Mitch McConnell

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 436, S. Res. 386.

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported amendment be agreed to.

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I know of no further debate on the resolution.

Mr. McCONNELL. I ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported amendment to the preamble be agreed to, the preamble, as amended, be agreed to, and the motions 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, following the remarks of Senators Brown and Sasse.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10 a.m., Tuesday, July 17; 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 and resume consideration of the Blew nomination, under the previous order, and that at 11:45 a.m. all time be yielded back and the Senate then vote on confirmation of the nomination with no intervening action or debate, and 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; further, that following disposition of the Blew nomination and notwithstanding rule XXII, the cloture motions filed on Thursday, July 12 ripen; finally, that following the cloture vote on the Quarles nomination, the Senate stand in recess until 2:15 p.m. to allow for the weekly conference meetings.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, the President of the United States made a superb choice. He chose to fill a place on the Nation's highest Court with one of the Nation's brightest legal minds. Brett Kavanaugh brings unimpeachable academic credentials as a student at Yale and a lecturer at Harvard. He carries over a decade of experience ruling from the Nation's most consequential circuit court. Along the way, he has earned the admiration and praise of his peers--legal professionals with all manner of judicial and political philosophies--for his professional abilities and his experience, as well as qualities that simply go beyond his resume. Nevertheless, the instant Judge Kavanaugh was announced, far-left groups and some of our own Democratic colleagues in the Senate started pushing the same old scare tactics. More than a week before the nomination, one Democratic Senator explained on cable news that President Trump's nominee, whoever it was, would threaten ``the destruction of the Constitution, as far as I can tell.'' The President hadn't even named his selection, and already our entire system of government was on its last legs? Give me a break. This Senator, by the way, serves on the Judiciary Committee. One leftwing group had an angry press release all ready to go for whoever the nominee would be, but after Judge Kavanaugh's nomination was announced, they forgot to fill in his name. They had the press release ready with a big blank there, and they forgot to fill in the name. They wound up decrying all the terrible things that would happen if we confirmed the President's ``nomination of blank to the Supreme Court,'' and they sent it out. That kind of says it all--fill-in-the- blank opposition. Our Democratic friends have learned Judge Kavanaugh's name by now, but the hysterical attacks haven't gotten any less desperate or any more sensible. No sooner are these silly attacks launched than they are beaten back by the facts. One of the flavors of the week was the outlandish claim that in law review articles he wrote 10 or 20 years ago, Judge Kavanaugh supposedly said that sitting Presidents cannot be held accountable under the law. Some far-left special interests claimed he said that. So did some congressional Democrats. It was the perfect conspiracy theory, catnip for their far-left base. The only problem was, it wasn't true. People who have actually looked at these articles note that Judge Kavanaugh ``does not reach legal conclusions on issues'' of Presidential accountability. If anything, he seems to arrive at the opposite conclusion of what has been alleged. Professor Noah Feldman of Harvard Law School observed that ``from a legal and constitutional perspective,'' Judge Kavanaugh ``wasn't saying that the courts should find that the President shouldn't be investigated'' or held accountable; ``to the contrary.'' To the contrary. Professor Feldman observes that Judge Kavanaugh's logic would seem to imply that any President is open to being investigated and held accountable under the law. Here is how Professor Feldman finished his debunking of this unfair attack. This is what he said: ``Trying to oppose him on logically backward grounds doesn't serve anyone's interests.'' The Washington Post Fact Checker jumped on the Democrats' mischaracterization. It explained that Judge Kavanaugh's scholarly articles actually contained ``a mainstream view'' on this constitutional question. They blasted the Democratic rhetoric as ``an extreme distortion of what he has written.'' Let me sum that up. According to the Washington Post, it is Judge Kavanaugh's analysis that is mainstream. It is the distortions of his record by congressional Democrats and far-left special interest groups that are extreme. We have a word for blatantly misrepresenting the record and character of a judicial nominee in order to achieve a political objective. We call it an attempt to Bork the nominee. It refers to how Judge Robert Bork was slandered in the 1980s, when people both inside and outside the Congress blatantly and shamelessly distorted his record to claim he would do terrible things if confirmed to the Supreme Court. It is actually in the dictionary now, literally. Judge Bork's last name is in the Merriam-Webster Dictionary as a verb. This is what ``Bork'' means: ``to attack or defeat (a nominee or candidate for public office) unfairly through an organized campaign of harsh public criticism or vilification.'' To be Borked is now in the dictionary. It is completely unfair vilification. Looking back, most people agree now that this episode was grossly unfair, insulted the intelligence of the American people, and stained the history of the U.S. Senate. Jeffrey Rosen was a Democrat who worked in Senator Biden's office on the Democrats' side during that episode. Here is what he wrote a few years ago: I remember feeling that the nominee was being treated unfairly. Senator Edward Kennedy set the tone with a demagogic attack. . . . Bork's record was distorted beyond recognition. . . . It [was] bad for the country. This was a man named Jeffrey Rosen--a Democrat--who worked in Senator Biden's office during this episode. Here is what a lawyer who helped lead the anti-Bork effort wrote just last year: I regret my part in what I now regard as a terrible political mistake. He was seized with guilt after all these years of having participated in this Borking. Because of that episode, he goes on, ``we have undermined public confidence in the judiciary.'' There is widespread and bipartisan agreement that trying to Bork judicial nominees is harmful to our Democratic process and to our judiciary. Judge Kavanaugh's impressive record, impeccable credentials, and his enormous, bipartisan fan club of judicial peers and legal scholars all attest to the outstanding service he would render on the Supreme Court. I am glad that outside fact checkers are already swatting down Democrats' desperate attacks on his nomination. In a breaking-news bombshell report just last night, we learned that Judge Kavanaugh enjoys America's pastime. Investigative reporters scoured his financial disclosures and learned that he and his friends buy tickets to baseball games and that he pays his bills. As you can see, there is still plenty of silliness to go around. I urge every one of my colleagues to treat Judge Kavanaugh's record truthfully and treat the confirmation process with the respect that it and this institution in which we serve deserve. We need to act like a responsible United States Senate going through a confirmation process to the United States Supreme Court.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, on one final matter, the evidence keeps mounting that with Republicans at the helm in the White House, the House, and the Senate, the American people are enjoying what amounts to the most pro-worker, pro-opportunity economic moment in recent history. Already in 2018, the number of Americans who say it is a good time to find a quality job has risen to its highest level in at least 17 years of data on record. The jobs report released last week showed, in June, that the rate of hire throughout the United States hit an 11-year high. Interestingly, American workers voluntarily left their jobs at the highest rate in 17 years. What that means--and I would like to drill down on that point for a moment--is that during the Obama administration, we heard a great deal of talk from our Democratic friends about a phenomenon they called job lock. The idea was that many workers were trapped in jobs that did not pay enough or did not take full advantage of their skills because there weren't enough open opportunities to justify taking the leap and looking for a better position. Republicans agreed with our Democratic colleagues that we could build a better economy for middle-class workers. We just didn't think tax increases and massive new regulations were the way to do it. Now, following a year and a half of Republican policies, including historic tax reform, the voluntary quit rate has hit a 17-year high. Workers now feel free to climb up the ladder and move on to bigger and better things. I have just one more data point: This economy is thriving, and the Republicans' bold agenda is helping to make it happen.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, on another matter, while Judge Kavanaugh's nomination has filled the headlines this week, the Senate has continued to attend to important business. Yesterday, the Senate voted to proceed to conference with the House on the first three of this year's appropriations bills. I understand the conferees are planning to meet as soon as today. The day before, we voted to go to conference on this year's Defense authorization bill. Soon, we will do the same with respect to the farm bill. I am proud that we are continuing to deliver on our commitment to bring regular order back to the appropriations process, along with attending to the needs of our Armed Forces and confirming more of the President's nominees. Let's keep this momentum going. I hope the collaborative, bipartisan approach that Chairman Shelby, Senator Leahy, and our subcommittee chairmen have brought to the appropriations process will continue to characterize our progress on the floor as well. With continued hard work and steady cooperation, we can achieve our shared goal of funding our government through the regular appropriations process.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I move to proceed to executive session to consider Calendar No. 595.

Mr. McCONNELL

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

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I move to proceed to legislative session.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I move to proceed to executive session to consider Calendar No. 892.

Mr. McCONNELL

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

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I move to proceed to legislative session.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I move to proceed to executive session to consider Calendar No. 903.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I move to proceed to legislative session.

Mr. McCONNELL

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

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum calls for the cloture motions be waived.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, yesterday I had an opportunity to meet with Judge Brett Kavanaugh as we begin preparations for his confirmation process to the Supreme Court. It is really impossible not to come away impressed. Judge Kavanaugh is the real deal. He has the all-star legal resume and the top-light academic credentials. His extensive judicial record is defined by fairness, thoughtfulness, thoroughness, and analytical precision. I was already confident the President had made an outstanding choice. Now I am even more confident. My colleagues here and Americans around the country won't have to take my word for it; just look to one of Judge Kavanaugh's former professors at Yale Law School. Here is what Professor Akhil Amar wrote in the New York Times: ``It is hard to name anyone with judicial credentials as strong as those of Judge Kavanaugh.'' Current faculty at Yale Law described him as a ``true intellectual,'' ``a leading thinker,'' and ``a wonderful mentor and teacher to our students.'' Even at Harvard, his alma mater's archrival, a scholar agrees that Judge Kavanaugh is ``a generous, honorable, kind person.'' Ask the legal professionals who have clerked for him on the DC Circuit. They are in a better position than most to speak to his writing as a jurist. In a letter to our colleagues on the Judiciary Committee, 34 of them share that Judge Kavanaugh ``drafts opinions painstakingly, writing and rewriting until he is satisfied each opinion is clear and well-reasoned, and can be understood not only by lawyers but by the parties and the public.'' As the confirmation process gets underway, I have a distinct feeling this isn't the only testimony of this sort that we will be hearing. Judge Kavanaugh seems to impress everyone with whom he crosses paths-- at least those who haven't blindly announced in a fit of partisanship their opposition to this nomination before he was even named. I am glad that President Trump has made such a strong selection, and I look forward to our colleagues in the Judiciary Committee taking up this nomination. Mr. President, speaking of the personnel business, we are continuing this week to process President Trump's qualified nominees for other important positions in the judicial and executive branches. Yesterday, we confirmed the 22nd circuit court judge since January of 2017. Now we are considering Brian Benczkowski, the President's choice to serve as Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division at the Department of Justice. His resume includes distinguished service in five different leadership positions at the Department of Justice under three Attorneys General. His nomination has won praise from a number of former Justice Department officials who served under Presidents of both parties. Their letter describes this nominee as ``a tireless worker . . . a fine leader and colleague . . . honest and a straight shooter.'' I look forward to voting to confirm him later today and to continuing to confirm more of the President's team. job growth Mr. President, on one final matter, last week, the Labor Department released its monthly jobs report. As has become a pattern, it contained good news about the state of job opportunities across our country. In June alone, our economy created 213,000 new jobs, with contributions from nearly every sector. That continues a prolonged streak of strong jobs performance month after month, quarter after quarter. The pro-growth, pro-jobs policies of this united Republican government--from historic tax relief to sweeping regulatory reform--are helping unleash this wave of new opportunity and new prosperity for America's workers and middle-class families. More than 600,000 Americans entered the workforce last month alone-- another sign that the Obama-era stagnation continues to lose its grip on our communities. The rate of hiring reached its highest level in more than a decade. Here is another promising sign: the rate at which Americans are quitting their jobs voluntarily. Economists tell us this is an important sign of a healthy job market because it indicates workers are moving upward, seeking better pay or superior benefits at a different employer. That number just hit its highest level in more than 17 years. More jobs; more opportunities; more Americans coming off of the sidelines and getting back into the workforce; more Americans moving up the ladder to bigger and better things and opening up their current positions for other jobseekers at the same time--helping to produce conditions like these is what Republicans had in mind when we chipped away at the regulatory rust that kept American job creators from doing what they do best. That is what we had in mind when we used the Congressional Review Act a record 16 times to relieve bureaucratic bloat that had forced job creators and entrepreneurs to cut back or close up shop. That is what we had in mind when we overhauled our Tax Code so it better rewards workers and more strongly encourages job creators to deepen their roots in American soil. Republicans are proud of this thriving job market, and we are proud that our policies are playing a part in making it happen.

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.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10 a.m. on Thursday, July 12; 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 proceed to executive session and resume consideration of the Ney nomination; finally, that notwithstanding rule XXII, all postcloture time on the nomination expire at 1:30 p.m.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. 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 Senators Rubio and Merkley.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, President Trump has made a superb selection to serve as Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States: Judge Brett Kavanaugh of the DC Circuit. Judge Kavanaugh possesses an impressive resume, an outstanding legal mind, and an exemplary judicial temperament. He has served 12 years on the Nation's most consequential circuit court. During that tenure, he has proven to be one of the most thorough and thoughtful jurists in our country. Importantly, that record demonstrates an understanding of a judge's proper role in our constitutional Republic. Judge Kavanaugh understands that in the United States of America judges are not--not--unelected superlegislators whom we select for their personal views or policy preferences. A judge's duty is to interpret the plain meaning of our laws and our Constitution according to how they are written. Judges need to be unbiased. They need to treat all parties fairly. They need to approach every case with open ears and an open mind. Judges' decisions must turn on the facts of each case and be based on the texts that it is their job to interpret. By all accounts, Judge Kavanaugh is precisely that kind of judge. His resume, to put it simply, is topnotch: a bachelor's degree from Yale, with honors; a law degree, also from Yale, where he was a member of the law review; a lecturing position at Harvard Law School, to which he was appointed, by the way, by then-Dean and now-Justice Elena Kagan. After graduating, he quickly built a reputation as a star law clerk, including on the Supreme Court, for Justice Kennedy; as an energetic and talented public servant; and as one of the preeminent legal minds of his generation. In 2006, the Senate confirmed him to the DC Circuit. He has compiled an extensive record on the Federal bench. He has published more than 300 opinions and has earned considerable praise for his clear writing and reasoning. Judge Kavanaugh has built a long and distinguished record. It paints a clear picture of how he would conduct himself as a member of the Nation's highest Court. It reflects a firm understanding that judges must interpret laws as they are written. We do not choose them to make policy, to pick favorites, or to craft novel legislation from the bench. Some of our colleagues--and others on the left--seem to see the role of judges very differently. President Obama summed up this alternate view well when he was running for President. He explained that he sought to appoint judges who harbored particular empathy for certain parties in certain cases. That is great if you happen to be the party in the case whom the judge likes. It is not so great if you are the other guy. It doesn't align with our Nation's historical understanding of the rule of law or the role that Federal courts play in our democracy. I respectfully submit that, then and now, some of our Democratic colleagues seem to be a little confused. They seem to be confusing the nature of a political office with the nature of a judicial office. This would explain why some of our colleagues sound eager to try and turn judicial confirmations into something like political elections--to grill Judge Kavanaugh on policy outcomes, like voters rightly grill all of us when we run for our seats in the Senate. Some Democratic Senators have telegraphed that they will heed the demands of the far-left special interest groups and try to force Judge Kavanaugh to commit under oath to decisions he might make on particular issues in hypothetical cases. Forget that the cases don't even exist yet. Forget the total absence of any facts, legal arguments, or research. Forget how inappropriate and undesirable it would be for a judge to predetermine a ruling before either side's lawyers uttered a single word. That is simply not how this process has ever worked or ever could work. I am not the one saying this. Here is what a prior Supreme Court nominee said on this very subject: ``A judge sworn to decide impartially can offer no forecasts, no hints, for that would show not only disregard for the specifics of the particular case, it would display disdain for the entire judicial process.'' Those are the words of another then-DC Circuit Court judge and current Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg during her Senate confirmation to the Supreme Court in 1993. I think we all should remember that standard. We will do well to remember that we are evaluating a judge, not debating a candidate for political office. Even more regrettably, a number of our Democratic colleagues could not even wait until the President's announcement last night before launching attacks on his nominee. This was, in some cases, quite literally a fill-in-the-blank opposition. They wrote statements of opposition only to fill in the name later. Sadly, this is not a new approach for the far-left special interest groups. Just last year, Justice Gorsuch met with partisan opposition before the ink was even dry on his nomination. I am sorry to say that Judge Kavanaugh seems to have already broken that record, because Senate Democrats were on record opposing him before he had even been named--just fill in the name, whomever it is we are against--before the ink was even dry on Justice Kennedy's resignation. This is a telltale sign that some of our colleagues are throwing thoughtful independent judgment out the window and are outsourcing their thinking on this matter to far-left special interest groups. There has been a lot of talk about outsourcing here. If anybody is outsourcing, it is the Democrats outsourcing what they say to these outside groups that are demanding opposition to anyone at all costs, no matter who it is. As I discussed on the floor yesterday, we know exactly what this partisan playbook looks like. It has been hauled out for most everyone who a Republican President has nominated to the Supreme Court for the last 40 years. It is like clockwork. I fully anticipate that we will hear all kinds of fantastic stories about the pain and suffering that this perfectly qualified, widely respected judge will somehow unleash on America if we confirm him to the Court. That kind of cheap, political fearmongering insults the intelligence of the American people because Americans understand the difference between a political office and a judicial office. They understand the difference between the policymakers who throw pitches and the judges who call balls and strikes. I look forward to the Senate's fair consideration of this most impressive nomination. I look forward to meeting with Judge Kavanaugh later this morning, to hearing his testimony in committee, and to voting on his confirmation right here on the Senate floor.

Mr. McCONNELL

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