Mitch McConnell

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I move to proceed to executive session to consider Calendar No. 863.

Mr. McCONNELL

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

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 11 a.m. on Thursday, November 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 Cannon nomination; further, that notwithstanding rule XXII, Wednesday, November 11 count as the intervening day for the cloture motion filed during today's session; further, that notwithstanding rule XXII, if cloture is invoked, the Senate vote on confirmation of the Cannon nomination at 1:45 p.m. on Thursday; finally, 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, 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, last week record numbers of Americans exercised the right which generations risked everything to hand on to us. I want to spend a few minutes this morning talking about what we saw last week, where we are now, and where our great country will go from here. There is one aspect of last week that has gotten lost that I want to single out right at the start. By every indication, the 2020 election appears to be have been free from meaningful foreign interference. There is no suggestion that our foreign adversaries were allowed to undermine the integrity of our process. According to the Director of the Cyber Security and Infrastructure Security Administration, ``we have no''--no--``evidence any foreign adversary was capable of preventing Americans from voting or changing vote tallies.'' GEN Paul Nakasone, the head of the NSA and U.S. Cyber Command reported Tuesday night, ``The actions we have taken against adversaries . . . have ensured they're not going to interfere in our elections.'' The Trump administration and the Senate spent 4 years supporting the State and local election authorities on the frontlines: new tools and information-sharing partnerships; unprecedented coordination; hundreds of millions in new funding; new, painful consequences for bad actors, like Russia, if they interfere. The absence of any reports of foreign interference is a ringing endorsement--a ringing endorsement--of our bipartisan work, and it slams the door on the embarrassing, irresponsible rhetoric that some Washington Democrats spent 4 years broadcasting. Too many voices tried to talk down our progress, urged Americans actually not to have confidence, and smeared anyone as unpatriotic who opposed far-left proposals to rewrite election laws. Well, the people who pushed this hysteria could not have more egg on their face than they do right now. None of their demands became law-- none of them. The Speaker of the House did not get to personally rewrite election law. And yet, because of the sensible, bipartisan steps that some of us championed, our defenses and countermeasures proved to be in radically better shape than back in 2016. So let's talk about where we are now. According to preliminary results, voters across the Nation elected and reelected Republican Senators to a degree that actually stunned prognosticators. Likewise, the American people seemed to have reacted to House Democrats' radicalism and obstruction by shrinking the Speaker's majority and electing more Republicans. And then there is the Presidential race. Obviously, no States have yet certified their election results. We have at least one or two States that are already on track for a recount, and I believe the President may have legal challenges underway in at least five States. The core principle here is not complicated. In the United States of America, all legal ballots must be counted, any illegal ballots must not be counted, the process should be transparent or observable by all sides, and the courts are here to work through concerns. Our institutions are actually built for this. We have the system in place to consider concerns, and President Trump is 100 percent within his rights to look into allegations of irregularities and weigh his legal options. Let's go back 20 years ago. Twenty years ago, when Florida came down to a very thin margin, we saw Vice President Gore exhaust the legal system and wait to concede until December. More recently, weeks after the media had ``called'' President Bush's reelection in 2004, Democrats baselessly disputed Ohio's electors and delayed the process here in Congress. In 2016 election laws saw recounts or legal challenges in several States. If any major irregularities occurred this time of a magnitude that would affect the outcome, then every single American should want them to be brought to light. And if the Democrats feel confident they have not occurred, they should have no reason to fear any extra scrutiny. We have the tools and institutions we need to address any concerns. The President has every right to look into allegations and to request recounts under the law, and, notably, the Constitution gives no role in this process to wealthy media corporations. The projections and commentary of the press do not get veto power over the legal rights of any citizen, including the President of the United States. Now, more broadly, let's not have any lectures--no lectures--about how the President should immediately, cheerfully accept preliminary election results, from the same characters who just spent 4 years refusing to accept the validity of the last election, and who insinuated that this one would be illegitimate too, if they lost again--only if they lost. So let's have no lectures on this subject from that contingent. In late August, Secretary Hillary Clinton said: ``Joe Biden should not concede under any circumstances . . . I think this is going to drag out, and . . . he will win it if we don't give an inch.'' That same month, Speaker Pelosi and the Democratic leader both stated: ``[President Trump] needs to cheat to win.'' In October, when Speaker Pelosi was shopping some conspiracy theory about the Postal Service, she recklessly said--listen to this: ``I have no doubt that the president . . . will lie, cheat, and steal, to win this election.'' Now, does this sound like the chorus that has any credibility whatsoever to say a few legal challenges from President Trump represent some kind of crisis? At this time last week, small business owners in cities across America were boarding up their windows in case President Trump appeared to win and far-left mobs decided to reprise their summer rioting. Suffice it to say, a few legal inquiries from the President do not exactly spell the end of the Republic. Here is how two professors from Fordham Law School and New York Law School put it: ``For centuries, we have asked people who are unhappy with their fellow citizens or government agencies and institutions to bring their claims to court.'' President Trump's is ``a traditional response that affirms rather than undermines American institutions.'' This process will reach its resolution. Our system will resolve any recounts or litigation. In January, the winner of this election will place his hand on a Bible, just like it has happened every 4 years since 1793. What we know for sure is that the outcome is guaranteed to delight tens of millions of Americans and disappoint tens of millions of Americans. But we also know that we will wake up on January 21, still blessed to live in the greatest Nation the world has ever seen. And in no small part, that is because we respect the rule of law, we trust our institutions, and neither of those things is outweighed by pronouncements from partisans or the press.

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, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 12 noon, Tuesday, November 10; further, following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day and morning business be closed; further, following leader remarks, the Senate proceed to executive session and resume consideration of the Knepp nomination and recess until 2:15 p.m. to allow for the weekly conference meetings. Finally, notwithstanding rule XXII, the Senate vote on confirmation of the nomination at 2:15 p.m. and, 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. 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. Madam President, I understand there are three bills at the desk due for a second reading en bloc.

Mr. McCONNELL. In order to place the bills on the calendar under the provisions of rule XIV, I object to further proceeding en bloc.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I think my remarks may encroach somewhat on the time previously set for beginning the vote. I ask consent that I be allowed to finish.

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, this evening the Senate will render one of the most consequential judgments it can ever deliver. We will approve a lifetime appointment to our Nation's highest Court. Since the ink dried on the Constitution, only 114 men and women have been entrusted to uphold the separation of powers, protect people's rights, and dispense impartial justice on the Supreme Court. In a few minutes, Judge Amy Coney Barrett of Indiana will join their ranks. This body has spent weeks studying the nominee's record. We have examined 15 years of scholarly writings, about 100 opinions from the Seventh Circuit, and testimonials from legal experts running the gamut from close colleagues to total strangers. There have been one-on-one meetings for every Senator who wanted one and a week of intensive hearings. All of it--all of it--has pointed to one conclusion: This is one of the most brilliant, admired, and well- qualified nominees in our lifetime. Intellectually, Judge Barrett is an absolute all-star. She graduated No. 1 in her class at Notre Dame Law School. She clerked on the second highest Federal court and the Supreme Court. Then she returned to her alma mater and became an award-winning academic. Judge Barrett's mastery of the Constitution gives her a firm grasp on the judicial role. She has pledged to ``apply the law as written, not as she wishes it were.'' Her testimony, her writings, and her reputation confirm a total and complete commitment to impartiality, and the nominee's personal integrity and strength of character are literally beyond reproach. She earned the highest rating from the left-leaning American Bar Association. They marveled at the ``breadth, diversity, and strength of the positive feedback [they] received from judges and lawyers of all political persuasions.'' If confirmed, this daughter of Louisiana and Indiana will become the only current Justice with a law degree from any school not named Harvard or Yale--any school not named Harvard or Yale. She will be the first mother of school-aged children to ever sit on the Court. By every account, the Supreme Court is getting not just a talented lawyer but a fantastic person. We have heard moving testimony from former students whom Judge Barrett went out of her way to help and to mentor. Her past clerks describe an exemplary boss. Her fellow scholars describe a winsome, respectful colleague who is tailor-made for the collaborative atmosphere of the Court. By any objective standard, colleagues, Judge Barrett deserves to be confirmed to the Supreme Court. The American people agree. In just a few minutes, she will be on the Supreme Court. Two weeks ago, a CNN journalist made this observation that I found particularly interesting. This is what he said: ``Let's be honest . . . in another [political] age . . . Judge Amy Coney Barrett would be getting 70 votes or more in the United States Senate . . . because of her qualifications''--in a different era. Now, we know that is not going to happen. These are not the days when Justice Scalia was confirmed 98 to 0 and Justice Ginsburg was confirmed 96 to 3. By the way, I voted for both Ginsburg and Breyer. It seems like a long time ago now. We spent a lot of energy in recent weeks debating this matter. I think we can all acknowledge that both sides in the Senate have sort of parallel oral histories about the last 30 or so years. Each side feels the other side struck first and struck worst and has done more to electrify the atmosphere around here about confirmations. Now, predictably enough, I think our account is based on what actually happened, what actually occurred--factually accurate. I was there. I know what happened. I had laid it out earlier, and I will talk about some of it again so the people may understand how we got to where we are. It was the Senate Democrats--our colleagues over here, who amazingly enough don't seem to be on the floor at the moment--who spent the early 2000s boasting about their brand-new strategy of filibustering qualified nominees from a Republican President. They were proud of it. They found a new way to halt the process, stop those crazy rightwing judges that Bush 43 was going to send up. They pioneered it because they knew what the precedent was at that point. At that point, as we discussed before, it just wasn't done. You could do it--you could--but you didn't. The best evidence that you shouldn't do it was the Clarence Thomas nomination, confirmed 52 to 48. All of us know that any one of us in this body has a lot of power to object. If any one of the 100 Senators at that time, including people who were vehemently opposed to Justice Thomas--like Joe Biden and Ted Kennedy--could have made us get to 60 votes and Thomas Clarence would not have been on the Supreme Court. That is how strong the tradition was, until the Democratic leader led the effort in the early 2000s to establish the new standard. Well, after establishing the new standard, they got kind of weary of it. In 2013, the so-called nuclear option was implemented because Republicans were holding President Obama's nominees to the same standard that they, themselves, had created. When the shoe got on the other foot, they didn't like it too much. It was too tight. Senate Democrats, both in 1992 and 2007, helpfully volunteered how they would have dealt with a nominee like we did in 2016. The then- chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Joe Biden, helpfully volunteered in 1992 when Bush 41 was running for reelection that, had a vacancy occurred, they wouldn't fill it. There wasn't a vacancy, but he helpfully volunteered how they would deal with it if they had one. ``If there is a vacancy, we won't fill it.'' Well, to one-up him, Leader Harry Reid and his friend--now the Democratic leader--Chuck Schumer said: 18 months--18 months--before the end of the Bush 43 period, if a vacancy on the Supreme Court occurred, they wouldn't fill it. That is a fact. What we are talking about here are the facts about how we got to where we are. I understand my Democratic friends seem to be terribly persuaded by their version of all of this. All I can tell you is, I was there, I know what happened, and my version is totally accurate. The truth is, on all of this, we owe the country a broader discussion. Competing claims about Senate customs cannot fully explain where we are. Procedural finger-pointing does not explain the torrent of outrage and threats which this nomination and many previous ones had provoked from the political left. There are deeper reasons why these loud voices insist it is a national crisis. You just heard it: It is a national crisis when a Republican President makes a nominee for the Supreme Court. Catastrophe looms right around the corner. The country will be fundamentally changed forever when a Republican President makes a Supreme Court nomination. They have hauled out the very same tactics for 50 years. Some of the opposition is more intense, but the doomsday predictions about the outcome of nominating these extremists like John Paul Stephens, David Souter--I mean, the country was hanging in the balance. Really? Well, somehow, everyone knows in advance that nominations like Bork, Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett are certain to whip up national frenzies, while nominations like Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan are just calm events by comparison. This glaring asymmetry predates our recent disputes. It comes, my colleagues, from a fundamental disagreement on the role of a judge in our Republic. We just have a fundamental difference of opinion. We just heard the Democratic leader name all of these things that are threatened by this nominee. It sounds very similar to the tunes we have heard before. We, like many Americans, want judges to fulfill the limited role the Constitution assigns to them: stick to text, resolve cases impartially, and leave policymaking to the people and their representatives, which is what we do here. We just spent 4 years confirming brilliant, qualified constitutionalists to the Supreme Court and lower courts who understand their roles--53 circuit judges, over 200 judges in total--and we are about to confirm the third Supreme Court Justice--what they all have in common: brilliant, smart, and know what a judge is supposed to be. The left thinks the Framers of our country got this all wrong. They botched the job--the people who wrote the Constitution, they didn't understand what a judge ought to be. Several Senate Democrats have reaffirmed in recent days during this discussion that they actually find it quaint or naive to think the judge would simply follow the law. Quaint or naive? Scalia used to say: If you want to make policy, why don't you run for office? That is not what we do here. Gorsuch said: We don't wear red robes or blue robes, we wear black robes. What they want is activist judges. They have made it quite clear. The Democratic leader just a few minutes ago made it quite clear: What they are looking for here is a small panel of lawyers with elite educations to reason backward from outcomes and enlighten all of the rest of us with their moral and political judgment, whether the Constitution speaks to the issue or not. They know what is best for us, no matter what the Constitution or the law may say. For the last several decades in many cases, that is what they have done--one activist decision after another, giving the subjective preferences of one side the force of law. Across a wide variety of social, moral, and policy matters like a healthy society would lead to democratic debate, the personal opinion of judges have superseded the will of the people. They call that a success, and they want more of it. President Obama actually was refreshingly honest about this. He said he wanted to appoint judges who had empathy. Well, think about that for a minute, colleagues. What if you are the litigant before the judge for whom the judge does not have empathy? You are in tough shape. You are in tough shape. So you give him credit for being pretty honest about this. That is what they are looking for--the smartest, leftish people they can put to make all the decisions for the rest of us, rather than leaving it to the messy democratic process to sort these things out, the way the Framers intended. It is clearly why we have taken on such an outsized, combative atmosphere with regard to these confirmations. That is why they have become so contentious, because they want to control not only the legislative body but the judicial decisions as well. Let me just say this. There is nothing innate about legal training that equips people to be moral philosophers. There is just nothing inherent in legal training that equips people to be moral philosophers. Incidentally, as I just said, that is why these confirmations have taken on such an outsized, unhealthy significance. The remarks we just heard from across the aisle show exactly why the Framers wanted to stop the courts from becoming clumsy, indirect battlefields for subjective debates that belong in this Chamber and over in the House and in State legislatures around the country. The left does not rage and panic at every constitutional judge because they will simply enact our party's policy preferences. Any number of recent rulings make that very clear. The problem that every judicial seat occupied by a constitutionalist is one fewer opportunity for the left to go on offense. At the end of the day, this is a valid debate. The difference of opinion on the judicial role is something the Senate and our system are built to handle. But there is something else, colleagues, our system cannot bear. As you heard tonight, we now have one political faction essentially claiming they now see legitimate defeat as an oxymoron. They now see legitimate defeat as an oxymoron. Our colleagues cannot point to a single Senate rule that has been broken--not one. They made one false claim about committee procedure, which the Parliamentarian dismissed. The process comports entirely with the Constitution. We don't have any doubt, do we, that if the shoe was on the other foot, they would be confirming this nominee? Have no doubt, if the shoe was on the other foot in 2016, they would have done the same thing. Why? Because they had the elections that made those decisions possible. The reason we were able to make the decision we did in 2016 is because we had become the majority in 2014. The reason we were able to do what we did in 2016, 2018, and 2020 is because we had the majority. No rules were broken whatsoever. All of these outlandish claims are utterly absurd. The louder they scream, the more inaccurate they are. You can always tell--just check the decibel level on the other side. The higher it goes up, the less accurate they are. Our Democratic colleagues keep repeating the word ``illegitimate'' as if repetition would make it true. If you just say it often enough, does it make it true? I don't think so. We are a constitutional Republic. Legitimacy does not flow from their feelings. Legitimacy is not the result of how they feel about it. You can't win them all. Elections have consequences. What this administration and this Republican Senate has done is exercise the power that was given to us by the American people in a manner that is entirely within the rules of the Senate and the Constitution of the United States. Irony, indeed. Think about how many times our Democratic friends have said--berating President Trump for allegedly refusing to accept legitimate outcomes he does not like. How many times have we heard that: President Trump won't accept outcomes he does not like. They are flunking that very test right before our eyes. That is their problem. They don't like the outcome. Well, the reason this outcome came about is because we had a series of successful elections. One of our two major political parties increasingly claims that any--any political system that deals them a setback is somehow illegitimate. And this started actually long before this vacancy, as we all know. One year ago, Senate Democrats sent the Court--the Court, directly, an amicus brief that read like a note from a gangster film. They wrote: ``The Supreme Court is not well'' in their amicus brief. ``The Supreme Court is not well. . . . Perhaps the Court can heal itself [heal itself] before the public demands it be `restructured.' '' In March of this year, the Democratic leader stood outside the Court. He went over in front of the Court and threatened multiple Justices by name. Here is what he said: ``You won't know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.'' ``You will pay the price!'' That is the Democratic leader of the Senate in front of the Supreme Court mentioning Justices by name and, in effect, saying: If you rule the wrong way, bad things are going to happen. For multiple years now, Democrats in this body and on the Presidential campaign stump have sought to revive the discredited concept of Court packing. Every high school student in America learns about Franklin Roosevelt's unprincipled assault on judicial independence, so now they are thinking about repeating it. Former Vice President Biden, who spent decades condemning the idea here in the Senate, obediently says he will look into it. Most importantly, the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg said last year, when asked about this, she said nine is the right number. That is the vacancy we are filling right now. I don't think any of them quoted her on this issue, have they? Ruth Bader Ginsburg said nine is the right number. These latest threats follow decades of subtler attempts to take independent judges and essentially put them on political probation: You don't rule the way I want, something dire might happen. How many consecutive nominees have Democrats and the media insisted would ``tip the balance'' of the Court? How often do we hear that-- ``tip the balance'' of the Court? Has anyone tallied up how many ``hard right turns'' the courts have supposedly taken in our lifetimes? All this ominous talk is a transparent attempt to apply improper pressure to impartial judges. Rule how we want or we are coming after the Court. Rule how we want or we are coming after the Court. Vote how we want or we will destroy the Senate by adding new States. These have been the Democratic demands. This is not about separation of powers. It is a hostage situation--a hostage situation. Elections come and go. Political power is never permanent. But the consequences could be cataclysmic if our colleagues across the aisle let partisan passion boil over and scorch--scorch the ground rules of our government. The Framers built the Senate to be the Nation's firewall. Over and over, this institution--our institution--has stood up to stop recklessness that could have damaged our country forever. So tonight, colleagues, we are called on to do that again. Tonight, we can place a woman of unparalleled ability and temperament on the Supreme Court. We can take another historic step toward a Judiciary that fulfills its role with excellence but does not grasp after power that our constitutional system intentionally assigns somewhere else. And we can state loud and clear that the U.S. Senate does not bow to intemperate threats. Voting to confirm this nominee should make every single Senator proud. So I urge my colleagues to do just that.

Mr. McCONNELL. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I move to proceed to executive session to consider Calendar No. 865.

Mr. McCONNELL

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

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Executive Calendar Nos. 744 and 896 through 902 and all nominations on the Secretary's desk in the Air Force, Army, and Navy and that the nominations be confirmed. I further ask unanimous consent that for all nominations confirmed during today's session of the Senate, that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum call be waived.

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

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

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

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, the Commonwealth of Kentucky is home to several marvels of engineering. These feats of concrete and metal have brought prosperity and opportunity to tens of thousands of Kentucky families. Earlier this month, we recognized the 75th anniversary of one of these landmarks, the Kentucky Lock and Dam. For three-quarters of a century, this massive structure has delivered electricity, commerce, and jobs to West Kentucky. I would like to take a moment to congratulate this community for brilliantly taking advantage of its geography to improve the quality of life for generations. In October 1945, a crowd of roughly 20,000 gathered for a glimpse of the first U.S. President to ever visit Marshall County and the mammoth construction project he came to dedicate. Although President Truman's visit was only temporary, the Kentucky Lock and Dam's rural electrification marked a turning point that has lasted for decades. It began as plans drawn in a humble patch of dirt by local businessman Luther Draffen and engineers from the Tennessee Valley Authority. Luther envisioned a lock and dam system that, for the first time, would bring electricity to much of Marshall County and the Jackson Purchase region. He relentlessly pushed for the investment and construction of the project to improve flood control, enhance the flow of commercial traffic, and power the region's future. Luther made some influential allies along the way, including Senator Alben Barkley, who began his political career a few miles down the road in Paducah. Barkley was elected Senate majority leader in 1937 and, with his new clout, secured the first appropriation for the Kentucky Lock and Dam's construction the next year. Today, the dam creates the largest water reservoir in the eastern United States. In my career, I have had my own opportunities to deliver for the families who depend on the Kentucky Lock and Dam. As its waterway traffic increased, I led the authorization for the construction of a new and larger lock. Since then, I have directed over $600 million to the project through the Appropriations Committee, investing in Kentucky's 20,000 maritime workers and their future. As work continues on the lock, I will always continue to support this project and the Kentuckians it serves. Just up the river, we celebrated the ribbon cutting of a similar project at the Olmsted Locks and Dam in 2018. Over the course of three decades, the Olmsted became one of the largest civil works projects in U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' history. Today, it sees more commercial traffic than any other inland waterway location within the United States. From its authorization through completion, I was working in the Senate to ensure the project received necessary funding for the families who depend on it. So I am proud to join this community in marking the 75th anniversary of the Kentucky Lock and Dam and its transformative impact on this region. I look forward to the completion of the new lock project to continue its great benefits for years to come. Bobbie Foust, a columnist for the Marshall County Tribune-Courier, attended the dedication of Kentucky Lock and Dam in 1945. She recently wrote an incredible article about its historic impact, and I ask unanimous consent the article be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding the upcoming adjournment of the Senate, the President of the Senate, the President pro tempore, and the majority and minority leaders be authorized to make appointments to commissions, committees, boards, conferences, or interparliamentary conferences authorized by law, by concurrent action of the two Houses, or by order of the Senate.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, let me begin this afternoon with the following quote: [F]ew men in . . . society . . . will have sufficient skill in the laws to qualify them for the stations of judges. And . . . the number must still be still smaller of those who unite the requisite integrity with the requisite knowledge. That was Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 78. The Framers knew the independent judiciary would be a crucial part of this new experiment in self-government. If the separation of powers were to endure and the people's rights were to be safe, we would need individuals of the highest quality on the courts. So how fortunate for our country that the Senate just advanced one of the most qualified nominees to judicial service that we have seen in our lifetimes. Judge Amy Coney Barrett of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit is a stellar nominee in every single respect. Her intellectual brilliance is unquestioned. Her command of the law is remarkable. Her integrity is above reproach. First, as an award-winning academic and then as a circuit judge, she has worked her way up to the pinnacle of the law. But just as importantly, Judge Barrett has displayed zero willingness to impose personal views or clumsily craft new policy with her gavel. She has demonstrated the judicial humility, the neutrality, and the commitment to our written Constitution that are essential for this office. By now, as tends to happen by the end of these processes, the Senate knows Judge Barrett very well. Senators saw the Judiciary Committee put the nominee through her paces with days of exhaustive questioning. We have been able to study nearly 100 opinions she has issued in 3 years on the Federal bench. We have had another opportunity to examine the 15 years of scholarly writings that most of us reviewed 3 years ago when Judge Barrett won bipartisan confirmation to her current job. And we have been deluged by personal testimonies from every corner of Judge Barrett's career and life to confirm just what a remarkable person this nominee is. One of Judge Barrett's former colleagues at Notre Dame is a leading expert in comparative constitutional law. That means he studies the courts and constitutions of countries all around the world. He meets judges from across the planet. Here is what this expert says about his colleague: ``I have had very many occasions to meet, observe, and work with high court judges from all over the world, from Argentina to Austria, from South Africa to South Korea . . . [and] I can say with great certainty that Judge Barrett stands out, on a par in her abilities with the most distinguished'' of them all. He goes on to say her legal work is ``as erudite as it [is] clear and accessible,'' and ``as honest and fair- minded . . . as anyone could aspire to, with not a hint of personal bias.'' Now, most of us would be thrilled to receive such praise once or twice in an entire career--in an entire career--but Judge Barrett seems to provoke this reaction in absolutely everyone. The highest professional compliments seem to be the default reaction of anybody who crosses her path, anybody who comes into contact with her. Eighty-one of her law school classmates from ``diverse backgrounds, political affiliations, and philosophies'' say the nominee embodies ``the highest caliber of intellect . . . fair-mindedness, empathy, integrity, humility, good humor, and commitment to justice.'' They also said: ``As fellow students, we often learned more from Amy than the professor.'' Three years ago, more than 70 fellow scholars wrote the Senate, calling her scholarship ``careful,'' ``rigorous [and] fair-minded.'' They said her ``personal integrity'' earns wide respect. Listen to this. Every one of the Supreme Court alumni who clerked alongside Judge Barrett wrote us to share their ``unanimous'' view that she is a ``woman of remarkable intellect and character.'' That means, colleagues, those were the clerks to Ginsburg and the clerks to Breyer as well--all of them, without exception. How did that clerkship come about? It came about, by the way, after one of her professors, who is now a university president, wrote Justice Scalia with one sentence: ``Amy Coney Barrett is the best student I ever had.'' But before she clerked for the Supreme Court, she clerked for Laurence Silberman over on the DC Circuit, who, by his own admission, is an Ivy League snob. He got a call one day from a professor at Notre Dame, and he said: ``I know you only take clerks from mostly Harvard and Yale, but this is the best student I ever had at Notre Dame.'' So this Ivy League snob decided to take a chance on somebody who didn't go to Harvard or Yale. That was Amy Coney Barrett. And then he called his good friend Nino Scalia and said: ``Goodness, gracious, you don't want to miss this opportunity to have this clerk.'' So we have here a uniquely qualified person, and the best evidence of it is you don't hear anything over there about her qualifications; not a peep about her talent, her intellect. We have, colleagues, the perfect nominee for the Supreme Court. A few weeks ago, Harvard Law Professor Noah Feldman, who leans left, wrote that Judge Barrett is ``a brilliant and conscientious lawyer who will analyze and decide cases in good faith.'' He said she ``meets and exceeds'' the ``basic criteria for being a good Justice.'' So, as I was saying, no matter all the acrimony that has swirled around the process, nobody has attempted to dispute Judge Barrett's qualifications. To the contrary, no one can help being impressed. At one point during Judge Barrett's hearing, she was asked about an arcane legal doctrine. Her answer was so clear and so accessible that one of our Democratic colleagues--I won't name him; I don't want to get him in trouble--had to remark: ``That's quite a definition. I'm really impressed.'' Well, so are the American people. Some opponents of this nomination come right out and say ``It is not about qualifications.'' They deserve some credit for being honest about it. They say they aren't interested in whether Judge Barrett will smartly and faithfully apply our laws and our Constitution. They aren't interested in that. Instead, they want to make apocalyptic predictions about policy. Well, there are a few problems with that. One is that their political side has been shopping the same horror stories for 50 years. They have been saying the same thing for half a century about every Supreme Court nominee by a Republican President, without exception. Many of those judges--not to the delight of some people on this side of the aisle-- went on to not disappoint the other side, which shows you how hard it is to predict what someone will be for life. Many have been surprised, some unpleasantly. It is almost as if jurists are not politicians with policy platforms. It is almost as though that is the wrong way to look at it. That is a deeper misunderstanding of what is at play here. Let me quote an expert: ``A judge must apply the law as written, not as she wishes it were.'' Scalia used to put it this way. He would say: If you want to make policy, why don't you run for office? That is not what we do here. That is not our job. It takes a good deal of discipline to squeeze your personal opinion out of your decision-making. Those are the kinds of judges we have been confirming here for the last 4 years--people who are sworn to uphold the law and take it seriously. President Obama once said he wanted to appoint judges who had empathy. Think about it for a minute. If you are the litigant for whom the judge has empathy, you are probably in pretty good shape. But what if you aren't? That is not what we have been doing here for the last 4 years with the judiciary. The reason that frightens these guys on the other side so much is because that is exactly what they want--another branch of legislators seeking outcomes that may or may not be reflected in the law or the Constitution that is before them. That is exactly what they want. Courts have a vital responsibility to enforce the rule of law, which is critical to a free society, but the policy decisions and value judgments of the government must be made by the political branches elected by and accountable to the people. The public should not expect courts to do so, and courts should not try--shouldn't try. Now, who said that? That was Amy Barrett who said that. She understands the separation of powers far more keenly than her critics. She understands the job of a judge. Our Democratic colleagues should not have tried to filibuster this exceptional nominee. They should have listened and actually learned. I loved during the hearing when Senator Cornyn said: What do you have on your notepad? She held it up. Nothing. Nothing. No notes at all. We have a few former Supreme Court clerks on that committee: Senator Cruz, Senator Hawley. I have heard them say over and over--oh, three. Mike. Sorry. Three. So they have been around the best, at the highest level. Nobody has seen anything better than this. This is something to really be proud of and feel good about. We made an important contribution to the future of this country. A lot of what we have done over the last 4 years will be undone sooner or later by the next election. They won't be able to do much about this for a long time to come. Fortunately for Judge Barrett and for our Nation, history will remember what is already clear: The deficiency is with their judgment, not hers--their judgment, not hers. The Senate is doing the right thing. We are moving this nomination forward, and, colleagues, by tomorrow night we will have a new member of the U.S. Supreme Court I yield the floor.

Mr. McCONNELL

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

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn to then convene for pro forma sessions only, with no business being conducted on the following dates and times and that following each pro forma session, the Senate adjourn until the next pro forma session: Tuesday, October 27, at 11:30 a.m.; Friday, October 30, at 12 p.m.; Tuesday, November 3, at 10:15 a.m.; Friday, November 6, at 10 a.m. I further ask that when the Senate adjourns on Friday, November 6, it next convene at 3 p.m., Monday, November 9, 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, and morning business be closed; further, that following leader remarks, the Senate proceed to executive session to resume the Knepp nomination; finally, that notwithstanding rule XXII, the cloture motion filed during today's session ripen at 5:30 p.m.