Mitch McConnell

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I spoke yesterday about the bipartisan cooperation that has made it possible for us to return to a regular appropriations process. Collaboration got the four measures we are now considering through the subcommittee and full committee process, thanks to the efforts of Chairman Shelby, Senator Leahy, and the subcommittee leaders, Senators Murkowski, Collins, Hoeven, and Lankford. On the floor, bipartisanship let us turn to legislation by consent and kick off the amendment process with several votes yesterday. If we can keep it up, we will soon take four more big steps toward our goal of funding the Federal Government the right way and avoiding another omnibus. Yesterday, I mentioned that the legislation before us addresses two pressing national needs: rebuilding America's infrastructure and bolstering the fight against opioids. But that is far from the whole story. These measures cover about one-eighth of the total discretionary spending for next year. They fund a long list of key services that Americans depend on every day--everything from food safety inspections to child nutrition programs, to the Forest Service and national parks. Communities in all 50 States are connected to this legislation. Here are a few of the provisions that will be particular cause for celebration in my home State of Kentucky: $37 billion toward rural development, including support for rural businesses, and loans and grants to improve rural infrastructure for electricity, telephone, and broadband internet in communities in Kentucky and all across the country; another $1 billion in grants to help communities invest in highways, bridges, and other infrastructure projects, with a guarantee that 30 percent of this funding would go into rural areas; more funding for the Abandoned Mine Land Pilot Program, which helps communities reclaim abandoned coal mines and put that land to better use; more funding and a sharper Federal focus on controlling the evasive Asian carp that threaten local prosperity and water safety in Kentucky Lake and Lake Barkley in Western Kentucky; and more help for the Kentuckians who battle the scourge of opioids every day. The legislation funds the FDA's efforts to intercept illegal drugs, the DEA's program for high-intensity trafficking areas, and increased training for first responders. It also contains a provision I secured directing the Department of Housing and Urban Development to encourage more access to transitional housing opportunities for individuals recovering from substance abuse disorder. I could go on. The ways the bill before us would assist families and communities across Kentucky are practically countless, and the same is true for every State in our country. That is why every Member understands the importance of appropriations. Funding the Federal Government--matching resources with urgent challenges--is one of Congress's most important responsibilities. I am proud of the appropriations process that is underway, and I am especially proud of all of the ways the resulting legislation will deliver for the American people.

Mr. McCONNELL

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

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, on another matter, we are discussing the difference between rhetoric and results when it comes to our economy. Yesterday, I described how my Democratic friends spent the Obama years talking about the importance of rebuilding American manufacturing. They talked about it, but it is the actions of this united Republican government that have made it easier for manufacturers to expand and hire. It is on our watch that optimism among U.S. manufacturers has hit the highest level that one survey has ever recorded. Well, it turns out that there are quite a few areas where this Republican government is helping to deliver victories that our Democratic friends spent 8 years talking about. In his 2010 State of the Union Address, President Obama proclaimed that job growth would be the No. 1 focus of the coming year. He said that ``the true engine of job creation in this country will always be America's businesses'' and that government's role was to ``create the conditions necessary for businesses to expand and to hire more workers.'' Recognizing American job creators as the true engines of prosperity and giving them room to succeed sounds good to me. It sounded good to almost everyone, in fact. But once again, the policies didn't match the rhetoric. Instead, the Obama administration twice set all-time records for the number of pages in the Federal Register, and those pages had consequences. By constantly moving the regulatory goalposts, government eroded the certainty businesses need to invest and to hire. Washington, DC, restricted farmers' and ranchers' control over water on their own property. Bureaucrats overwhelmed small banks and credit unions with a rule book designed for Wall Street, and an outdated Federal Tax Code held back job creation and made America much less competitive. On Democrats' watch, Americans had to wait out an economic ``recovery'' that was insufficient, slow, and left whole parts of the country way behind. Remember the rhetoric and then remember the facts. Republicans have always agreed that job creation must be a top priority, but we have a better idea about how to actually help make it happen. The Republican Congress has used the Congressional Review Act to slash 17 burdensome regulations. That is on top of the administration's own Executive actions. We have passed, and the President has signed, major changes to Obamacare and to Dodd-Frank, and we passed generational tax reform that puts more hard-earned money in the pockets of working families and gives job creators more flexibility. So what is happening on our watch? Just a few days ago, the number of Americans newly filing for unemployment benefits hit the lowest level in more than 48 years. Let me say that again. Newly filing for unemployment benefits hit its lowest level in more than 48 years. Here is how CNN characterized the Labor Department's most recent jobs report: The U.S. economy keeps adding jobs at a blistering pace. . . . The job market is so good, many people who had previously given up looking are starting to look again. According to Gallup, the percentage of Americans saying now is a good time to find a quality job hit its highest level in 17 years. That is not just rhetoric but actual results, due to the hard work of American workers and job creators, with an assist from this Republican government. Unfortunately, this pro-growth agenda hasn't gotten much support from across the aisle. Not a single Democrat--not one--voted for the tax reform that helped to turn rhetoric about jobs into actual jobs. There was hardly any Democratic support for the regulatory housecleaning that has given job creators more confidence to stay on American soil, grow their businesses, and add jobs. So all of us agree with the rhetoric, but not everyone supported the policy agenda that has helped to deliver these results for the American people.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I begin this morning by remembering two heroes and the events that claimed their lives 20 years ago today, right here in the Capitol. On July 24, 1998, U.S. Capitol Police Officer Jacob Chestnut and Detective John Gibson made the ultimate sacrifice in defense of American democracy. By doing their duty, these heroes helped cut short an act of brutal violence that could have claimed many more lives. That same week, Officer Chestnut and Detective Gibson lay in honor in the Capitol Rotunda, and an entire Nation paid its respects. I imagine 20 years have not made this senseless violence any easier to bear for the families these men left behind or for their brothers and sisters in the Capitol Police. Yet, as we remember their bravery, a triumphant example endures of selfless service and fearless heroism--of two men who embodied the values that keep this building and our Nation standing safe and sound. Today, we honor Detective Gibson and Officer Chestnut. We renew our condolences to their families. We recognize the depth of our gratitude for them and for everyone who puts on the uniform and steps into harm's way every single day.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, now, on an entirely different matter, yesterday, the Senate began considering our next set of appropriations measures for fiscal year 2019. Chairman Shelby and Ranking Member Leahy have led an exemplary bipartisan process through subcommittee and full committee work. Yesterday, that same bipartisan spirit was here on the floor when we were able to proceed to these measures by consent. Let's keep up that productive and cooperative spirit so we can achieve the goal we all share--completing a regular appropriations process and avoiding another omnibus. The measures before us encompass agriculture, interior and the environment, transportation and housing, and financial services and general government. They would deliver real resources to help American communities face real challenges--challenges like clearing the backlog of infrastructure needs that are holding back rural America and challenges like fighting the opioid epidemic that threatens families and communities. Among the many, many things this legislation would accomplish, it meets these two challenges head on. It delivers nearly one-half billion dollars in loans and grant funding for rural broadband. It supplies $400 million to accelerate the delivery of water and waste infrastructure projects across rural America. It would also deliver more assistance to all of the areas of our country that are living under the long shadow of the opioid crisis--tens of millions to help the FDA crack down on the spread of illicit drugs and to improve care in rural communities through distance learning and telemedicine. These are just a few of the important provisions in these bills. I look forward to considering them this week. I hope we will have a robust amendment process, and then, with bipartisan cooperation, we can take these next steps together.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, on a final matter, yesterday, the White House hosted a ``Made in America'' showcase, featuring products that were manufactured in each State, including from Stoneware & Co., in my home State, which makes the famous Louisville stoneware kitchen and dining sets. Well, talking about reviving American manufacturing is nothing new in this town. In his 2013 State of the Union Address, President Obama insisted that ``our first priority is making America a magnet for new jobs and manufacturing.'' Every few years, it seemed our Democratic friends over in the House would hold yet another press conference to talk about getting manufacturing moving. So rhetoric was not in short supply during the Obama era. What was harder to come by were actual results. On President Obama's watch, on net, our country lost more than 300,000 manufacturing jobs. Year after year, Democratic policies led to insufficient, sluggish, and uneven economic growth that left much of the country behind. Eight years of this so-called recovery couldn't even get us back to the same number of manufacturing jobs that we had when President Obama first took his oath of office. There are a number of reasons why. Yet here is one thing we heard loud and clear from U.S. manufacturers: High taxes, heavy regulations, and other Democratic policies put the wind squarely in their faces. Back in 2013, more than 75 percent of U.S. manufacturers said a hostile climate due to taxes and regulations was a major business obstacle. What about the present? What about now? This united Republican government has put an end to one burdensome regulation after another. We cut through the redtape that held back small businesses, local lenders, and manufacturers. We overhauled the Tax Code, leaving families with more to spend and invest and leaving job creators with more flexibility to compete and win. What were the results? Less than 2 years into the new administration, an all-time high of 95.1 percent of U.S. manufacturers have a positive outlook. Now fewer than one in five says a hostile business climate due to things like taxes and regulations is a top obstacle, and more than two-thirds are planning to hire this year. These aren't just numbers; this is real life. At Jamison Door in Hagerstown, MD, tax reform made possible a 400- percent increase in plant size. In my home State of Kentucky, it is estimated that more than 1,000 construction jobs will be needed to help build a new aluminum rolling mill for Braidy Industries. Over the next 7 years, tax reform is expected to save the company--listen to this--$150 million, which will help to support this investment and the 600 permanent new jobs the company estimates it will create in the Commonwealth. So let's sum it up. Republican policies have helped generate the very outcomes Democrats claim they wanted. American manufacturing is thriving on our watch, but now Democrats aren't cheering. In fact, they have tried to block most of the policies that have helped this happen. They voted against tax reform--every Democrat in the House and the Senate. They have protested regulatory reform every step of the way. They want to go right back to their old ways--repeal the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, raise taxes, and pile on more crushing regulations. We are not going to let that happen because we agree that manufacturing growth is vital for American prosperity, and unlike our friends across the aisle, we have the ideas and the policies to help make that goal into reality.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, today the Senate will vote to confirm Robert Wilkie, President Trump's outstanding choice to serve as the next Secretary of Veterans Affairs. The job is an incredibly important one. As Secretary, Mr. Wilkie will be tasked with fulfilling our Nation's commitments to veterans and their families, expanding their access to care, and improving accountability at the VA. Millions of American veterans rely on the VA--day in and day out--for healthcare, employment resources, counseling, and a host of other services they need and have certainly earned. It is fortunate, then, that Mr. Wilkie's impressive career of public service demonstrates he is well prepared to advance the agency's vital missions. Robert Wilkie grew up the son of an Army artillery officer. He carried on the tradition of service as an officer in the U.S. Air Force Reserve. In addition to uniformed service, Mr. Wilkie has amassed more- than two decades of experience as a civil servant. He has served at the Department of Defense, at the National Security Council, and here on Capitol Hill. Throughout the years, he has built a reputation as a thoughtful analyst and a skilled manager. Both these skills will serve him well at the helm of an an agency that employs nearly 400,000 people to meet the needs of millions more. I know I speak for so many of my colleagues when I say that the Senate looks forward to working closely with the next Secretary of Veterans Affairs. Already in 2018, guided by the leadership of Chairman Isakson, this body has taken decisive action to better fulfill our Nation's promises to veterans and their families. In May, the Senate voted, by a wide bipartisan margin, to pass the VA MISSION Act, which was designed to ensure that the services on which our Nation's heroes rely are flexible and accessible enough to meet their needs. The omnibus spending measure passed earlier this year included a record level of support for VA programs. In Robert Wilkie, the President has chosen a partner with whom this body can work side by side to continue advancing the interests of our Nation's veterans, including more than 300,000 in my home State of Kentucky. I look forward to doing just that. I urge each of my colleagues to join me in voting today to confirm this qualified nominee.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, the Senate is continuing our productive summer. This week we have been focused on confirming more of the President's qualified nominees. After his confirmation yesterday, Andrew Oldham, of Texas, will now bring his impressive credentials and years of distinguished service to his new role on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Today, we are considering the nomination of Ryan Bounds to serve on the Ninth Circuit. Each of these nominees has been selected by the President and his team for their credentials, reputations, and commitment to the rule of law. Each has been thoroughly examined by our colleagues on the Judiciary Committee. Ryan Bounds is no exception. He has earned degrees from Stanford and Yale. He clerked for the very Ninth Circuit judge he has been nominated to succeed. For the past 14 years, he has distinguished himself as a public servant at the Department of Justice and in his current role as an Assistant U.S. Attorney for Oregon. Along the way, he has earned the respect and recognition of legal professionals from across the country and the political spectrum. Forty-six of his colleagues in the District of Oregon describe his ``admirable work ethic,'' ``keen judgment,'' and ``masterful writing'' as ``skills that colleagues and opponents alike seek to emulate.'' In a letter to our Senate colleagues from Oregon, criminal defense attorneys who have litigated against Mr. Bounds testified to his ``fairness,'' ``diligence,'' and ``legal acumen.'' They write: He has shown time and time again that he is a man of his word. . . . He is an excellent lawyer and would make an outstanding judge. A number of law professors from across the country seem to agree. They remind us about the standards to which this body is charged with holding judicial nominees--fairness, impartiality, intellectual rigor. To sum it up, in the words of one legal peer, ``Ryan has all of this, and more.'' So I look forward to voting to confirm this excellent nominee, and I urge all of my colleagues to join me.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, speaking of excellent nominees, I would like to speak for a moment about President Trump's outstanding choice for the Supreme Court, Judge Brett Kavanaugh. This week, even more of our colleagues have had an opportunity to meet with Judge Kavanaugh. I am sure they will agree that it is hard not to come away impressed--the academic achievement, the judicial credentials, the esteem of his peers and fellow legal professionals. Of course, that hasn't stopped the far-left special interest groups from grasping at straws and trying to smear this nominee any way they can. They don't seem to care whether it is honest or not. They don't seem to care whether it is accurate or not. The latest made-up controversy is an attempt this week to make hay out of comments Judge Kavanaugh made about the long ago expired independent counsel statute. But, once again, there is no ``there'' there, whatsoever. Here are the facts. Judge Kavanaugh's apparent concerns about the independent counsel law appear in line with mainstream views that have been widely held on both sides of the political aisle--views that were, in fact, strongly held by many of my Democratic colleagues, at least until there was an opportunity to try to make political hay. Congress chose to let the statute expire back in 1999, based in large part on constitutional concerns. Let me say that again. The Congress, in 1999, on a bipartisan basis, decided to let the independent counsel statute expire. My colleague, the senior Senator from Illinois, the assistant Democratic leader in the Senate right now, explained this well when he was fighting any attempt to renew the statute. Here is what he said in 1999 about the independent counsel: ``Unchecked, unbridled, unrestrained, and unaccountable.'' My friend from Illinois punctuated his enthusiasm for the demise of the independent counsel law by saying: ``I would like to say to Judge Starr and all of the other counsels, your days are numbered.'' I agreed with him about the independent counsel statute. A number of us, in both parties, saw it the very same way. So we happily allowed the law to expire. This has nothing to do with special counsels. That is different from the independent counsel. The day the independent counsel statute expired, the day we actually finished with the impeachment trial of President Clinton in the Senate, Senator Chris Dodd from Connecticut and I went upstairs and had a press conference, stating that we agreed that the independent counsel statute ought to be allowed to expire, and it did. That has nothing to do with any special counsels or any tools that are currently in place for elected officials to be held accountable. This has nothing to do with any investigations that are in the headlines today. What Judge Kavanaugh was talking about is a law that has not existed for two decades and which the Supreme Court upheld with only a single dissenting vote. One of the dissenters in the case that upheld the independent counsel statute was Justice Scalia. The irony or hypocrisy is that our Democratic colleagues are now criticizing Judge Kavanaugh because he may hold the same views on this subject that they did, at least until Judge Kavanaugh was nominated. It is a view that was shared and acted upon by Members of this body on both sides of the aisle, as I have explained. So it is another day, another off-base attack. Here is how Newsweek dismissed this tempest in a teapot: ``Law experts told Newsweek that Kavanaugh's view on independent counsels has nothing to do with special counsels or Mueller's probe and, in fact, the two types of federal investigations are completely different.'' Yet again, the far-left special interest groups that are desperate to deny Judge Kavanaugh fair treatment are hoping the media will buy their latest made-up charge. Do you remember the outrage when it was learned that Judge Kavanaugh enjoys baseball? My goodness--shocking. Well, I am proud the President has chosen a nominee who is as strong as Judge Kavanaugh. We should put aside these unfair attacks and misrepresentations and give his nomination the fair treatment it deserves.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, on a final matter, this week I discussed a number of converging reports that highlight the strength of this economy for middle-class families and job creators. U.S. retail sales just increased for the fifth consecutive month. Earlier this year, consumer confidence hit its highest level since 2000. More than a million new jobs have already been created in 2018. There are more job openings than job seekers for the first time in 15 years. Over 95 percent of U.S. manufacturers are reporting confidence in their companies' outlook--an all-time high. Just this morning, there was this announcement from the Department of Labor: In the second week of July, new claims for unemployment benefits fell to their lowest level--listen to this--since 1969. All of these favorable trends are interrelated. Jay Powell, Chairman of the Federal Reserve, testified before our colleagues on the Banking Committee this week that ``robust job gains, rising after-tax incomes, and optimism among households have lifted consumer spending this month.'' To put it even more simply, American employers are doing better. So American workers are doing better. So American families are doing better. So American businesses are doing better. This is how a vibrant, growing economy works. This is what happens when Washington, DC, swallows up less of the American people's money in taxes, when it imposes fewer heavy-handed regulations that make it hard to do business, and when it gets the bureaucracy's foot off the brake of our economy. This is among the best--quite possibly the best--of economic moments for jobs and opportunity that Americans have seen in recent memory. The policies of this united Republican government helped to bring it about, and they are helping to sustain it. Earlier this week, the Wall Street Journal reported: Tax cuts appear to be propelling robust consumer demand. Many households are experiencing less withholding from their paychecks thanks to the tax overhaul. According to a recent survey, fewer than one in five American manufacturers now say an unfavorable climate due to things like taxes and regulations is a primary obstacle to their businesses. Back in 2013, during the Obama economy, more than two-thirds of the manufacturers said that. Two-thirds said it was a problem in 2013, and only one in five considers it a problem now. All across the country, as job creators of all sizes have announced worker bonuses, pay raises, and business expansions, many say loud and clear that tax reform is what made it possible. The American people voted. Republicans kept our promises. Now middle- class families are seeing the effects of the pro-growth policies they asked for in 2016, and the whole world has seen what the American people can accomplish when their government gets off their backs. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding Senate rule XXII, postcloture time on the Bounds nomination expire at 1:45 p.m. today; further, that if confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that following disposition of the Bounds nomination, the Senate resume legislative session and proceed to the immediate consideration of a Schumer resolution that is at the desk; further, that the Senate immediately vote on the resolution; that if agreed to, the motion 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 the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the Bounds nomination be vitiated.

Mr. McCONNELL. For the information of all Senators, the nomination will be withdrawn. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following leader remarks on Monday, July 23, the Senate proceed to executive session for the consideration of the following nomination: Executive Calendar No. 1000. I ask consent that the time until 5:30 p.m. be equally divided in the usual form and that following the use or yielding back of time, the Senate vote on the nomination with no intervening action or debate; that if confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action; that no further motions be in order; and that any statements related to the nomination be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following the disposition of the Wilkie nomination, the Senate resume legislative session and proceed to the consideration of H.R. 6147.

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, July 23; 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. I ask that following leader remarks, the Senate proceed to executive session under the previous order.

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, following the remarks of Senator Sullivan.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, this week the Senate continues to confirm impressive nominees whom President Trump has asked to serve our country. We have confirmed two Assistant Secretaries to the Department of Education, Scott Stump and James Blew. We have confirmed a member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve, Randal Quarles. Now we will turn to the judiciary and consider nominees to the Fifth Circuit and Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. First is Andrew Oldham of Texas, the President's choice for the Fifth Circuit. Mr. Oldham has impressed the legal community in his years of public service, most recently as general counsel to the Governor of Texas. Mr. Oldham has degrees from the University of Virginia, Cambridge, and Harvard Law. He clerked on both the DC Circuit Court and the Supreme Court. He carries the highest possible rating from the American Bar Association, ``unanimously well-qualified.'' He comes highly recommended by peers and colleagues from across the political spectrum. Judith Zaffirini is a Texas State senator. She is a Democrat. She wrote the Judiciary Committee to support Mr. Oldham's nomination ``confidently, enthusiastically, and without reservation.'' She and the nominee have worked together on a number of important subjects. Through them all, she explains, ``Mr. Oldham reflected the ideal qualities of a judge . . . open-minded, fair . . . thoughtful and analytical.'' Lisa Blatt is a skilled litigator who argues frequently before the Supreme Court. She is also a Democrat. She wrote the committee too. Her letter describes Mr. Oldham as ``a great listener'' with ``a brilliant legal mind, [and] a wonderful sense of humor and collegiality.'' Her conclusion? He would ``make a superb judge.'' What about Mr. Oldham's own words? If confirmed, he explained to our colleagues during his hearing, he will ``uphold the rights of all litigants--big or little--equally, and apply the law to all fairly.'' He understands his responsibility, clearly. I look forward to confirming this nominee, and I urge each of our colleagues to join me.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, in April, the Democratic leader and I announced the reestablishment of the Senate NATO Observer Group. Senators Tillis and Shaheen, both Members of the Senate Armed Services Committee, were named cochairs. We have asked for the following Senators to participate: Barrasso, Rubio, Gardner, Ernst, Rounds, Merkley, Coons, King, Booker and Van Hollen.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, last night the Internal Revenue Service made an important announcement. It is particularly welcome news to those of us who are intently focused on defending the First Amendment, for those of us who, over the years, have raised concerns during the last administration about activist regulators punishing free speech and free association. It is a straightforward, commonsense policy decision. The Internal Revenue Service is cutting back on the amount of nonpublic information it collects and stockpiles about Americans who donate to nonprofit causes. The IRS will no longer pointlessly demand private contributor lists from whole categories of tax-exempt organizations. I say ``pointlessly'' because the identity of nonprofit donors serves no compelling purpose under sections 501(c)4, and 501(c)6 of our Tax Code. Contributions to these organizations are not tax deductible--not tax deductible--so the IRS does not need to see this data for accounting purposes. These organizations are not required to release that information under the public inspection and availability requirements. Let me repeat. The identity of the donors to these organizations is not necessary for accounting and is not required for public inspection by the Internal Revenue Code. It raises the question that if the IRS isn't permitted to do anything with this set of Americans' private information, why collect it in the first place? Unfortunately, we know exactly what happens when the government stockpiles private data about the donations through which Americans participate in the public discourse. We know exactly why many on the left are keen for bureaucrats to have this confidential information. Where it leads is Americans being bullied for exercising their First Amendment rights. This bullying is established by bureaucrats and, in some cases, by elected officials. Sometimes the government itself does the bullying. Case in point: the Obama administration's IRS scandal. The agency slow-walked the applications of groups that appeared conservative, including some of my own constituents. Donors and groups faced unusually aggressive questioning, unreasonable deadlines followed by unreasonable delays. These were Federal authorities using the weaponry of government to punish Americans for supporting speech they didn't like. Other times, government simply enables the harassment. It fails to protect this private information from leaking to the army of angry leftwing activists who stand eager to harass and bully anyone who is contributing to national conversations with political views with which they disagree. Back in 2014, the IRS had to settle a lawsuit on this very issue. An IRS worker broke the law and leaked an unredacted copy of a group's confidential tax forms which wound up in the hands of a liberal organization on the opposite side of the issue. Needless to say, private information about Americans' political speech was quickly weaponized for political purposes. In one case, the CEO of a technology organization was hounded from his job by liberal activists for daring to see this subject differently than they did. Some State governments began demanding their own copies of the information the IRS was gathering. There were similarly troubling results. In 2012, California, which had promised nonprofits that donor lists would only be seen by the State's Registry of Charitable Trusts, accidentally--accidentally--published the donor lists of hundreds of nonprofits from across the political spectrum. More States, like New York, have sought to copy California, allowing more activist regulators to access this information. So the pattern is unmistakable. This particular political movement wants to erase our age-old tradition that citizens should be able to keep their private views and the causes they privately support private. Back in the 1950s, it was the NAACP who took on the State of Alabama over precisely this issue. The State government tried to get their hands on the NAACP's donor list. The issue went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, where the NAACP won a big victory for the First Amendment. Here is what Justice Harlan wrote in that opinion: ``Inviolability of privacy and group association may in many circumstances be indispensable to preservation of freedom of association, particularly where a group espouses dissident beliefs.'' He said that forcing private organizations to disclose their donors was not so different from forcing people with certain views to wear armbands or other clothing, advertising their beliefs to the world. In both cases, the government's action would be inviting harassment and intimidation upon Americans--those whose beliefs were either unusual or unpopular or, in today's culture of intimidation, those whose beliefs the left disagrees with. The result is, more speakers stay silent, fewer Americans choose to exercise their right of free association. It is bad enough to wield government power to chill political speech and invite harassment of citizens based on what an angry mob might assume their opinions are, based on their private financial records. It is even more egregious to pursue that nakedly political goal while calling it--believe it or not--good government. In this country, good government means protecting citizens' First Amendment rights to participate in the competition of ideas, not trying to shut down that competition. We persuade. We don't intimidate. So I welcome this announcement and applaud the leadership of Secretary Mnuchin and Acting IRS Commissioner David Kautter. I am glad this step will make the right of Americans to freely advocate for their strongly held beliefs less vulnerable to the malice of some in government and to the proven failures of bureaucracies. I urge continued vigilance for all of us who cherish the First Amendment.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, on a different matter, it is becoming a historic year for favorable economic news. There are plenty of ways to measure how American workers, job creators, and entrepreneurs are writing a new chapter. After nearly a decade of stagnating pay and vanishing opportunities, recent months have brought remarkable milestones. Optimism among American small businesses has reached its highest level since President Reagan's first term. Sixty-seven percent of Americans believe that now is a good time to find a quality job in the United States--the highest percentage in 17 years of Gallup polling. Just last month, a manufacturing industry measure reported growth in 17 out of 18 sectors, from textiles to precision technologies. It is no surprise, then, that the National Association of Manufacturers found last month that a record-high 95.1 percent of American manufacturers have a positive view of their company's outlook. What do these numbers mean to real workers on the floor of American factories? At Mack Molding, an injection molder and contract manufacturer, with locations in Statesville, NC, and Arlington, VT, it means a $5.4 million investment in facilities with preparations to hire 100 new workers. At Sabel Steel, based in Montgomery, AL, it means large pay raises for most of the company's 230 employees and new, more efficient equipment at facilities across the South. Both companies credit last year's historic tax reform law with helping make their 2018 success possible. Our Democratic colleagues can talk all they like about repealing middle-class families' and job creators' historic tax cuts and sending that money back to Washington instead, but this united Republican government is proud of the new prosperity they are building. We will not let the Democrats take away their tax cut. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, it has been less than a week since the President nominated Judge Brett Kavanaugh to serve as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. Already, praise has poured in for his legal abilities, professional accomplishments, and personal character. Some of the most interesting testimony has come from the men and women who may know better than anyone how Judge Kavanaugh approaches his work--his law clerks. You can learn a lot about a leader by asking the men and women who work for and with him. Thirty-four of his past clerks sent an open letter to Chairman Grassley and Senator Feinstein last week. Their own political and legal views are quite diverse: Our ranks include Republicans, Democrats, and Independents. But we are united in this: our admiration and fondness for Judge Kavanaugh run deep. They describe his commitment to legal excellence: We never once saw him take a shortcut, treat a case as unimportant, or search for an easy answer. Instead, in each case, large or small, he masters every detail and rereads every precedent. They also compliment the way Judge Kavanaugh conducts himself both inside and outside the courtroom. They call him ``unfailingly warm and gracious, grounded, and kind.'' They describe a ``fundamental humility.'' A subset of those clerks wrote a second letter. It was from every one of Judge Kavanaugh's female clerks whose current employments allowed them to sign it. These 18 women explain: ``We feel compelled to write separately to convey our uniformly positive experiences with the Judge as a boss on issues of gender and equality in the workplace.'' ``In our view,'' they write, ``the Judge has been one of the strongest advocates in the Federal judiciary for women lawyers.'' They explain how Judge Kavanaugh seeks out the best and brightest, how he goes above and beyond to advise and mentor all of his clerks. Judge Kavanaugh's hiring reflects, in their words, ``rare gender parity.'' Note that I did not say ``equity'' but ``parity''--25 women clerks and 23 men. In 2014, in fact, all four of Judge Kavanaugh's clerks were women--a first for a judge on the DC Circuit. There have been 84 percent of those 25 women who have gone on to Supreme Court clerkships, thanks, in large part, to Judge Kavanaugh's guidance and support. Here is how they conclude their letter: As you likely know by now, Judge Kavanaugh has two daughters, Margaret and Liza. If they decide to follow in their dad's--and grandmother's--footsteps and become lawyers, they will enter a legal profession that is fairer and more equal because of Judge Kavanaugh. We have also heard from Professor Amy Chua, who has served on Yale Law School's clerkship committee for most of the last decade. During that time, 10 Yale Law School graduates have clerked for Judge Kavanaugh, 8 of whom are women. She emailed them to ask about their experiences. As she explained in the Wall Street Journal, they lauded his work ethic, his commitment to excellence, his humility, and his decency, and ``to a person they described his extraordinary mentorship.'' One woman said: He's been an incredible mentor to me despite the fact that I am a left-of-center woman. He always takes into account my goals rather than giving me generic advice. With respect to Judge Kavanaugh's approach to deciding cases, Professor Chua pointed out that he ``actively seeks out clerks from across the ideological spectrum who will question and disagree with him'' because ``he wants to hear other perspectives before deciding a case.'' ``Above all,'' she observed, Judge Kavanaugh ``believes in the law and wants to figure out, without prejudging, what it requires.'' Again, we have already heard so many speak up to recommend this impressive nominee. In the weeks ahead, we will hear more, including from Judge Kavanaugh himself, when our colleagues on the Judiciary Committee conduct hearings on his nomination. Yet I wanted to call special attention today to the warm words of those who have worked with and for Judge Kavanaugh. They have seen firsthand just how rigorously he approaches his work as a judge and how graciously he shares his time and his talent with others. Judge Kavanaugh is certainly an impressive nominee.

Mr. McCONNELL

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