Mitch McConnell

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, what is the pending business?

Mr. McCONNELL

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

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 11 a.m., Thursday, October 4; further, that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and morning business be closed; finally, that following leader remarks, the Senate proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the Kavanaugh nomination.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it stand adjourned under the previous order.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk for the Kavanaugh nomination.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, if you stop and listen, you can practically hear the Democrats trying to move the goalposts on Judge Kavanaugh's nomination to the Supreme Court. Remember, before Judge Kavanaugh was even named, several Democrats on the Judiciary Committee indicated they would oppose whoever the nominee might turn out to be. The junior Senator from California, for example, explained on television that whomever President Trump chose would bring about ``the destruction of the Constitution of the United States as far as I can tell.'' That was, incredibly enough, from a member of the Judiciary Committee. Of course, mere hours after Judge Kavanaugh was announced, my friend, the Democratic leader, made the announcement that has now become famous. ``I will oppose him with everything I've got,'' he said. Not long after that, another Democrat on the Judiciary Committee proclaimed that anyone supporting Judge Kavanaugh's confirmation was-- listen to this--``complicit in the evil.'' These statements are the context for every action the Democrats have taken during this entire process. These statements remind us: Democrats may be trying to move the goalposts every 5 minutes, but their goal has not moved an inch. They will not be satisfied unless they have brought down Judge Kavanaugh's nomination. It started with straightforward political maneuvering. None of it worked, of course, but there were whatever issues they could find to delay, delay, delay. First, back in June, the Democrats tried to argue that the Senate shouldn't confirm a Supreme Court Justice in any even-numbered year. Then they were reminded that Justices Kagan, Breyer, and Souter were all confirmed during midterm election years, and that argument evaporated. Next, the Democrats said the process should be delayed because too few documents were available from Judge Kavanaugh's past public service. Well, then they received the most pages of documents ever produced for a Supreme Court nomination. So guess what came next. The goalposts moved down the field, and the Democrats called for a delay because there were too many documents for them to read. I wish this fight could have remained in the realm of normalcy, but when none of these tactics worked--when Judge Kavanaugh demonstrated his widely acknowledged brilliance, openmindedness, and collegiality at his confirmation hearings--some chose a darker road. The politics of personal destruction were willfully unleashed. I have spoken at length about the underhanded way the Democrats have treated Dr. Ford and her allegation. In brief, for 6 weeks, Dr. Ford's confidential account passed from one Democratic Member of Congress to the Democratic side of the Judiciary Committee, to the Washington, DC, lawyers whom the Senate Democrats handpicked for her. Then, well after Judge Kavanaugh's hearings had wrapped up, the supposedly confidential letter found its way into the press-- shoving aside proper procedure, shoving aside the accuser's plea for privacy. This is not politics as usual because let us not forget that Dr. Ford's allegation is not the only uncorroborated allegation that has been breathlessly paraded around. Oh, no. Shortly after Dr. Ford's confidential letter made its way into the press, the floodgates of mud and muck opened entirely on Brett Kavanaugh and his family. Out of the woodwork came one uncorroborated allegation after another, each seemingly more outlandish than the last. A tabloid lawyer organized a red carpet rollout for someone who wanted to accuse Judge Kavanaugh of masterminding some kind of high school drug and serial sexual assault ring--of hosting one wild party after another, filled with sexual violence, for which there conveniently happen to be zero witnesses but plenty of people to refute the claims. This didn't stay in the tabloids, by the way. This fantastic story was effectively read into the record of the Judiciary Committee by the ranking member, who decided it deserved a mention in her remarks during last Thursday's hearing. Then every Democratic member of the Judiciary Committee seized on this outlandish tale in a formal letter in which they called on Judge Kavanaugh to withdraw his name from consideration. This is how desperate some became for any way to stop this stunningly qualified nominee. I guess upholding any standards of any kind was just too much to ask. We heard of another anonymous, unattributed, and now thoroughly debunked account--this time of an anonymous accusation from Colorado that alleged physical abuse 20 years ago. A sitting Federal district court judge quickly stepped up to bat down that anonymous smear. We heard that Judge Kavanaugh was supposedly responsible for a sexual assault on a boat in Newport, RI, until the accuser recanted the story completely, but it was not before many in the media had begun eating it up. In short, the Democrats' mishandling of Dr. Ford's letter opened the floodgates for this deluge of uncorroborated, unbelievable mud, and the mudslide was cheered on and capitalized on at every turn by the far left, which has been so eager to stop this nomination. Just politics? I don't think so. On the other extreme, some of the other lines of attack have been completely trivial. Last night, the New York Times unleashed this ``major'' story. Get this--Judge Kavanaugh may have been accused of throwing some ice across a college bar in the mid-1980s. Talk about a bombshell. One can only imagine what new bombshell might be published today or tomorrow. Here is what we know--one thing for sure: The Senate will vote on Judge Kavanaugh here on this floor this week. Our Democratic friends will try to move the goalposts yet again. Just yesterday, they submitted a list of 24 people whom they want the FBI to interview. So I am confident we will hear that even the very same supplemental FBI investigation the Democrats had so loudly demanded will now, magically, no longer be sufficient. Well, after the FBI shares what it has found, Senators will have the opportunity to vote. We will have the opportunity to vote no on the politics of personal destruction. We will have the opportunity to vote yes on this fine nominee. Tax Reform Madam President, on an entirely different matter, the U.S. economy continues to deliver very good news. My home State of Kentucky is, certainly, no exception. Yesterday morning, I had the opportunity to take part in the announcement of a major new investment in my hometown of Louisville. GE Appliances unveiled its plan to create 400 new jobs and to invest more than $200 million in Kentucky. It is expanding its laundry and dishwasher production facilities and is upgrading its capacity for innovation. GE's Appliance Park--where nearly 6,000 currently work--has been a manufacturing landmark in Louisville for more than six decades. The facility has meant a great deal to my community. At its height, it employed some 20,000 workers. However, following the sluggish economy of the last decade, the workforce has shrunk to just one-fifth of its previous strength. So yesterday's announcement marked a step in a very new direction--aggressive expansion, doubling down on American workers. It is the same story that is being written all over America by job creators, large and small. Where did the new direction come from? What changed? Well, for one thing, the policy climate here in Washington changed. GE Appliances' President and CEO Kevin Nolan said, ``The changes in rates and favorable tax treatment of investments in machinery and equipment play a big role in our expansion plans''--more jobs for Kentuckians, more prosperity for local communities. I would like to ask the men and women who will get one of these new jobs what they make of the fact that every single Democrat in Congress voted to block the tax reform that is helping this happen. The Republicans got it done anyway. We delivered sweeping tax cuts for workers and families. Now, thanks in part to our policies, the economy is thriving. Just last month, consumer confidence reached its highest level in 18 years. In other words, American families are feeling better about spending and investing in their communities than they have felt since September of 2000. In September of 2000, the Senate pages serving here on the floor hadn't even been born yet, but as these young folks continue their studies and enter the workforce, they will be participating in an American economy with more opportunities, where workers keep more of their hard-earned paychecks. That is the economy Republicans had in mind when we voted to enact generational tax reform and to lift the regulatory burden on investors and job creators. It is the economy we are continuing to work for every day. Recognition of the Minority Leader

Mr. McCONNELL

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

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it recess until 10 a.m., Wednesday, October 3; that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings and the Executive Journal be approved to date, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; further, that notwithstanding rule XXII, all time postcloture on the House message to accompany H.R. 302 be considered expired at 12 noon.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, if there is no business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it recess under the previous order.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, the confirmation process for Judge Brett Kavanaugh, one of the most qualified and most impressive Supreme Court nominees in our Nation's history, is moving forward. On Friday, the Judiciary Committee reported this nomination favorably. Then, here on the floor, we officially moved to take up the nomination. Every Republican member of the committee agreed that Judge Kavanaugh should be reported out with a favorable recommendation, and every Democrat voted in opposition--in some cases, before he or anyone had even been nominated. That last part shouldn't really surprise anyone. Democrats have made no real attempt to disguise that this was a pure partisan calculation for them from the beginning. Several of them had announced their opposition to Judge Kavanaugh's nomination long before his original hearings even began, before they had questioned him on his judicial record they deem so problematic and, in some cases, more than 2 months before Dr. Ford's allegations of misconduct were made public. The Democrats didn't mince any words. The way one Democratic member of the Judiciary Committee put it: Supporters of Judge Kavanaugh are-- listen to this--``complicit in the evil.'' That is a Democratic member of the Judiciary Committee. Another Democrat on the committee, before Judge Kavanaugh was even named, described in almost apocalyptic terms the consequences of whomever the President might nominate. Here was the quote: ``We are looking at the destruction of the Constitution of the United States as far as I can tell.'' And here was the Democratic leader, just hours after Judge Kavanaugh was nominated: ``I will oppose him with everything I've got.'' Well, they have certainly done just that. They have done just that. The ranking Democrat on the committee first heard from Dr. Ford on July 30. Did our colleague alert the chairman so the committee could do due diligence in a confidential way, consistent with Dr. Ford's wishes? No, she did not. Did she discretely raise the issue with Judge Kavanaugh during her private meeting with him on August 20? She didn't do that, either. As best we can tell, the Democrats chose to keep this allegation secret, rather than investigating in a bipartisan and timely way; in fact, they held it in reserve. Meanwhile, the senior Senator from California, or her office, were already in communication with Dr. Ford. In fact, her office had already recommended--recommended--that Dr. Ford retain a particular Washington, DC, law firm. The firm in question is not exactly foreign to Democratic politics. Two of its founding partners, including one of the attorneys who personally appeared at the hearing to represent Dr. Ford, had until recently been scheduled to hold a fundraiser for one of our Senate Democratic colleagues tonight. Oh, and by the way, the firm had also represented in another matter the person who has made the most salacious and disgusting accusations against Judge Kavanaugh as a high school student. This is the firm the Judiciary Committee Democrats recommended to Dr. Ford. Not long thereafter, of course, Dr. Ford's letter to the senior Senator from California wound up in the hands of the press. The same letter in which she asked for confidentiality was leaked. By whom? As best I can tell, nobody had possession of this letter, except for Dr. Ford's Democratic Congresswoman, the Democratic side of the Judiciary Committee, and presumably the politically connected lawyers they recommended to Dr. Ford. And somehow--somehow--it ended up in the press. Dr. Ford's plea for privacy was brushed aside. A predictable media circus was launched. Of course, the questionable and concerning handling of this matter didn't stop there. In her testimony, Dr. Ford seemed surprised that Chairman Grassley had offered her legal team a number of more discrete and less burdensome ways to share her story if she preferred. The chairman had offered to fly investigators out to California, or anywhere else, for a private interview at a time and a place of Dr. Ford's choosing. But, apparently, neither our Democratic colleagues nor the lawyers they recommended felt it was necessary to make these options clear to Dr. Ford. She told the committee: ``I wasn't clear on what the offer was. . . . [I would have] been happy to speak with you out there''--referring to California. ``It wasn't clear to me that was the case.'' So let's take stock of all of this. The ranking member withheld serious allegations from committee colleagues, precluding any chance that they would be handled with sensitivity and discretion. Meanwhile, her staff made recommendations that the accuser retain specific, politically connected counsel. Then, her confidential account reached the media faster than it reached either the chairman of the committee or the FBI, which our colleagues have been insisting must now look into it. Finally, we had reason to believe that Dr. Ford was not even apprised of the chairman's offers to collect her testimony in ways that might have been less likely to create a media circus and less burdensome on her. It is almost as if Dr. Ford didn't want a Washington, DC-based media circus, but others with whom she was in contact and on whom she was relying wanted exactly that. So we have learned that if you confide in Senate Democrats on highly sensitive personal matters, no request for confidentiality will keep you from becoming a household name. And even if you are a nominee whose judicial philosophy Senate Democrats deem to be objectionable, no centuries-old standard of presumed innocence will protect your name, your family, or your reputation from irreparable damage. Now, fortunately, Chairman Grassley has taken action to clean up this mess. Last Thursday, he supervised a professional and respectful hearing. He retained an experienced sex crimes prosecutor to methodically collect the details of Dr. Ford's recollections. This is a professional who is recognized as ``Outstanding Arizona Sexual Assault Prosecutor of the Year'' by former Democratic Governor Janet Napolitano--a former Cabinet Secretary of President Obama's and herself a member of Anita Hill's legal team back in 1991. Here is what she wrote in her memo to Members following the hearing: A he said, she said case is incredibly difficult to prove. But this case is even weaker than that. Dr. Ford identified other witnesses to the event, and those witnesses either refuted her allegation or failed to corroborate them. I do not think that a reasonable prosecutor would bring this case based on the evidence before the Committee. Nor do I think that this evidence is sufficient to satisfy the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard. That is a lower standard. Will our Democratic colleagues listen to this expert opinion, although it conflicts with their political mission? Don't hold your breath. Nor am I optimistic that they will stay consistent and accept the conclusions of the supplemental background investigation the FBI is now conducting on top of its six prior investigations of Judge Kavanaugh. Democrats demanded a supplemental investigation. They proclaimed it would be a game-changer. The Democratic leader and the ranking Democrat on the committee both said recently that an FBI investigation can be completed in less than a week, but I would bet almost anything that after it runs its course in the next few days, we will then be treated to a lecture--a lecture--that anything short of a totally unbounded fishing expedition of indefinite duration is too limited or too arbitrary or somehow insufficient. We all know that is coming. If you listen carefully, you can practically hear the sounds of the Democrats moving the goalposts. Remember, back in the summer, Democrats said there weren't enough documents to get a good sense of Judge Kavanaugh's career. Then we heard there were too many documents. Then once Dr. Ford's private allegation was mysteriously made public, we couldn't possibly move forward until we heard from them both. Then, after neither the hearing nor the statements of supposed witnesses yielded any corroborating evidence and, in fact, produced evidence that supported Judge Kavanaugh, we were told that only an FBI investigation would resolve this and that it could be done promptly. So let me go out on a limb. Let me make a small prediction. Soon enough, the goalposts will be on the move once again. I would respectfully say to my colleagues: Do these actions suggest this has ever been about finding the truth? Does anybody believe that? Do these actions suggest this has ever been about giving Judge Kavanaugh a fair hearing? This institution has seen before episodes somewhat like what we are now seeing from some of our colleagues across the aisle. Back during the McCarthy era--in fact, in 1950--character assassination and uncorroborated allegations were being utilized in a very different debate. That is when a distinguished Senator from Maine named Margaret Chase Smith--an icon from the great State of our colleague Senator Collins--went to the Senate floor to say enough was enough. She gave a speech that guaranteed she would be in the history of the Senate. She titled it ``Declaration of Conscience.'' Here is what she said: I do not like the way in which the Senate has been made a rendezvous for vilification, for selfish political gain at the sacrifice of individual reputations and national unity. Margaret Chase Smith went on: Whether it be a criminal prosecution in court or a character prosecution in the Senate, there is little practical distinction when the life of a person has been ruined. We should listen to these words. They speak as loudly today as they did 68 years ago. In my judgment, the pattern of behavior we have seen confirms what Democrats' own public statements have told us: They are committed to delaying, obstructing, and resisting this nomination with everything they have. They just want to delay this matter past the election. That is not my supposition; that is their plan. According to another Democratic member of the Judiciary Committee, the junior Senator from Hawaii, that is their plan. Soon I expect we will hear that the conclusions of the expert prosecutor who questioned both witnesses at last week's hearing aren't reliable or that the FBI's investigation was not infinite or endless enough for their liking. Maybe we will hear that the real issue is not these uncorroborated allegations of misconduct after all but, rather, the fact that Judge Kavanaugh--now, listen to this--drank beer in high school and in college or the fact that he was, rightfully, angry--who wouldn't be?--that his good name and his family have been dragged through the mud with a campaign of character assassination based on allegations that lack any corroboration. Who wouldn't be angry about that? Their goalposts keep shifting, but their goal hasn't moved an inch-- not an inch. The goal has been the same all along. So let me make it very clear. The time for endless delay and obstruction has come to a close. Judge Kavanaugh's nomination is out of committee. We are considering it here on the floor, and we will be voting this week. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. McCONNELL

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

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate engage in its routine legislative wrapup as in morning business during today's session of the Senate.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 4921 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 664, submitted earlier today.

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

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it recess until 10 a.m., Tuesday, October 2; that following the prayer and pledge, the Executive Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate recess tomorrow from 12:30 p.m. to 2:15 p.m. to allow for the weekly conference meetings; further, that notwithstanding rule XXII, all time during leader time and recess count postcloture on the House message to accompany H.R. 302.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask that it stand in recess under the previous order. Thereupon, the Senate, at 6:39 p.m. recessed until Tuesday, October 2, 2018, at 10 a.m.

Mr. McCONNELL

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

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I understand there is a bill at the desk, and I ask for its first reading.

Mr. McCONNELL. I now ask for a second reading and, in order to place the bill on the calendar under the provisions of rule XIV, I object to my own request.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 6897, which was received from the House.

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

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 567, S. 2515.

Mr. McCONNELL. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read the third time. The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading and was read the third time.