank you. thank you. finally, a profound thank-you to louise gorsuch and to all the gorsuch family. thank you. [applause] president trump: louise, i have heard it first hand, i know what a total inspiration you are to your husband and to your entire family, so thank you very much. fantastic. thank you very much. [applause] president trump: we're here to celebrate history, the taking of the judicial oath by the newest member of the united states supreme court, neil gorsuch. justice gorsuch, i just want to congratulate you and your entire family. it is something so special. in fact, i have always heard that the most important thing that a president of the united states does is appoint people, hopefully great people like this appointment, to the united states supreme court, and i can say this is a great honor. [applause] president trump: and i got it done in the first 100 days. that is even nice. [laughter] president trump: you think that is easy? this ceremony has special meaning, as justice gorsuch is fill

senator grassley: senator leahy. senator leahy: thank you, mr. chairman. and first, i agree with senator feinstein. you made sure you followed the practice we always had allowing everybody be heard and i do appreciate that. senator grassley: that's the leahy rule. senator leahy: we made it the rule of this body and i think that's a good thing. we have on the agenda a couple other items and let me just mention briefly the nomination rod rosenstein to be deputy attorney general. mr. rosenstein has spent 27 years in the justice department . the last 12 years as the u.s. attorney for the district of maryland. he actually has a reputation for integrity that's unusual for this administration's nominees. but if he's confirmed, he's going to inherit a situation that no justice department ominee has faced since 1973, an act of criminal investigation into a sitting president's campaign and dministration. every week new evidence surfaces indicating that trump campaign officials colluded with a hostile foreign power to influence the election to undermine our democracy

>> senator grassley, mr. chairman, that's a tall drink of water right there. i think there's a lot of different reasons. adults don't want to believe, that's the first thing. adults just don't want to believe it. i think there's a responsibility that adults have placing their children in this situation, and if it's true, that they've placed children in a situation they were abused or exploited or if they have oversight of a situation that permits that, that reflects on them and that fear of exposure, so they don't want to believe it. i'm not talking about the abusers. i'm talking about the good-hearted adults whose heart is in the right place that upon hearing incidents of suspected abuse don't immediately report it. it's not that they are bad people. they have made a bad decision and i wish i knew the answer to why they made that bad decision. i think it's wrapped up, certainly in sports and the goal being achievement and a focus on that final goal. and in so many cases the athletes are secondary to that goal, and that's the culture, i think, that has to chan

mr. chairman, can i ask one other question? chairman grassley is gone and it deal witches his goodwork. >> sure. >> senator glassley and i if bro sundayed legislation to -- enhance whistleblower protections. the chairman is on the floor. you can't endorse legislation, obviously, commissioner, but i'd be interested in one quick question. do you believe there's a need for additional whistleblower protections and set aside the bill senator grassley and i have but just generally, a need for more whistleblower appreciation. >> i do. i'm a big supporter of the whistleblower program but ought to be protected against retaliation, whether they're in a private sector company or a government agency. we need tone courage people, if they think there's a problem going on, to raise their hand, maker the problem known without having retaliation against them. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, colleagues, for the extra time. >> senator roberts. >> thank you, mr. chairman. the former chairman of the committee, my good friend max bachus, said

and feinstein or their designees. -- >> i was going to ask you mr. president, is going to ask you -- they met the senator per mile. i was going to ask unanimous consent to that extent. again >> i'm going to add something to what you just said so let me start over again. i ask unanimous consent that the senate until 10:45 be equally divided between senator feinstein or her designee or myself and the time from sch 10:45 to 11:00 the research for senator schumer's remarks. >> is there objection? seeing none. the >> the democratic whip. democratic whip. >> mr. president my understanding i'd like to ask for clarification as the remaining 1718 minutes is deeply divided. that's what my unanimous consent request said. hymn i just wanted to get more specific senator braynon not question what you asked for. we so we have nine minutes each for eight minutes each? >> i will probably need more than nine minutes but i will put the resume statement in the record. i defer to the chairman of the committee. >> within the next hour or so we will learn whether the minor

senator wyden: mr. chairman, can i ask one other question forbearance because chairman grassley is gone and deals with his good work. senator grassley and i introduced legislation to strengthen incentives for whistleblowers under the tax code while also enhancing whistleblower protections. the chairman can't be here. obviously he's on the floor. you can't endorse legislation, obviously, commissioner, but i'd be interested in just one quick question. do you believe that there is a need for additional whistleblower protections, and set aside the bill that senator grassley and i have but, generally, do you need there needs to be a need for whistleblower protection? commissioner koskinen: i am a supporter of the whistleblower program. they need to be protected whether they are in the private sector or government agency. we need to encourage people if they think there is a problem going on wherever it is to be able to raise their hand, make that problem known without having retaliation against them. senator

mr. maddin drove off to seek help, returning in just 15 minutes with assistance. he did what any of us faced with a life-threatening situation would do. a week later, mr. maddin was fired from his job even though he was transparent with his actions and completed his delivery. he completed his delivery, despite the issues caused by his frozen brakes and the broken heater. two different entities within the department of labor ruled that what the trucking company did was illegal and that mr. maddin was protected under federal law because his life was in danger. thankfully, a majority of the tenth circuit judges agreed judge gorsuch, however, disagreed, arguing the law did not protect workers who drove away to avoid freezing to death. according to judge gorsuch's interpretation, mr. maddin would have had to choose between his job and his life, and what is deeply concerning to me is that when he was asked about this at his nomination hearing, what he would have done, he said he really hadn't t

by top senate republicans who broke with long-standing tradition and refused to consider any nominee mr. obama might send them because they wanted to preserve the court's conservative majority. the main perpetrators of the theft were mitch mcconnell, the majority leader, and charles grassley, chairman of the judiciary committee, but virtually all republican senators were accomplices. only two supported holding hearings. the republican party line that it was an election year so the american people should have a voice in the selection of the next justice was a patent lie. the people spoke when they re-elected mr. obama in 2012 and trusting him to choose new members for the court. the senate has had no problem considering and usually confirming election year nominees in the past. of course, supreme court appointments have always been political, and the court's ideological center has shifted back and forth over time. but the senate has given nominees full consideration of a vote even when the party in power has opposed the president's choice. that is, until this year. republicans claim that

mr. grassley: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: i ask that the calling of the quorum be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. grassley: i have a unanimous consent request. i ask consent that all time postcloture on the rosenstein nomination expire at 5:00 p.m. today and that if confirmed, the senate be immediately notified of the senate's action and the senate resume consideration of the acosta nomination. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. grassley: i yield the floor. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate previous order, the senate live coverage of the senate when lawmakers return here on c-span2. earlier today president trump's daughter was at a women's conference in germany where she made these comments about her fathers advocacy for women entrepreneurs. >> think about gender inequality but we still have formidable problems in our own right when you think about the fact that 30% of you was privately owned are women businesses, that we tremendous potential for growth a

quorum call: quorum call: mr. grassley: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: i ask that the calling of the quorum be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. grassley: before i speak, i have a unanimous consent request. i have five requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders, so i ask consent. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. grassley: okay. i support mr. rosenstein's nomination to be deputy attorney general. not only is he very experienced and an accomplished attorney, he served in the justice department for almost three decades under five different presidents, but he served as u.s. attorney for the district of maryland under both presidents bush and obama. i think that's a very rare record of service. during his nominations hearing to be deputy attorney general, mr. rosenstein promised us that he would, quote, work to defend the integrity and independence of our justice department to pr