Mitch McConnell

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, our Nation is continuing to confront the public health challenge posed by the new coronavirus. Right now, as Dr. Anthony Fauci of the National Institutes of Health reminds us, the risk that any individual American will contract the disease remains low. This is not a time for fear. It is a time to continue calmly scaling up serious and smart preparations that have already been underway so the United States can continue working to blunt, slow, and mitigate the spread within our borders. The most recent global health security index rated the United States the No. 1 overall most prepared country in the world for an infectious disease outbreak--the No. 1 overall most prepared country in the world for an infectious disease outbreak. Our resources, capabilities, and expertise are the envy of the rest of the world. In this instance, the President's early, bold actions to impose travel restrictions and quarantine measures back in January bought our Nation more time and more room to continue preparing. With that said, there was never any illusion that our country of more than 300 million people and nearly 4 million square miles could be entirely sealed off from the rest of the world. The question was never if we would have to combat the coronavirus here on U.S. soil, but when and to what degree. As Dr. Fauci noted yesterday, we are now seeing instances of community spread here in the United States, and the CDC has now confirmed nearly 500 cases on U.S. soil. With respect to individual best practices and precautions, all Americans should follow the recommendations of the CDC and their State and local authorities. Detailed suggestions for different personal situations are available online at www.cdc.gov. Officials in my home State of Kentucky are currently monitoring four confirmed cases. I spoke to the Governor this morning and will continue to stay in close touch to make sure that Kentucky and all 50 States have what they need and know Congress has their back. Last week, the Senate passed nearly $8 billion in supplemental funding, which President Trump signed into law. It will deliver surge resources to national public health experts, frontline healthcare professionals, and State and local governments as they work together to protect Americans. That legislation ensured a funding floor of at least $7 million will go to Kentucky to help fight the virus. In addition, I want to recognize and thank our colleague, the junior Senator from Texas. Ten days ago, he briefly interacted with an individual who has since tested positive for the virus. Even though he feels fine and it has already been 10 days, after consulting with experts, Senator Cruz elected to work from home this week out of an abundance of caution. We will certainly miss our colleague around the Capitol this week, but I want to commend him for taking the initiative. We had a chance to talk yesterday. So here is the bottom line: Our great Nation is very strong. We have enormous expertise and tremendous capabilities, and Congress, on a bipartisan basis, has made sure our health experts and leaders have the funding they need. With calm and competence, all Americans--all of them--should continue to listen to the experts, take their advice, and take commonsense steps to protect ourselves, our families, and our communities.

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I enter a motion to reconsider the bill.

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I enter a motion to reconsider the vote.

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, it is my honor today to pay tribute to a brave Kentucky veteran who passed away last month at the age of 96. John Robert Miller, of Glasgow, KY, led a remarkable life of generous service and lasting achievement. As a member of the ``greatest generation,'' John Robert defended our Nation and its ideals before coming home to raise a family and lead his community. Like many brave Kentuckians, John Robert volunteered to serve our country during the Second World War. Over the coming years in the Army Artillery, he achieved the rank of technical sergeant and was stationed for 3 years in the South Pacific. For the rest of his life, his pride in our Nation and his military service were well known to all. John Robert returned to Barren County after the war and married Christine McGuire, his inseparable partner for the next 67 years. Together they built a proud life. He turned to agriculture, owning a dairy farm while also growing several crops and raising angus cattle. His love for the land inspired John Robert to share his knowledge with the next generation of Kentucky farmers through 4-H. An active mentor and guide, he was elected State chairman of the Kentucky 4-H Leadership Council. John Robert seemed to be constantly thinking of how he could help others. In addition to his farm and a small business he owned, he was elected to the Barren County Fiscal Court. With the strong support of those he served, John Robert was twice reelected. As a local election commissioner for more than two decades, he also earned admiration and the lasting gratitude of his community. He received multiple awards in recognition of his life of service for others, including the Barren County Patriot Award. I would like to share my heartfelt condolences with John Robert's children, Johnny, Lanny, and Donnie. Their father, John Robert, contributed to our Commonwealth's bright future. Through his hard work, his faith, and his refusal to quit, he left behind a legacy to be proud of. I urge my Senate colleagues to join me in honoring a treasured Kentuckian, John Robert Miller.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I planned to spend my remarks today discussing our bipartisan, bicameral agreement to fund the fight against the new coronavirus. I was looking forward to congratulating all my colleagues and discussing all the ways this funding will help our public health experts, frontline healthcare professionals, and State and local officials combat the spread of this virus and mitigate its effects. It is a serious agreement to meet a serious challenge, and today we will send it to President Trump's desk. So today will be an important day for the country, and it was going to be a proud day for the Senate, but instead the Nation's eyes are on this body for an entirely different reason. A few weeks ago, I spoke on this floor about a dangerous trend that threatens our self-governance. I explained how some in the Democratic Party appear more interested in attacking the institutions of our government than in working within them, how Democrats increasingly respond to political disappointments with extreme claims that our system of government itself must be broken. The failure can't be their own. It can't be that the left needs better arguments or ideas. No. No, the fault must lie with the Constitution itself. Democrats have tried to cloak their anger at President Trump in rhetoric about protecting norms and institutions, but, in reality, it is their own side of the aisle where anti-institutionalism is rampant. Rampant. We can talk about attacks on the office of the Presidency, on the Electoral College, on the First Amendment, on the Senate itself, but most striking of all has been the shameless efforts to bully our Nation's independent judiciary, and yesterday those efforts took a dangerous and disturbing turn. By now many already know what the Democratic leader shouted outside the Supreme Court yesterday morning. I am sorry to have to read it into the Record. First, he prompted a crowd of leftwing activists to boo two of the Associate Justices--as though Supreme Court Justices were professional athletes and Senator Schumer were jeering from the stands. Then the senior Senator from New York said this: I want to tell you, Gorsuch! I want to tell you, Kavanaugh! You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You won't know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions. I am not sure where to start. There is nothing to call this except a threat, and there is absolutely no question to whom--to whom it was directed. Contrary to what the Democratic leader has since tried to claim, he very, very clearly was not addressing Republican lawmakers or anyone else. He literally directed the statement to the Justices by name. He said: ``[I]f you go forward with these awful decisions,'' which could only apply to the Court itself. The minority leader of the United States Senate threatened two Associate Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court. Period. There is no other way to interpret that. Even worse, the threat was not clearly political or institutional. As I will discuss in a moment, these kinds of threats are sadly nothing new from Senate Democrats. This was much broader--much broader. The Democratic leader traveled to the workplace of the two Justices, and in front of a crowd of activists, he told those Justices ``you will pay the price'' right in front of the Supreme Court building and ``you won't know what hit you.'' He said this right in front of the Supreme Court building. If any American had these words shouted at them from a sidewalk outside their office, they would hear those threats as personal, and most likely they would hear them as threatening or inciting violence. That is how any American would interpret those words if they were directed at them. That is certainly how the press and leading Democrats would have characterized them if President Trump or any senior Republican had said anything even remotely--remotely--similar. We have seen much more hay made out of much less. Perhaps our colleague thinks this is absurd. Perhaps he would like the most generous possible interpretation; that he got carried away and he didn't mean what he said, but if he cannot even admit to saying what he said, we certainly cannot know what he meant. At the very best, his comments were astonishingly reckless and completely irresponsible. Clearly, as the Chief Justice stated in a rare and extraordinary rebuke, they were ``dangerous'' because no matter the intention, words carrying the apparent threat of violence can have horrific, unintended consequences. In the most recent year on record, the U.S. Marshal Service tracked thousands of threats and inappropriate communications against the judiciary--thousands of threats against the judiciary. Less than 3 years ago, of course, an unhinged and unstable leftwing activist attempted a mass murder of congressional Republicans at a baseball field right across the river. A Senate leader appearing to threaten or incite violence on the steps of the Supreme Court could literally be a matter of deadly seriousness. So I fully anticipate our colleague would quickly withdraw his comments and apologize. That is what even reliably liberal legal experts like Laurence Tribe and Neal Katyal have publicly urged. Instead, our colleague doubled down--doubled down. He tried to gaslight the entire country and stated that he was actually threatening fellow Senators, as though that would be much better, but that is a fiction. A few hours later, the Democratic leader tripled down. Instead of taking Chief Justice Roberts' sober and appropriate statement to heart, he lashed out, yet again, and tried to imply the Chief Justice was biased--biased--for doing his job and defending the Court. Let me say that again. He tripled down, and he lashed out, yet again, and tried to imply that the Chief Justice was biased for doing his job and defending the Court. Our colleague therefore succeeded in attacking 33 percent of the Supreme Court in a space of a few hours. Throughout the impeachment and the Senate trial, for months, Washington Democrats preached sermons about the separation of powers and respect among equal branches. So much for all of that. And sadly, this attack was not some isolated incident. The leftwing campaign against the Federal Judiciary did not begin yesterday--not yesterday. My colleagues will recall that during the impeachment trial the senior Senator from Massachusetts and outside pressure groups tried to attack the Chief Justice, sitting right in that chair, for staying neutral instead of delivering the outcomes that they wanted. These same groups came to Senator Schumer's defense yesterday with gratuitous attacks against the Chief Justice for condemning the threats against his colleagues. Last summer--last summer a number of Senate Democrats sent an extraordinary brief to the Supreme Court. It threatened to inflict institutional change on the Court if it did not rule the way the Democrats wanted. In other words, give us the ruling we want or we will change the numbers of the Court. Here is what they wrote: ``The Supreme Court is not well. . . . '' Really? The Supreme Court is not well. . . . Perhaps the Court can heal itself before the public demands it be ``restructured . . . '' What that means is, you rule the way we want or we are going to expand the numbers and change the outcome--a political threat, plain as day. As you read the document, you half expected it to end by saying: That is some nice judicial independence you got over there. It would be a shame if something happened to it. It couldn't have been more clear. Independence from political passions is the cornerstone of our judiciary in our country. Judicial independence is what enables courts to do justice even when it is unpopular, to protect constitutional rights even when powerful interests want them infringed. Judicial independence is what makes the United States of America a republic of laws rather than of men. It has been almost a century since the last time Democrats threatened to pack the Supreme Court because they wanted different rulings. History still judges that disgraceful episode to this day. I would suggest that my Democratic colleagues spend less time trying to threaten impartial judges and more time coming up with ideas that are actually constitutional. Fortunately, this extraordinary display contains one ironic silver lining. These clumsy efforts to erode a pillar of American governance have just reminded everyone why that pillar is so crucial. These efforts to attack judicial independence remind us that independence is essential. Every time Democrats try to threaten sitting judges, we are reminded exactly--exactly--why the Framers gave them life tenure and salary protection, precisely why they did it. Every time Democrats toy with packing new seats onto the Court, we are reminded exactly why, as Justice Ginsburg recently said, ``Nine seems to be a good number.'' Justice Ginsburg said, ``Nine seems to be a good number.'' The distinguished men and women of the Supreme Court do not and must not serve at the pleasure of angry partisans--must not serve at the pleasure of angry partisans. They do not need to pay any mind to unhinged threats, as shameful as they may be. In fact, as the Chief Justice reminded us yesterday, they are duty-bound to pay such things no attention at all. Their job description is simple: to apply the law to the facts, as the Chief Justice put it, ``without fear or favor from whatever quarter.'' I have great confidence the Court will do just that. I am confident that if the facts and the Constitution would have led the Court to disappoint Democrats the day before yesterday, they would still feel free to do so today, tomorrow, and beyond, notwithstanding these shameful tactics. I had hoped I would not need to reiterate what every Republican Senator told the Court in August after Senate Democrats sent their threatening brief, but today I have no choice but to say it again: Republicans are absolutely and unshakably committed to the core constitutional principle of an independent Federal judiciary--the core constitutional principle of an independent Federal judiciary. As long as this majority holds the gavel, we will never let the minority leader's dangerous views become policy. This majority will ensure that the only casualties of this recklessness are the reputations of those who engage in it.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I withdraw amendment No. 1419.

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk for the substitute amendment No. 1407.

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk with the underlying bill, S. 2657.

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 Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be discharged from further consideration of S. 1757 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 370, S. 2683.

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported amendment be withdrawn; that the Alexander substitute amendment at the desk be agreed to; and that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time.

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

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

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be discharged from further consideration of S. 2321 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. McCONNELL. I ask unanimous consent that the Blunt substitute amendment at the desk be considered and agreed to; that the bill, as amended, 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 Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 4803 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that 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. 3414.

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 when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 3 p.m., Monday, March 9; 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; further, that following leader remarks, the Senate resume consideration of S. 2657; further, that notwithstanding rule XXII, the cloture motions filed during today's session of the Senate ripen at 5:30 p.m., Monday, March, 9, and that the mandatory quorums under rule XXII be waived; finally, that the first-degree filing deadline with respect to the cloture motions filed during today's session be at 3:30 p.m.

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 ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 535, submitted earlier today.