Mitch McConnell

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 1123 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, 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 when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn to then convene for pro forma session only, with no business being conducted, on Friday, November 8, at 8 a.m. I further ask that when the Senate adjourns on Friday, November 8, it next convenes at 3 p.m. Tuesday, November 12, and 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, morning business be closed, and the Senate proceed to executive session and resume consideration of the Wolf nomination.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.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, yesterday, the Senate confirmed David Tapp of Kentucky to serve on the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. Today, we will turn to more of President Trump's impressive nominees for the Federal Judiciary. Last week, Senate Republicans had hoped to proceed to the urgent priority of funding our national defense, but for the second time in 2 months, Senate Democrats filibustered defense funding. They blocked the Senate from funding our Armed Forces. Over the summer, the Speaker of the House and my colleague the Democratic leader both signed onto a bipartisan, bicameral budget deal that Democrats hammered out with President Trump's team in order to avoid exactly--exactly--the kind of partisan stalemate that we are now experiencing and avoid a 12-bill omnibus. The agreement laid out specific top-line numbers and ruled out poison pills--the agreement we all reached just a couple of months ago. With respect to Presidential transfer authorities, the agreement that we all agreed to 2 months ago specifically stated that ``current transfer funding levels and authorities shall be maintained.'' The President's transfers authorities as they relate to border funding, or anything else, were to remain exactly as they existed in current law. This is the deal we signed off on just 2 months ago. The deal just simply preserves the status quo that was established by bipartisan legislation last fiscal year. The same transfer authorities, by the way, would also be preserved if Democrats tank the appropriations process and we end up with a continuing resolution. That was the deal. Democrats were onboard. I entered the terms into the Congressional Record and both the Speaker and the Senate Democratic leader posted the terms of the deal in their press release, but now our Democratic counterparts have gone back on their word. Contrary to the agreement, Democrats are now insisting on poison pills and, thus, blocking the resources and certainty our men and women in uniform need. While Senate Democrats block defense funding, House Democrats continue to hold up USMCA and the 176,000 new American jobs it would create. All their time and energy seems to go to House Democrats' 3- year-old impeachment journey and the unfair, precedent-breaking process by which the House has conducted its inquiry so far. Last week, House Democrats passed their first votes on impeachment and codified their irregular process. They passed a resolution that fails--fails--to provide President Trump the same rights and due process that past Presidents of both parties have received. Here is what the Democrats' resolution effectively says: No due process now, maybe some later, but only if we feel like it. I repeat: No due process now, maybe some later, but only if we feel like it. Well, while we wait for our Democratic counterparts to come back to the table and allow this body to complete urgent bipartisan legislation, we are going to continue confirming more of President Trump's impressive nominees and giving the American people the government they actually voted for.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I understand there is a bill at the desk that is due a second reading.

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, in order to place the bill on the calendar under the provisions of rule XIV, I object to further proceedings.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, now, on another matter, I have come to the floor frequently in recent months to warn about dangerous anti- speech, anti-First Amendment headwinds blowing out of Washington, DC. I have warned about proposals from our Democratic colleagues that seemed tailor-made to chill the free exchange of ideas and make it more difficult for Americans to engage in political speech. Just a few days ago, on October 23, I explained how the threat of heavy regulatory burden has already ``frightened media platforms into rejecting political ads altogether. It's a textbook example of policy designed to reduce the amount of free speech in this country.'' Then, 7 days later, here is what happened. Twitter announced that their platform will ban all political ads. The online platform is banning advertisements for candidates for office and political campaigns. What is more, they say they are also banning issue ads, which do not even reference a specific campaign but merely seek to give one perspective on a subject. Twitter's leadership has tried to produce a rationale for banishing paid political speech. The argument boils down to the same misunderstandings that have been used to undermine free speech for decades. Here is what Twitter's CEO said: ``We believe political message reach should be earned, not bought.'' This kind of surface-level argument may sound good at first, but it quickly gives way to an arbitrary process of picking winners and losers in the competition of ideas. Here is what I mean: Twitter's new rules would seem to forbid either a small liberal nonprofit or a small conservative nonprofit from putting money behind an issue ad to amplify their perspective. But what about the press? Will media corporations large and small remain free to buy paid advertising to promote editorials and opinion writers? Will cable news networks and national newspapers remain free to advertise their political speech? It would seem that Twitter will either have to ban opinion journalists and the press from advertising their own work or else create an enormous double standard that would just amplify the already privileged speakers who already possess multimillion-dollar platforms. It would just help clear the field for those elites by denying the same tools to fledgling speakers who are not already famous. Consider this: Back in July, the CEO of Twitter praised two Democratic Presidential candidates in a Twitter post of his own. This gentleman has 4.3 million followers. It seems fair to conclude that these subscribers have not followed him solely due to the standalone merits of his commentary but in part because they are interested to hear from a powerful person who runs a hugely influential company. And, of course, Twitter has worked hard and spent money for years to grow its business and make itself famous--efforts that have raised the profile of its CEO. There is nothing wrong with that, but it illustrates the impossibility of any top-down standard to determine who has earned an audience. How many millions of dollars go into publicity campaigns for Hollywood actors or musicians or media personalities? How many millions of dollars in advertising and corporate strategy have made CNN, FOX, MSNBC, and the New York Times into what they are today? When these people and these institutions speak out on politics, are they using megaphones they have earned or megaphones that have been bought? Obviously, such distinctions are impossible to draw. This is exactly why the act of free speech is not separate from the resources that make speech possible. Let me say that again. This is exactly why the act of free speech is not separate from the resources that make speech possible. Twitter's announced policy would not level the playing field. It would only reinforce echo chambers. It would prevent a local candidate on a shoestring budget from using a small amount of money to promote a tweet so more of his neighbors can learn about his campaign. It would seemingly reserve a special privilege for major media corporations, while denying nonprofits the same opportunity. Such a policy would not bolster our democracy. It would degrade democracy. It would amplify the advantage of media companies, celebrities, and certain other established elites, while denying an important tool to the Americans who disagree with them. My personal view is that the American people do not need elites to predetermine which political speakers are legitimate and which are not. I believe that holds true whether the elites live in Washington or Silicon Valley or anywhere else. Obviously Twitter can set whatever policy it wants. It is a private sector company. But companies respond to incentives. It is easy to see the influence of Washington and leading Democrats behind this announcement--pretty easy. My Democratic colleagues have threatened to impose huge regulatory liability on platforms that run political ads. And now a prominent platform has preemptively decided that allowing certain kinds of political speech is more trouble than it is worth. It does not serve our democracy for Democratic leaders to chill or suppress the free exchange of ideas through Federal policy. It does not serve our democracy for private sector leaders to take away a crucial tool that helps less prominent speakers make their case to the American people.

Mr. McCONNELL

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

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, this week, the Senate will continue its work in the personnel business and confirm more of the President's outstanding nominees to the Federal judiciary. Since our Democratic colleagues chose last week to filibuster defense funding and block the Senate from even considering legislation to fund our Armed Forces, we will turn our focus to confirmations while we wait for progress from them on appropriations. Leading off the week, the Senate will have the opportunity to confirm another standout Kentuckian to the Federal bench, this time to the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. Judge David Tapp has just about done it all since he first became a State judge nearly 15 years ago. He has heard cases at multiple levels of the State's judiciary, ruling on a wide range of issues. As a volunteer drug court judge, Judge Tapp has earned national praise for promoting long-term recovery in the courtroom. He has also developed a sterling reputation for fairness throughout Kentucky and around the country. Now David will bring a lifetime of public service and achievement to the Court of Federal Claims, where I am confident he will continue making us all proud. I look forward to voting to confirm him later today and hope our colleagues will join me.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, now, on another matter, last week the Nation saw several pivotal moments that shed light on the current state of the Democratic Party. Here in the Senate, as I mentioned, Democrats chose to filibuster funding for our national defense for the second time in 2 months. This funding was agreed to in the bipartisan, bicameral deal that Speaker Pelosi and the Democratic leader signed onto just a few months ago, but now they have walked away from the agreement they signed and filibustered funding for our military commanders. Yesterday, we saw the Iranian regime celebrate--celebrate--the 40th anniversary of the taking of the American Embassy and the beginning of the Iranian hostage crisis. The familiar slogan, ``Death to America,'' was on full display. It was especially sobering to watch this display and remember that our own U.S. military commanders do not have the certainty they need for strategic planning because Democrats here in Washington found it politically advantageous to block it. Over in the House, Speaker Pelosi continues to stall the U.S.-Mexico- Canada Agreement. USMCA would bring tens of billions in new commerce and create 176,000 new American jobs, but House Democrats would rather pursue political theater. So American workers and farmers are still waiting. However, while our Democratic colleagues block these bipartisan priorities, at least they are not shy about what they do support. We have seen what Democrats prioritize. We remember the Green New Deal, an effort to grab unprecedented control over American families' daily lives. Designing, building, or furnishing a home or business? Democrats want Washington to dictate how you do that. Commuting, traveling for vacation, mowing your lawn? They would like you to do that without gasoline or jet fuel sooner rather than later. Make a living producing, refining, or delivering affordable American energy? They want you to find another line of work whether you like it or not. That is the Green New Deal. There is also the matter of Medicare for None. That is the scheme that would take the program that millions of American seniors rely on, throw away everything except the label, and paste that onto a new, one- size-fits-all, Washington-run insurance plan that would be mandatory for every American. Medicare, gone. Private plans and the popular Medicare Advantage Program, gone. Every health insurance plan that Americans get on the job, which over 180 million people depend on, gone. This is literally what several of the leading Democratic Presidential contenders have endorsed--a new nationwide experiment in socialism. And every single American--man, woman, and child--would be the subject of this experiment, whether that is what we want for our families or not. From this mandatory one-size-fits-all insurance plan to new price controls that would limit lifesaving cures, our Democratic colleagues are rallying around policies that would leave American families paying more to wait longer for worse care. That is their prescription--paying more to wait longer for worse care. Then, if these plans weren't bad enough on the merits, there is the small issue of the crushing new tax burden you would have to pile onto the U.S. economy in order to make some effort to pay for all of this. One leading Democrat released a breathtaking proposal last week that illustrates the road they would like to head down. This candidate's Medicare for None plan on its own, notwithstanding all the other socialist plans--just the healthcare plan--would cost $52 trillion over the first 10 years alone. That is the candidate's own estimate--$52 trillion over 10 years. Even after cannibalizing everything the government currently spends on healthcare, the plan's author admits there would still be a staggering $20-plus trillion left over to finance. Other experts say it would be more. For some perspective, if you add up every cent that is deposited in every commercial bank across the United States of America, that is about $13 trillion. So you could literally seize--seize--every dollar that Americans have deposited in banks and you would have nowhere near enough money to pay for even the first decade of this crazy experiment. Democrats are confident they can produce this huge sum of money through historic tax increases on job creators and on the American people. It would be an enormous--enormous--new tax burden dumped on the U.S. economy that would kill jobs, depress workers' wages, and make America less competitive literally for generations to come. At the exact time when Republican tax reform has made the United States more competitive and boosted prosperity here at home, Democrats want to take us backward and make our Nation a less attractive place to create jobs. Here is what Larry Summers, a former Treasury Secretary under President Clinton, wrote about this far-left plan in the Washington Post: [It] will discourage hiring, particularly of low-skilled workers. . . . There is . . . the real risk of an economic contraction following a sharp market decline. That is Larry Summers, the Clinton Treasury Secretary. Particularly, it would discourage hiring, particularly of low-skilled workers, and a sharp market decline. So in order to take away employer-sponsored insurance from 180 million Americans, Democrats want to kill American jobs and bring the economy to a screeching halt. Look, I would implore my friends across the aisle to put aside this destructive socialism and join us in the current work that needs doing right now for the American people. We have a landmark trade agreement that needs passing. We have U.S. Armed Forces that need funding. We are just waiting on our Democratic colleagues to show up.

Mr. McCONNELL

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

Mr. McCONNELL

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

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, this upcoming Veterans Day gives every American the opportunity to pause and pay tribute to the many sacrifices of those men and women who served in our Armed Forces. Out of devotion to this country and our values, these brave servicemembers made the world a safer place. It is a sincere privilege to extend my gratitude to each and every one of them. I am especially proud to recognize the nearly 300,000 American veterans who call Kentucky home. After their military service, many of these Kentuckians came home and continued selflessly giving to their communities and our Nation. In particular, I would like to pay tribute to a special Kentucky veteran today, Dan McDaniel of Kenton County. Six days after he graduated from the University of Kentucky in 1972, Dan became one of the final draftees his community sent into the Army during the Vietnam war. Following his basic training, Dan was sent with his wife, Linda, to Augsburg, Germany, as a field artillery crewman. He served there until he received an honorable discharge that brought the couple home to Kenton County. Using his degree in social studies, Dan taught history for a short time in Northern Kentucky. Then, a few years later, Dan and his brother Mike started a small concrete company out of their basements. For nearly four decades, Mike and Dan grew their business and earned respect in Northern Kentucky and the greater region as full service concrete contractors. In 2008, the brothers sold their business to Dan's son, Chris, who runs the company to this day. The family business isn't the only way Chris has followed his father's footsteps, however. After graduating from The Citadel, Chris served 4 years in the Army as an infantry officer. Today, he is continuing to serve the Bluegrass State as a prominent member of the Kentucky State Senate. Like so many veterans, both Dan and Chris continue to make lasting contributions to their community, our Commonwealth, and this great Nation. So, on this Veterans Day, I am grateful to all those who served our country in uniform. Our Commonwealth is made safer because of their service and stronger because of their example. To Dan and Chris McDaniel, all Kentucky veterans, and their families, it is an honor to say thank you.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding rule XXII, the cloture votes on the Rudofsky and Wilson nominations occur at 12 noon on Wednesday, November 6. I further ask unanimous consent that the confirmation vote on the Hunsaker nomination occur at 4 p.m. on Wednesday, November 6, and that following the disposition of the Hunsaker nomination, the Senate vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the Nardini nomination. Finally, I ask unanimous consent that if cloture is invoked on the Rudofsky, Wilson, and Nardini nominations, that the confirmation votes occur at a time to be determined by the majority leader in consultation with the Democratic leader on Thursday, November 7.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I have 5 requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority leaders. Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate: Committee on Energy and Natural Resources The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, November 05, 2019, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing on the following nominations: James P. Danly, of Tennessee, to be a Member of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and Katharine MacGregor, of Pennsylvania, to be Deputy Secretary of the Interior. Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs The Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, November 05, 2019, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing. Select Committee on Intelligence The Select Committee on Intelligence is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, November 05, 2019, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a closed briefing. Subcommittee on Aviation and Space The Subcommittee on Aviation and Space of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, November 05, 2019, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing. Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism The Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism of the Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, November 05, 2019, at 2;30 p.m., to conduct a hearing.

Mr. McCONNELL

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

Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, 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. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 724 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. McCONNELL. Madam 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. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 407, which was submitted earlier today.

Mr. McCONNELL. I further 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. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be added as a cosponsor.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10 a.m., Wednesday, November 6th; 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, morning business be closed, and the Senate proceed to executive session and resume consideration of the Rudofsky nomination under the previous order.