Mitch McConnell

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, yesterday, the Senate took the first step toward concluding our consideration of Judge Amy Coney Barrett's nomination to the Supreme Court. The judge is one of the most brilliant, admired, and impressive nominees for any public office in a generation. Tomorrow, we will vote on advancing her nomination toward final confirmation on Monday. Our recent debates have been heated, but, curiously, talk of Judge Barrett's actual credentials or qualifications has hardly featured in it. The Democratic leader summarized his view yesterday: ``It's not about qualifications''--his words. Instead, our Democratic colleagues have tried to claim the Senate's process itself is not legitimate. These claims are supposed to lay groundwork for radical, institution-wrecking changes down the road. But, of course, they are not true. We live in a constitutional Republic. The legitimacy of an outcome does not depend on the feelings it provokes in politicians. Let me say that again: The legitimacy of an outcome does not depend on the feelings it provokes in politicians. Legitimacy comes from precedence, rules, and, ultimately, the Constitution. Let's restate a few facts for posterity. No. 1, there is no inconsistency between the Republican Senate's decision in 2016 and our decision to confirm Judge Barrett this year. Here is what I said in my very first floor speech following the death of Justice Scalia: ``The Senate has not filled a vacancy arising in an election year when there was divided government since 1888, almost 130 years ago''--not setting some new precedent, just stating a fact. Fifteen times in American history, during a Presidential election year, new Supreme Court vacancies have arisen and Presidents have made nominations. Seven of those 15 times, voters had elected an opposite- party Senate to check and balance the sitting President. Not surprisingly, in those situations, only two of the seven were confirmed, and none since 1888. The other eight times, the same party controlled the Senate and the White House. Seven of those eight were confirmed--all but one. The one exception unraveled in a scandal. We followed precedent in 2016, and we are following precedent this week. No. 2, it has been claimed that Chairman Graham broke the rules by reporting out Judge Barrett's nomination--not so. As the Parliamentarian confirmed on Thursday, standing rule XXVI and Senate precedent are crystal clear. If a majority of a committee is physically present and votes in favor of a nomination, reporting it to the floor is a valid action, irrespective of what committee rules may say. Chairman Graham didn't even violate the rules of his own committee. Past chairmen of both parties have done precisely what Chairman Graham did on Thursday morning. In 2014, for one example, Chairman Leahy and the committee's Democratic majority voted multiple Federal judges to the floor without two members of the minority present--just a few years ago. Nothing remotely unprecedented took place--not in committee, not on the floor. No. 3, timing. Some colleagues kept repeating the absurd claim that this is the most rushed confirmation process in history. Well, that is flatout false. From the announcement of the nomination to the start of hearings, eight Supreme Court nominations in the last 60 years moved more quickly than this one. Eight in the last 60 years moved more quickly than this one. Then, from the end of the hearing to the committee vote, half of all confirmations since 1916 actually moved faster than this one. Justice John Paul Stevens was confirmed in 19 days, from start to finish; Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, in about 4 weeks. In the past, Justices have been confirmed in 1 week; some in 1 day. There is no argument that Judge Barrett's nomination has moved at a breakneck pace. Facts are facts. No. 4, contrary to what has been claimed, the Senate has absolutely confirmed Supreme Court nominees later in Presidential election years than this one. Multiple Justices were confirmed after elections had already happened. We have had multiple Supreme Court Justices confirmed in December of election years. Senates have even confirmed nominees for lameduck Presidents who just lost. That is another nonissue. All of these false claims embarrass those who repeat them, but the most important point is this: In this country, legitimacy does not flow from the whims of politicians. Legitimacy does not depend on which political party makes that decision. Legitimacy comes from traditions, rules, and the Constitution. Our Democratic colleagues have spent months obsessively demanding that our President repeatedly acknowledge that the election will be legitimate even if he loses. But here in the Senate, with this confirmation process, Democrats are flunking their own test. Let me say that again. Democrats want President Trump to keep repeating that the election will be legitimate regardless of whether he wins, but here in the Senate, the very same people are saying our vote on Monday will only be valid if they like the outcome. Our Republic cannot abide any political faction making ``illegitimate'' a sloppy synonym for ``we are not happy.'' Of course, they are not happy. That doesn't make anything about this illegitimate. That kind of recklessness leads down a road that none of us should want to travel. That is why I keep correcting the record, even though it might seem silly. After all, if Republicans have the votes, why not ignore our colleagues and their statements and move on? I have chosen not to do that. It remains our duty to separate right from wrong, fact from fiction, for the good of the Senate and for our country. Judge Barrett's confirmation process has followed every rule. It has followed the Constitution in every respect. We have abided by the norms and traditions dictated by our history, and we are going to vote tomorrow. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I move to recess.

Mr. McCONNELL

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

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I move to proceed to legislative session and I ask for the yeas and nays. Motion to proceed to Calendar No. 554, S. 4675, a bill to amend the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act.

Mr. McCONNELL

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

Mr. McCONNELL

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

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, colleagues, in my first experience with Supreme Court confirmations in the Senate, I was a young staffer for a junior Member of the Judiciary Committee. That was also the same time I met a young guy named Lamar Alexander, who had just left the Senate to go to the White House to work in Congressional Affairs. So I have had an opportunity for quite a long time to observe the confirmation process through various ups and downs--periods when nominees were confirmed almost overwhelmingly and periods during which they were heated, to put it mildly, contests over the nomination. What I think you can safely say about the Senate over the last 40 or 50 years is that it is in an assertive period. In other words, viewing the whole process as a joint thing, the President has a role to play, and the Senate has a role to play. And at various times in the history of our country, the Senate has been pretty passive about it; at other times, they have been pretty aggressive about it. But the Constitution is clear: The Senate has a role if it chooses to exercise it. Rarely have we ever had a nominee as extraordinary as the one we have before us right now. We have had a chance to witness this outstanding nominee. We have watched her in committee. She has demonstrated she has the deep legal expertise, dispassionate judicial temperament, and sheer intellectual horsepower that the American people deserve to have on their Supreme Court. Last week, we saw why fellow legal scholars called Judge Barrett ``a brilliant and conscientious lawyer who will analyze and decide cases in good faith,'' and they say she is ``tailor-made''--tailor-made--``for this job.'' We saw why her former law clerks--her students--call her ``a woman of unassailable integrity'' and ``a role model for generations to come.'' We saw why the American Bar Association--an institution the Democratic leader has called the gold standard--the gold standard-- deemed Judge Barrett ``well qualified'' to sit on the Supreme Court. And they heard why the legal professionals behind that rating called her--listen to this--``a staggering''--staggering--``academic mind.'' The chair of the ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary told the committee directly that ``in interviews with individuals in the legal profession and community who know Judge Barrett, whether for a few years or decades, not one person''--not one, not one--``uttered a negative word about her character.'' This outstanding nominee is exceptionally suited to this job, period. And I know we all know that. She is an exceptional nominee to the Supreme Court who will make the Senate and the country exceedingly proud. There are few of us around here who have experienced the last 30 years up close and personal, and I am one of them. Others of you have followed parts of history from the outside, and now you are making history. It is a matter of fact, a matter of history, that it was Senate Democrats who first began our contemporary difficulties with judicial nominations back in 1987 and who have initiated every meaningful escalation--every single one of them--from then up to the present day. Every escalation was initiated by the other side. In 1987, Ted Kennedy and his friends introduced the country to Robert Bork's America--the first effort to smear a fully qualified judicial nominee based on insulting, apocalyptic scare tactics. Even some of the people who were directly involved in ``Borking'' Bork--Democrats, by the way--say they regret that low moment and what it has unleashed in the years since. In the early 2000s, it was Democrats who very willfully invented a brandnew strategy to make judicial ideology, and not just qualifications, an acceptable criteria for tanking Presidential nominees I remember reading in the early part of Bush 43's first term a seminar that was convened by my friend the Democratic leader, and he invited a couple of scholars--Laurence Tribe and Cass Sunstein--to come talk to him about the appropriateness of beginning to use every single tool in the toolbox to stop judicial nominations. It was always possible to filibuster judges; it just wasn't done. I mean, there are plenty of things you could do that you don't do; it just simply wasn't done. The best example of that was the Clarence Thomas nomination. There couldn't have been a more controversial nomination than that one. The chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Joe Biden, and Ted Kennedy sitting next to him--it was about as aggressive as it gets. It made, in some ways, the Bork treatment look like child's play. The committee reported out Justice Thomas with an even vote--even. And as we all know around here, it only takes 1 of 100 Senators to make you get 60--just 1--only 1 to get the Senate in a place where you have to get 60 votes. The tradition of dealing with the judicial nominees with a simple majority was so strong that not 1 Democrat--not 1--required 60 votes on Clarence Thomas. In case you don't remember, the vote on this confirmation was 52 to 48. One Senator out of 100 could have denied Clarence Thomas his career on the Supreme Court. That is how strong the tradition was of dealing with the Judiciary in a simple majority way. Well, in Bush 43, my colleague, the Democratic leader, at this meeting, apparently, with Cass Sunstein and Laurence Tribe--I am paraphrasing, I am sure--was predicting all of these crazy rightwing judges were going to be sent up by Bush 43, and we ought to use every tool in the toolbox, whether it was used before or not, to stop judicial nominees. So Democrats used the brandnew tool, the partisan filibuster, to block one Bush nominee after another whose qualifications nobody even disputed. In her own confirmation hearing years later, for example, now-Justice Elena Kagan went out of her way to say that Miguel Estrada--a name some of you may not be familiar with, who got here recently--would have been qualified to sit on the DC Circuit. She said he even would have been qualified to sit on the Supreme Court. He became the poster child for this new process invented by the Democratic leader and his colleagues to routinely filibuster judges. It was written, the suspicion was, that it might provide for Bush 43 the opportunity to name the first Hispanic Supreme Court Justice, and, of course, they didn't want that to happen. So Senate Democrats filibustered him seven separate times in 2003. He was one of the many victims of this norm-shattering, precedent-breaking behavior. A few years later, colleagues such as Senators Biden, Durbin, Leahy, Obama, and Schumer tried to filibuster Justice Alito's nomination to the Supreme Court. Fortunately, that was not successful. But then something really funny happened. Something really funny happened. All of a sudden, there was a new President--President Obama. Suddenly, a Democratic President was making judicial nominations. Well, imagine what happened then. Suddenly, Senate Democrats became very allergic to experiencing the effects of what they had started--in effect, the effects of their own playbook. They had no patience to taste their own medicine, none whatsoever. Our colleagues did not appreciate being held to the standards they had just created a few years before. The shoe was on the other foot. Well, we all know what happened next--another massive Senate-shaking escalation by Senate Democrats in 2013: the nuclear option. They broke the Senate rules to change the Senate rules so that a Democratic President would not have to play by the same rules they had invented shortly before. And with a 51-vote threshold in place, Democrats began confirming nominees without meaningful minority support. I said at the time, quoting myself: They would regret it a lot sooner than they would think. Well, that regret began in 2016. In 2016, when Justice Scalia passed away, Senate Republicans had won our majority a year later. As I said then, when I recommended to all of you that we not fill that vacancy created in the middle of a Presidential election year, you would have to go back to 1888 to find the last time a Senate of a different party from the President confirmed a Supreme Court nominee to a vacancy created during the Presidential election year. In other words, not surprisingly, one party in control of the Senate was less inclined--and had been less inclined for a very long time--to confirm a Supreme Court nominee in the middle of a Presidential election year. It was entirely within the rights of the Senate to do that because what had clearly developed over these years was the Senate viewed itself as a partner--a partner--in the process. The President gets to nominate, but we get to decide whether to act on the nomination. Needless to say, after the unprecedented Senate-shaking steps that Senate Democrats had taken, the Republican Senate majority was not much inclined to depart from precedent and do President Obama that favor. Our decision in 2016 was fully in line with precedent, fully within the Constitution, and completely within the Senate rules. Now, I understand why they didn't like it. I wouldn't have either. Of course they didn't like it. But elections have consequences, and America had chosen a Republican Senate in 2014. But there is no parallel between actually breaking the rules, as the Democrats did in 2013, and merely applying the rules in ways the Democrats do not like. There is a big difference between breaking the rules and applying the rules in ways the Democrats did not like. If the Senate is going to function, we must maintain a distinction between when people break the rules and when they apply the rules in ways we may not like. When President Trump won in 2016, Senate Democrats took yet another reckless and unprecedented step. They mounted the first ever successful partisan filibuster of a Supreme Court nominee. That had not been done before. They tried it on Alito; it didn't succeed. They tried it on Gorsuch, and it did. The message was, in effect, nobody who President Trump nominates is going to get 60 votes for the Supreme Court, no matter how qualified. Of course, speaking of qualifications, Justice Gorsuch's qualifications were simply beyond question--someone who, frankly, has gone on to issue some rulings, by the way, that these guys over here like, which shows you predicting what a Supreme Court Justice is going to rule on has been a hazardous guess most of the time. Their apocalyptic threats about predictions about what is going to happen with nominees of Republican Presidents have been consistent going back to John Paul Stevens: Every single one of them is going to be a disaster for women, minorities, and all the rest--none of which, of course, ever materialized. So, Republicans applied and extended what Senate Democrats had begun in 2013. They had left out the Supreme Court from being dealt with with a simple majority. So we decided we were going to return to where, by the way, the judicial calendar was--by practice anyway--just a few years ago. It was always dealt with with a simple majority. The Thomas nomination proved it. That was the custom here, until our friends on the other side decided to start a new custom, within the rules but a new custom. So, all of my friends, this happened as a result of the threshold being lowered for the Supreme Court, and we are back to where we were as recently as Clarence Thomas. The Executive Calendar is dealt with with a simple majority. I think that is better for the country, and they will benefit from that, too, at some point. When you have a President and a Senate of the same party, obviously, this is going to happen quicker. That is the way it has always been, whether the rule allowed a filibuster or not. So, ironically, we are back to where we were; the entire Executive Calendar will now be dealt with as it was a few years ago, before all of this back-and-forth with a simple majority. Well, obviously, Justice Gorsuch was confirmed on a bipartisan basis once the Executive Calendar was returned finally to a simple majority. And then Justice Kavanaugh--most of us were here for that--despite the horrific and embarrassing display that some of our Senate colleagues aided and abetted, we made it through that. So the good news is this: In about 72 hours, I anticipate we will have a third new Associate Justice of the Supreme Court--in about 72 hours. I do not blame some of my Democratic colleagues, who were not present for all of this, who wish the Senate would behave differently. But just know this--this is not spin. This is fact. Just know this: Every new escalation, every new step, every new shattered precedent, every one of them, was initiated over there. No exceptions. Every one of them. And it all happened over the strenuous objection of Republicans, who tried, in each instance, to stop Democrats from trading away long-term Senate norms for short-term political wins. Seventeen years ago, colleagues--seventeen years ago--Democrats were boasting to newspapers about this brandnew campaign to politicize judicial confirmations. They thought it was a great idea--bragged about it. One of my colleagues called himself the king of the filibuster and proudly wanted to own it. Well, sooner or later, the shoe is always on the other foot. So I hope our colleague from New York is happy with what he has built. I hope he is happy with where his ingenuity has gotten the Senate. Colleague, we have had this argument over and over for months, if not years. This is not really what we are here to debate today. We are here to actually consider an outstanding nominee whose qualifications nobody doubts--Judge Amy Coney Barrett. So, colleagues, let's get on with it. Let's do our job. Let's rediscover the rational treatment of nominations that the Democratic leader embarked on a deliberate project, starting 20 years ago, to erase. We will give this nominee the vote she deserves no later than Monday. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I move to proceed to executive session to consider Calendar No. 890 and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I move to recess, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I move to recess and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, yesterday evening the Directors of National Intelligence and the FBI updated the public on foreign efforts to influence our election and our government's work to prevent them. They announced that Iran and Russia exploited voter information to send misleading emails. This is just another reminder that multiple different adversaries with multiple different objectives want to fuel divisions among Americans and create chaos. Iran, China, Russia, and other adversaries may have different goals, but they all share the same primary objective of undermining America's confidence in our democracy, and they are thrilled when their disinformation causes us to point fingers at each other rather than at them. The good news is that we have spent the last 4 years gearing up for this. Unlike the Obama-Biden administration, on whose watch even Democrats admit we were caught flatfooted, the Trump administration has worked overtime with Congress and other actors to get us ready. The White House has imposed harsh new sanctions on Russians who interfered in 2016. The Department of Justice, Department of Homeland Security, and the intelligence community have led efforts to strengthen and coordinate our defenses. Here in the Senate, the Intelligence Committee spent years studying what went wrong in 2016 and published a 1,300-plus-page report with recommendations. In the last 2 years alone, we passed more than $800 million to fund and support secure elections. The Iranian and Russian operations described last night are being combatted by the Federal Government in close coordination with State and local officials and the private sector. Details are being shared with Congress and the public, as appropriate. This is precisely how the process should work. We are literally miles ahead of where we were. Even the Washington Democrats who spent years talking up the threats to our election infrastructure are now admitting that we have made huge strides. Just a few days ago, the junior Senator for Connecticut admitted: ``We are going to have a free and fair election . . . because we have spent significant money from the Federal Government, and through States, to beef up protections of our voter lists and our voting systems.'' It is a separate question whether Democrats' ability to express basic patriotic confidence in our institutions should be so contingent on whether their preferred candidate seems to be up in the polls. But, regardless, that is the truth. I will close with one point I keep making. The work of protecting our democracy is not just the job of experts and government buildings. This is also a duty that falls upon every one of us, every single citizen. At this point, it is a patriotic duty for Americans to be educated consumers of information. Citizens who need information about voting should look to their local official sources, and all of us on all sides should take a deep breath and realize division, disinformation, and chaos are exactly what our adversaries want. We are all in this together. All of us Americans are in this together

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, next month, our country will salute the life and achievements of former Secretary of the Navy Paul Ignatius as he celebrates his 100th birthday. I would like to join Paul's family and friends in recognizing his years of leadership and service to our country. The son of Armenian immigrants, Paul completed his undergraduate studies at the University of Southern California. There, he entered the Phi Kappa Tau brotherhood, the same college fraternity I would later join at the University of Louisville. Paul's achievements on campus were just the beginning of his remarkable life. Like so many other members of the Greatest Generation, Paul put his life on hold to serve in uniform during World War II. He interrupted his studies at Harvard Business School to enlist in the U.S. Navy and was commissioned as a lieutenant. As an aviation ordnance officer, Paul served aboard the escort aircraft carrier USS Manila Bay in the Pacific. Returning home after 4 years in the Navy, Paul completed his MBA at Harvard and began a successful career in the private sector. However, our country would call on him once again. When it did, Paul was ready to answer. In 1961, Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara asked Paul to serve as Assistant Secretary of the Army. He agreed and began 8 years of prominent leadership in the Pentagon under both President John F. Kennedy and President Lyndon B. Johnson. Paul served in several capacities, including Assistant Secretary of Defense for Installations and Logistics. Finally, in 1967, Paul was chosen to lead the same Navy he joined as a lieutenant more than two decades before. Paul left the Pentagon and began new ventures in journalism, philanthropy, and scholarship. He has earned several honors and awards for the lasting impacts of his leadership. Last year, Paul received a premier recognition for a Navy veteran and leader. He joined his successor, Secretary of the Navy Richard V. Spencer, at a commissioning ceremony of the USS Paul Ignatius, an Arleigh-Burke class guided- missile destroyer. So it is a privilege to join those paying tribute to Paul Ignatius' lifetime of accomplishments for our Armed Forces and our Nation. As he celebrates his 100th birthday, appropriately on Veterans Day, I wish him the very best. On behalf of the Senate, I extend my sincere gratitude for his service.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, today, the Senate will have an opportunity to advance another COVID-19 relief package for American families. For more than 7 months now, the American people have been facing what one writer described as a ``health crisis with an economic crisis strapped to its back.'' The Senate has stepped up repeatedly, on a bipartisan basis, to help our Nation through this challenge. Today, we have an opportunity to do it once again. The legislation before us is neither Republicans' nor Democrats' idea of a perfect bill. I think we are all clear on that. But it would move us past Speaker Pelosi's all-or-nothing obstruction and deliver huge support right now for the most pressing needs of our country. Republicans want to conquer this disease through testing, treatments, and vaccines. Democrats say they agree with us. Republicans want to pour money into safe schools and make sure an entire generation of kids don't fall any further behind, and Democrats say they agree with that. Republicans want to reopen the Paycheck Protection Program so that Main Streets across America don't turn into COVID-19 ghost towns, so that millions of workers can keep their jobs and keep getting paid. Democrats say they agree with that. For workers who have been laid off, Republicans want to renew the Federal supplement to unemployment insurance. Democrats say they agree with that. Republicans want to cement health protections for Americans with preexisting conditions, including COVID-19 itself. Democrats claim they are all over this issue. And Republicans want to take our Nation's college presidents, nonprofit leaders, and employers at their word when they say they need commonsense protections so that legal uncertainty does not block their reopening. The bill on the floor would do every one of those things and much more. The overwhelming bulk of it are programs that Democrats claim they support. It turns out there is a special perk to being a Senator. When you actually support something, you get to vote for it. When you actually support something, you get to vote for it. When you actually want an outcome, you vote for it. Strangely enough, that is not what seems to be happening. Our Democratic colleagues have been happy to talk about further relief as long as it remained a hypothetical concept. But every time the Senate has had a chance to actually do something, they said no. In July, Republicans tried to continue the Federal plus-up to unemployment insurance before it expired. Senator Schumer blocked it. In August, Senator McSally fought again to restart those benefits for laid-off Americans. Once again, Democrats stopped it cold. In September, Republicans wrote a sweeping proposal to deliver hundreds of billions of dollars for safe schools, unemployment benefits, paycheck protection, and the healthcare fight. Every single Senate Democrat voted to kill it all, except the junior Senator from California, who didn't vote. This has been the dynamic for months now: Republicans trying to pass commonsense policies that the Democrats say they support and Democrats replying that working people can't get a dime unless Speaker Pelosi gets everything she wants. We are talking about silly stuff: massive tax cuts for rich people in blue States, stimulus checks for people in our country illegally, wheelbarrows of cash--out of any proportion to COVID-19 needs--for State and city governments that Democrats have mismanaged for decades, and removing longstanding bipartisan Hyde protections that protect taxpayers from funding abortions. Now I hear they don't want to renew the PPP unless it sends money to Planned Parenthood and criminals who are, literally, currently in prison. Let me say that again. They don't want to renew PPP unless it sends money to Planned Parenthood and criminals who are, literally, currently in prison. These are the kinds of far-left fringe demands over which Democrats have blocked kitchen-table assistance for American families and healthcare support to crush the virus. During this historic crisis, the Democratic leaders have elected to deny struggling people the help they need unless President Trump signs the entire Democratic Party platform into law. Today, we are providing another chance to right the ship. In a few minutes, Senators will vote to either advance or filibuster a broad package that would deliver on all kinds of urgent needs: testing, treatments, vaccines, safe schools for our kids, a second round of the job-saving PPP, more Federal unemployment benefits, the legal protections that university presidents and charities say they need, protections for preexisting conditions. There is almost nothing in this proposal that Democrats even claim to oppose. Just last week, the entire country watched our colleagues on the Justice Committee complain over and over about having to fulfill those responsibilities when they supposedly wanted to be working on a coronavirus relief package. We will see who walks the walk. I am confident the Democratic leader will repeat the same tired attacks he has been recycling since the summertime. He will say we shouldn't do anything unless we do everything. He will argue this multi-hundred-billion-dollar bill is paltry--$500 billion is paltry or meager or emaciated, a half trillion dollars? I am not kidding. This is seriously their claim--that a half trillion dollars for working people is chump change. It is not worth their time. Hundreds of billions of dollars targeted directly to struggling people doesn't even get Democrats out of bed in the morning. Well, perhaps, to the blue-State billionaires, who seem to be the Democrats' top priority, these historic sums of money do look like chump change. Maybe coastal elites who can practically find a million dollars in their couch cushions are indifferent about whether we get an outcome here. Well, believe me, working families like the Kentuckians I represent don't see it that way. Millions of workers have been able to keep their jobs and support their families because of the Paycheck Protection Program. Republicans want to fund a whole second round of that. Today, Democrats will either vote to advance it or vote to kill it. Students, teachers, and parents need to know their K-12 schools are as safe as possible. Republicans want to send a historic sum of money to those schools. Today, Democrats will either vote to advance it or vote to kill it. For the historic numbers of Americans who have been laid off, additional Federal unemployment benefits have been a lifeline. Republicans want to restore them. Today, Democrats will either vote to advance it or vote to kill it. Colleges, universities, charities, and small business need commonsense legal protections, and with cases spiking, our whole country needs further investment in testing, tracing, and vaccines. Today, the Democrats will either vote to advance all that or vote to kill it. Struggling people don't need more endless arguments. They don't need to keep waking up and listening to reporters speculate on whether the Speaker of the House is in a good mood that day, because their very livelihood may depend on it. The country needs an outcome. The country needs an outcome. Let's put aside our differences, agree where we can, and move forward. Why not get the country in a better place while Washington continues to argue over all the rest? If the sun sets today with no progress, if the Senate turns to Judge Barrett's nomination without having advanced another historic rescue package, it will only be because Senate Democrats used the filibuster to kill this aid. If this relief does not pass, it will be because Senate Democrats chose to do Speaker Pelosi's political dirty work rather than stand up for struggling people. Let's not go there. Let's find our common sense, agree where we can, and advance this legislation while we debate the rest. The American people deserve action.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, ``It would have been really hard for us to get through without it.'' That was the coowner of Apollo Pizza, which has a handful of locations throughout Kentucky. ``It touches my heart just knowing that I can bring folks back and gainfully employ people who need to work.'' That was a restaurateur in Fayetteville, NC. ``It's pennies from heaven as far as our business is concerned.'' That was one small business owner in Highlands Ranch, CO. ``It just made sense to us that if we're going to be able to get money from the government . . . spend it on our employees.'' That is from a fourth-generation owner of a bagel shop in Ferndale, MI. Those are just four of the millions and millions of hard-working Americans who have had an economic lifeline to help them endure this crisis year. That lifeline is the Paycheck Protection Program, the PPP. About 7 months ago, our Nation's top medical experts recommended we do something without precedent--shutter whole sectors of the economy to protect Americans from the pandemic. Congress needed a historic plan to help workers, and our colleagues Senator Rubio and Senator Collins stepped forward. They realized we could not simply let Main Street go under. We could not simply tell millions and millions more workers to forget about their jobs and join the unemployment lines. We couldn't just let every storefront except the biggest corporate retailers turn into permanent pandemic ghost towns. We had to give small businesses and their workers a fighting chance. The senior Senators from Maine and Florida found the solution. They literally invented the PPP. It would fund emergency loans to employers, and those loans would be forgivable so long as the money would be used to keep paying their people. As far as emergency government rescues go, their idea was actually a bold, free-enterprise policy. Don't just sign everyone up for welfare; fight to save jobs. Keep workers connected to their jobs and their paychecks. As we wrote the CARES Act, Senators Rubio and Collins got together with Senator Cardin and put the finishing touches on the program. Soon, the PPP had become law without a single dissenting vote in either Chamber. The program proved so popular that it quickly committed all its funding. So, in April, we refilled it with more money. That was unanimous in the Senate as well. Then, in June, we tweaked the program on the fly to help small businesses even more. Once again, it was unanimous--no objection from any Republican or any Democrat here in the Senate. This program has had the most bipartisan pedigree possible, and those bipartisan beginnings have led to a major policy success story. For millions of Americans from coast to coast, the PPP has made all the difference in the world. It has kept paychecks coming into their mailboxes and bank accounts where there otherwise would have been pink slips. Every State, every town, every city knows the difference it has made. So where are we today? That historic first draw of the PPP has wound down; the program has closed to new applications; many firms have run through their funds, but, clearly, our economic recovery remains a work in progress. For many workers, business has not come roaring back to normal, and it won't until the health situation allows it. Fortunately, Senator Rubio and Senator Collins have stepped up again. Our colleagues have legislation that will refund and reopen the PPP. It will establish a whole second round for the hardest hit small businesses that need help the most, and thanks to the efforts of several colleagues, the legislation will also streamline the program and strengthen oversight. I would submit that, even for a Congress this divided, even in the year 2020, reopening the PPP really ought to be a no-brainer. There is bipartisan agreement that American workers still need help, and there is already bipartisan infrastructure in place to provide that help, but there is a problem. The PPP has been taken hostage. Just like the funding for safe schools, more funding for testing, more funding for vaccines, more funding for Federal unemployment benefits, and commonsense legal protections that charities and university presidents have been pleading for, the PPP has been taken hostage by Speaker Pelosi and Leader Schumer. The Democratic leaders have spent months holding out for a long, far- left wish list of non-COVID-related priorities and obstructing any additional aid until they get it. All or nothing--that has been their position. Either Democrats get every unrelated policy they want or American families get nothing. So, for months, they have blocked bipartisan aid at every single turn. The Democratic leader even tried last night to adjourn the Senate so we could do nothing at all for 3 weeks--nothing at all for 3 weeks. That is how urgent he thinks it is to help working people. He wanted to go home for 3 weeks. Because President Trump will not just cave to the entire Democratic Party's platform--for example, the President won't simply hand out endless sums of cash to chronically mismanaged State and city governments out of proportion to COVID needs--Speaker Pelosi has seen to it that working families have gotten nothing rather than something. So, look, every Senator in this body knows this is not how people act if they actually want an outcome. American families, working families, have waited months and months for Speaker Pelosi to end her ``Marie Antoinette'' act and let Congress find common ground. There is no reason this second round of the Paycheck Protection Program should wait another single day. So we are going to vote on this legislation today-- one clear vote on one clear program that all in this Chamber say they want to pass. Well, I will let you in on a secret. There is something Senators do when we want something to pass. Here is what we do when we want something to pass: We vote for it. It is no counterargument to complain that the PPP legislation does not also contain 100 other things. The entire point is to agree where we can and make law while we keep arguing over all the rest. If my Democratic colleagues oppose the job-saving PPP, they should come to the floor and say why they oppose it. Otherwise, this afternoon should bring another unanimous vote. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate recess until 2:15 p.m. today.

Mr. McCONNELL

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

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I withdraw the motion to proceed to Calendar No. 554, S. 4675.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I move to table amendment No. 2680 and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I move to proceed to Calendar No. 554, S. 4675.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I move to proceed to executive session to consider Calendar No. 866.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I send a cloture motion to the desk for the motion to concur with amendment No. 2652.

Mr. McCONNELL. I have a second-degree amendment to the motion to concur with amendment.

Mr. McCONNELL. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, this week the Senate will vote on more coronavirus relief that Congress could deliver to American families right now. Month after month, Speaker Pelosi has held up urgent assistance for workers, families, schools, and our healthcare system. Month after month, she has refused to set aside non-COVID-related demands and far- left policy riders that she knows are sabotaging any shot at a deal. Why? Well, because--and these are her own words--she thinks agreeing to a bipartisan compromise might make the Democrats seem like ``a cheap date''--her words. The Speaker said over and over again that she does not believe it is better for workers to get something rather than nothing. Thus far, Senate Democrats have gone along with it. We could have passed hundreds of billions of dollars in relief more than a month ago, but our Democratic colleagues voted in lockstep to filibuster relief and kill the bill. Unless Democrats got every single non-COVID-related wish-list item they were after, American families would get nothing. Every single Senate Democrat voted to filibuster hundreds of billions of dollars of noncontroversial assistance, except our colleague who is running for Vice President. So she wasn't here at all. This has been the position for months: all-or-nothing obstruction. It has to stop. The Speaker's Marie Antoinette act needs to end. Zero dollars for working families but a whole lot of television time for the Speaker of the House is not a good trade for the American people. Speaker Pelosi's supposed leverage is not putting food on the table in households where one or both parents have lost their jobs. Speaker Pelosi's so-called leverage is not helping schools reopen safely or struggling small business to avoid layoffs. The Democrats' talking points are not doing a single thing to fund more testing, more tracing, or double down on Project Warp Speed so we can produce and distribute a vaccine. Tomorrow and Wednesday, the Senate is going to vote. We will see whether our Democratic colleagues in this Chamber agree that families deserve nothing rather than something, or whether they are ready to let the Senate make law across the huge areas where we do not even disagree. Tomorrow, we will have a stand-alone vote on creating a second round of the historic Paycheck Protection Program for the hardest hit small businesses. The PPP has saved tens of millions of American jobs and kept main streets across America from turning into permanent COVID-19 ghost towns. The program is as bipartisan as it gets. Not only did it pass unanimously in the first place, but we also added funding and made tweaks several times without a single objection in either Chamber. So tomorrow, Tuesday, every Senator will cast an up-or-down vote on establishing a whole second draw of these emergency loans for the small businesses that need it the most--no more all or nothing, no more endless posturing, just one clear vote on one clear good thing that nobody even says they oppose. It would make a huge difference for workers who may otherwise be laid off. Then, on Wednesday, the Senate will vote again on a larger bill. It will pour hundreds of billions of dollars into the PPP expansion, plus more Federal unemployment insurance, more money for safe schools, more money for testing, more money for vaccines, and many other important priorities. Nobody thinks this proposal would resolve every problem forever. What it does contain is half a trillion dollars of good that Congress can do right now through programs that Democrats do not even say they oppose. American families deserve for us to agree where we can, make law, and push huge amounts of money out the door while Washington continues arguing over the rest. It is common sense. It is what the country needs. I hope our Democratic colleagues will finally let it happen. Madam President, what is the pending business?