Mitch McConnell

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCONNELL

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

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

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I understand there are two bills at the desk due a second reading en bloc.

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

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, on another matter, I have already talked a lot about history this week, but before we shift focus to President Trump's nominee, we need to review Senate history one more time. As we await the hurricane of misrepresentations and bad-faith attacks that seem almost guaranteed to pour out, we need to understand, in very clear terms, why our colleague from New York is a uniquely non-credible messenger when it comes to the Senate's role in judicial confirmations. It was Senate Democrats who began our modern challenges with their treatment of Robert Bork in 1987, but the acrimony really got going in the early 2000s when a group of Senate Democrats took the almost-never- used tactic of filibustering nominations and turned it into a constant routine for the first time ever. So who was the main driving force behind these tactics? Let's consult some New York newspapers from the year 2003: Schumer decided [to] put ideology on the front burner in the confirmation process. . . . ``I am the leader (of the filibuster movement), and you know, I'm proud of it,'' said the senator from Brooklyn. Mr. Schumer urged Democratic colleagues . . . to use a tactic that some were initially reluctant to pursue, and that has since roiled the Senate. Throughout President Bush 43's two terms, our colleague built an entire personal brand out of filibustering judicial nominees. Talented, hard-working people's careers were destroyed, like the brilliant lawyer Miguel Estrada, a close friend of now-Justice Elena Kagan, who says he is ``extraordinary'' and ``thoughtful'' and would have made ``an excellent addition to any Federal court.'' People like that, literally, were destroyed by Democratic tactics. This version of the now-Democratic leader said filibustering judges was an essential part--an essential part--of the Senate. He said that if Republicans ever used the nuclear option to ``change the rules in midstream'' because ``they can't get their way on every judge . . . it'll be a doomsday for democracy.'' But of course, in the very next Presidential administration, the Democratic leader leapt at the chance to press that doomsday button himself. Democrats could not abide by President Obama's being constrained by the same rules they had imposed on President Bush. They had no patience to taste their own medicine. So the Democratic leader suddenly decided that ``the old rules need to be modified.'' He voted to use the nuclear option to lower the bar. So there actually has been one consistent principle all this time. For the Democratic leader, two things qualify as a crisis when it comes to the courts. The sky is falling when a Democratic President does not get to confirm every last judge he or she wants, and the sky is falling when a Republican President gets to confirm any judge. Six months ago, our colleague walked across the street to the Supreme Court steps, stood in front of a crowd, and yelled: I want to tell you, Gorsuch! I want to tell you, Kavanaugh! . . . You will pay the price! You won't know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions! That is the Democratic leader in front of the Supreme Court of the United States. Just last night he said this: I tell the American people, everything you need and want, just about everything, will be taken away inexorably, month after month, year after year, decision by decision, by this new court. That is the argument. That is, apparently, the argument. ``Everything you need and want will be taken away.'' Is this a discussion among Senators or an overdramatic line from a bad movie? The American people do not need any more revisionist history lectures, any more threats, or any more performance outrage from the side that launched this unfortunate fight and escalated it time after time after time. There is one right path before us. It does right by the judiciary, the Senate, the yet-unnamed nominee, and the American people. It is a fair hearing, a fair process, and a fair vote. That is what the American people ensured in 2018 after the Democratic leader explicitly asked for a referendum on this approach to the judiciary. He got that referendum in 2018. The people decided. They shrunk his minority even further. Americans took care to ensure Senate Democrats could not stand in the way of a fair process. So that is exactly what the Senate will provide.

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 for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. McCONNELL

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

Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I now ask for a second reading, and in order to place the bill on the calendar under the provisions of rule XIV, I object to my own request.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate resume executive session.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10 a.m., Thursday, September 24; further, that following the prayer and pledge, the Senate resume the Young nomination.

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 following the remarks of Senator Bennet.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess subject to the call of the Chair.

Mr. McCONNELL

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

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, 2 days ago, the Democratic leader threatened that if the Senate majority dares to play by the rules and behave like a majority, it would mean ``the end of this supposedly great deliberative body''--``the end of this supposedly great deliberative body.'' Yesterday, we learned what he meant. We saw important Senate business hurt by what amounted to a temper tantrum. For some reason, the Democratic leader decided to vent his frustration by blocking the Intelligence Committee--listen to this--from holding a bipartisan counterintelligence hearing--by blocking the Intelligence Committee from holding a bipartisan counterintelligence hearing. The committee was set to hear from Bill Evanina, the Director of the National Counterintelligence and Security Center. This is the Nation's top counterintelligence official. Among other things, he works directly on protecting our elections and our politics from foreign interference. That is his job. They were going to hear from him. This is the same Democratic leader who declared a few weeks ago that if the Intelligence Committee did not stay close to Congress on election security, it would be ``an abdication of [their] duty . . . to protect our democracy.'' Just last week, he wrote me a letter saying election security had to be ``above partisan politics.'' But now the Democratic leader's temper is more important. He denied Chairman Rubio routine permission for the bipartisan committee to meet. He said: ``[W]e won't have business as usual here in the Senate.'' Today, both the Intelligence Committee and the Armed Services Committee are scheduled to meet. They are set to speak with top intelligence and military officials about election security. I guess we will find out whether the Democratic leader's embarrassing theatrics were just a 1-day matinee or whether he means to make this a series. Our bipartisan committees have a great deal of work to do to safeguard our Nation and, in particular, to protect our elections, so I hope our colleague from New York gets out of the way. But the Democratic leader didn't stop there. A few minutes later, he decided to cheapen a solemn and unifying moment and turned a draft unanimous resolution honoring Justice Ginsburg into one more depressing stunt for the TV cameras. Over the weekend, I wrote a resolution honoring the late Justice's amazing life. Normally, such measures are adopted with unanimous, bipartisan support. That is exactly what we did after Justice Scalia passed. Every Senator recognized that our collective eulogy was no place to debate political questions--oh, but not this time. This time, the Democratic leader copy-pasted the tribute I had written, put his name on top, and added two divisive references to our debate over what to do next. He didn't devote any time or attention to the language praising Justice Ginsburg's life and career. He did not suggest a single change to any of that. His sole focus was on turning a solemn routine and unanimous moment for Justice Ginsburg into a platform for himself. Justice Ginsburg could not be more deserving of the honor of a formal Senate tribute. I hope our colleague from New York will let us pass one sometime soon.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, now on another matter, yesterday the House passed a government funding resolution on a bipartisan basis. It will now make its way through the Senate. A few days ago, when House Democrats released their first draft, Republicans immediately spoke out about a huge omission. It intentionally neglected the needs of farm country and rural America. They tried to use our Nation's farmers and ranchers as a bargaining chip. Fortunately, thanks to the leadership of our colleague Senator Ernst, along with Senators Hoeven, Boozman, and many other Republican colleagues, we made it clear right away that we would not let Democrats leave farmers behind. The Commodity Credit Corporation is an essential source of funding for our farmers. For years it has been routinely refilled with bipartisan support, but this year Speaker Pelosi tried to take Middle America hostage for unrelated political brinksmanship. I am grateful to Senator Ernst and everyone who fought hard to fix the Democrats' bill. Republicans kept the Speaker of the House from adding insult to injury in such a challenging year for rural America. I know all Members will carefully review the continuing resolution sent over by the House. I am optimistic that, with bipartisan cooperation, we will be able to make law well before the government funding deadline at the end of this month.

Mr. McCONNELL

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

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, more than 100,000 Kentuckians choose every year to pursue a degree or develop their skills through the Kentucky Community and Technical College System, KCTCS. Composed of 16 colleges within a short drive of virtually every Kentucky household, KCTCS has helped over 1 million Kentucky students receive an affordable and quality education. Today, I would like to recognize my friend, Dr. Jay Box, who has served as KCTCS' second president for the last 5 years and is a leading architect of its success. As Jay retires at the end of this month, my home State will send him off with our sincere gratitude. Nearly two decades ago, Jay and his wife Gayle left Texas to join KCTCS. I am so glad they did. Jay brought with him a personal belief in the importance of lifelong learning to adapt to a changing workforce. That vision has served Jay and KCTCS' students well while preparing them for 21st century careers. Jay was quickly recognized for his transformative leadership at Hazard Community and Technical College. Tapping into his talent, he was given statewide responsibilities as KCTCS vice president, chancellor, then finally its president. In each role, Jay has constantly delivered for Kentucky students. As president, Jay placed a renewed emphasis on helping students complete their degrees with a record number of graduates and credentials. He also encouraged schools to remove barriers, to support students pursuing GEDs and college credit at the same time, and to form partnerships with job creators to close the skills gap. As a result, graduates are gaining the skills to meet local employers' demands and enter the workforce prepared to fill good-paying jobs. His many achievements have brought national acclaim for both Jay and KCTCS. U.S. Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross and Advisor to the President Ivanka Trump appointed him to be the voice for community colleges on the American Workforce Policy Advisory Board. Jay collaborates with leaders from educational institutions, governments, and some of the country's largest employers to increase preparedness in the workforce. Jay is also a member of the national board for Rebuilding America's Middle Class and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation's National Advisory Group. I have had the privilege to work directly with Jay to serve Kentucky's students. I am particularly grateful for his leadership to save Southeast Kentucky Community and Technical College, SKCTC, from losing its ability to offer Federal student aid. Working closely with Jay, I inserted a legislative provision to give the school a reasonable opportunity to make its case to the U.S. Department of Education. Jay and his team did just that, showing SKCTC's many contributions to its students and community. I am proud to say the school continues to thrive and help prepare Kentucky students to excel in the workforce. Jay announced he would begin his well-deserved retirement in July. However, when the coronavirus crisis struck, he once again showed true leadership. Jay delayed his retirement to continue serving Kentucky's students and ensure KCTCS received the steady leadership transition it deserves. Over the years, Jay has helped educate students, encourage industry, and drive growth in nearly every corner of Kentucky. It is a remarkable legacy, and I hope he and Gayle are proud of their accomplishments. I ask my Senate colleagues to join me in congratulating Dr. Jay Box on his retirement and to wish him many wonderful years to come.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, when my friend Tommy Turner was first elected to lead LaRue County in 1985, he was the youngest Kentuckian to ever serve as a county judge-executive. Now, 35 years later, Tommy recently announced he would leave office as our Commonwealth's longest currently serving county leader. Records bookend his service, and more accomplishments fill the years between. I would like to take a moment to congratulate Tommy on his decades of leadership for LaRue County and to thank him for his many contributions to Kentucky. Every county judge-executive is responsible for local services such as the county's budget and road maintenance. As LaRue County's leader, however, Tommy was given an additional--almost sacred--charge. He helped preserve the birthplace of our most famous Kentuckian, Abraham Lincoln. Tommy took seriously his role in honoring Lincoln, and Kentucky will continue to benefit from his enthusiasm for our Nation's 16th President. Along with a group of motivated citizens, Tommy helped establish the Lincoln Museum in Hodgenville. In a typical year, thousands of tourists will visit the museum and the nearby Abraham Lincoln National Historical Park. Tommy championed an effort to expand the National Park by coordinating a donation to include Lincoln's Boyhood Home on Knob Creek. This year, Kentucky Living Magazine named the Lincoln Museum as the Commonwealth's Best Museum, a well-deserved distinction for their efforts to safeguard the Great Emancipator's legacy. In 2000, Congress created the Abraham Lincoln Bicentennial Commission to prepare national celebrations for the President's 200th birthday. Recommended by Kentucky's Governor at the time and appointed by the President, Tommy was a fine choice to serve as a commissioner. Hodgenville would later host the celebration's National Opening Ceremony and lead the country in honoring President Lincoln. Over the years, I have worked with Tommy to preserve Lincoln's heritage in LaRue County and to deliver for the community's bright future. It has also been a privilege to join Tommy's radio show to speak directly with local families about their priorities and my work for Kentucky in the Senate. Tommy spent half of his life as LaRue County's judge-executive. The results of his leadership can be seen across the county in its growth and opportunity. I would like to encourage my Senate colleagues to join me in thanking Tommy for his service and for preserving the memory of one of our country's greatest leaders. In whatever comes next for Tommy, I wish him the best. I look forward to his continued contributions to our great Commonwealth.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I explained yesterday how moving ahead on a vote on the forthcoming Supreme Court nomination will be consistent with both history and precedent. When an election-year nomination to fill an election-year vacancy occurs in a divided government, with a Senate and a President of different parties, the historical norm is that such nominations are not confirmed. But the times this has happened after the American people have elected a Senate majority to work alongside the same-party President, every such nominee has been confirmed, save one bizarre exception of a nominee who had corrupt financial dealings. Let me say that again. Except for Justice Abe Fortas and his ethical scandals, every single nomination in American history made under our present circumstances has ended in a confirmation--seven out of eight. That is the thing about facts and history. Angry rhetoric does not change them. Partisan finger-pointing does not alter them. Facts simply exist. They are there for everyone to see. History and precedent were on this Senate majority's side in 2016, and they are overwhelmingly on our side now. If we go on to confirm this nomination after a careful process, then both in 2016 and in 2020, this Senate will simply have provided the typical, normal outcome in each scenario. Think about that fact and then weigh it against the outcry and hysteria that has already erupted on the far left. Yesterday, the Democratic leader announced on the floor that if the Senate holds a vote on the forthcoming nomination it would ``spell the end of this supposedly great deliberative body.'' Spell the end of this supposedly great deliberative body? That is what he said. It would be the death of the Senate if a duly elected majority of the U.S. Senate exercises its advice and consent power as it sees fit. That is what Senates do. It is our job description. Presidents makes nominations as they see fit, and Senate majorities either provide or withhold advice and consent as we see fit. But now our Democratic colleagues tell us that the Senate doing normal senatorial things would ``spell the end'' of this institution--whatever that may mean. The Democratic leader is not alone in these pronouncements. Chairman Jerry Nadler of the House Judiciary Committee has already announced that if the Senate majority dares to act like a Senate majority, future Democrats should ``immediately move to expand the Supreme Court.'' From another colleague: If [they hold] a vote in 2020, we pack the court in 2021. It's that simple. Speaker Pelosi intimated on television last weekend that she may consider launching a new frivolous impeachment simply to tie up the Senate's time. She said: ``We have our options.'' The junior Senator from Massachusetts said Democrats ``must abolish the filibuster and expand the Supreme Court.'' The junior Senator for Hawaii said: ``All of those matters will be on the agenda.'' The senior Senator from Connecticut said: ``Nothing is off the table.'' Just yesterday, former Vice President Biden himself refused to rule out that he might seek to pack the Supreme Court. Bear in mind, none of them assert this majority would be breaking any Senate rule by holding this vote; it is just that our Democratic friends worry they might not like the outcome. For some reason, they cannot bear to see Republicans governing within the rules as Republicans--doing exactly what Americans elected us to do. So they threaten to wreck the makeup of the Senate if they lose a vote and to wreck the structure of the Court if somebody is confirmed whom they oppose. It has been interesting to watch our colleagues try to recast their disturbing threats as somehow tied to this Supreme Court vacancy. No one should fall for this trick. Democrats have already been threatening these actions for months. This isn't anything new. Our colleagues now say that ``nothing'' would be ``off the table'' if a new Justice were to be confirmed. They want badly for people to believe these are new threats that Democrats would take off the table-- would take off the table--if Republicans would just help them sink President Trump's nominee. Let me say that again. They want badly for people to believe these are new threats that Democrats would take off the table if Republicans would just help them sink President Trump's nominee. Let me read another quotation. This is the junior Senator from California speaking, our distinguished colleague who is now running for Vice President: We are on the verge of a crisis of confidence in the Supreme Court. We have to take this challenge head on, and everything is on the table to do that. Sound familiar? Of course it does. Our colleague made that remark in March of 2019--in March of 2019. These threats are not new. They have nothing to do with this new vacancy. Democrats have already been playing this game for more than a year and a half. It was more than a year ago that several Senate Democrats threatened the Supreme Court in a written brief. They said: ``The Court is not well [and] perhaps the Court can heal itself before the public demands it be `restructured.' '' It was more than a year ago that Democrats, competing for their party's Presidential nomination, made court-packing a central element in their platforms. It was more than 6 months ago that the Democratic leader appeared across the street outside the Court and threatened specific Justices if they did not rule his way. For goodness' sake, the junior Senator from Maryland came right out and admitted this yesterday. Someone asked him whether he would support these acts of institutional vandalism if a nominee is confirmed this year, and he helpfully pointed out: ``I've always said I'm open, even before this seat opened . . . [those] possibilities were on the table before we got to this point,'' thereby proving my point. These threats are not new. They have nothing to do with this vacancy. Our friend the junior Senator from Delaware said on television this Sunday that he wants to persuade Republicans to forgo filling this vacancy, but all the way back in June--long before 5 days ago--he himself notably refused to rule out breaking the Senate's rules to kill the filibuster. There is no degree to which rewarding these threats would buy the Nation any relief from this. There is nothing you can give them to stop all the threats. There is no ``deal'' that would stop these dangerous tactics. Giving in to political blackmail would not do a thing to secure our institutions. You do not put a stop to irresponsible hostage-taking by making hostage-taking a winning strategy. I will tell you what really could threaten our system of government. It is not Senate Republicans doing legitimate things squarely within the Senate rules and within the Constitution that Democrats happen to dislike--no, no. What could really threaten our system is if one of our two major parties continues to pretend the whole system is automatically illegitimate whenever they lose; if they continue to act like, for their side of the aisle, a legitimate defeat is an oxymoron. That is the danger to our democracy. Every one of these attacks on our institutions only underscores how important they are. Every threat to turn our courts into a political tug-of-war only reinforces why the Senate is charged with protecting our independent judiciary and why this majority's work with President Trump on this task is so crucial. The President plans to use the power the voters gave him to make a nomination. Senators will use the power the voters gave us to either provide or withhold consent as we see fit. The only ones responsible for those threats will be the people making them. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Con. Res. 45.

Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the concurrent resolution be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10 a.m., Tuesday, September 22; 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 Meyers nomination under the previous order; finally, that following the cloture vote on the Lucas nomination, the Senate recess until 2:15 to allow for the weekly conference meetings.

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, our Nation is mourning the end of an exceptional American life. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg meant so much to our country. First and foremost, she was a brilliant, generational legal mind who climbed past one obstacle after another to summit the very pinnacle of her profession. Justice Ginsburg was a fixture on our Nation's highest Court for more than a quarter of a century. She was not just a lawyer--no, not just a lawyer--but a leader. From majority opinions to impassioned dissents, her life's work will not only continue to shape jurisprudence but also enlighten scholars and students for generations. By all accounts, Justice Ginsburg loved her work because she loved the law. In a more ordinary life story, her courage and continued excellence in the face of multiple serious illnesses would itself be the heroic climax rather than just one more remarkable chapter among so many. On the Court, Justice Ginsburg was a universally admired colleague. It is no wonder that many Americans have taken particular comfort these past days in remembering her famous friendship with her ideological opposite, the late Justice Scalia. Together, they made sure the halls of justice also rang with laughter and comedy. They rarely sat on the same side of a high-profile decision, but they still sat together at the opera and most any other time they could manage to be together. The legal world is mourning a giant, but Justice Ginsburg's fellow Justices, a legion of loyal law clerks, and countless many others are mourning a close friend or a mentor. The Senate sends condolences to them all. Yet Justice Ginsburg's impact on American life went deeper still. Friday's loss feels personal to millions of Americans who may never have made her acquaintance. Justice Ginsburg was a spirited, powerful, and historic champion for American women to a degree that transcends any legal or philosophical disagreement. As she climbed from the middle-class, Brooklyn, Jewish roots, of which she was so proud, into the most rarefied air of law and government, the future Justice had to surmount one sexist obstacle after another. Justice Ginsburg did not only climb the mountain; she blazed the trail. Through deeds, through words, and simply through her example, she helped clear away the cobwebs of prejudice. She opened one professional door after another and made certain they stayed open behind her. Directly or indirectly, she helped entire generations of talented women build their lives as they saw fit and enrich our society through professional work. Law and politics aside, no friend of equality could fail to appreciate Justice Ginsburg's determination. Finally, while Justice Ginsburg relished forceful writing and detailed argument, she was also, in important ways, a uniter. In recent years, many who consider themselves her admirers and might wish to claim the Justice for their political ``side'' have come to embrace reckless proposals to politicize the very structure of the Court itself. But Justice Ginsburg remained unswerving in her public commitment to preserving the neutral foundation of the institution she loved. The entire Senate is united in thinking of and praying for Justice Ginsburg's family--most especially her daughter Jane, her son James, her grandchildren, step-grandchildren, great-granddaughter, and everyone who called her their own.