Mitch McConnell

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, in a few hours, the Senate will confirm Judge Cory T. Wilson to join the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Yet again, President Trump has sent up an outstanding nominee for this important vacancy. Judge Wilson holds degrees from the University of Mississippi and Yale Law School. He has held a prestigious clerkship, found success in private practice, and spent years in public service as a lawyer and a judge. The American Bar Association rates Mr. Wilson ``well qualified.'' Once we confirm Judge Wilson today, the Senate will have confirmed 200--200--of President Trump's nominees to lifetime appointments on the Federal bench. Following No. 200, when we depart this Chamber today, there will not be a single circuit court vacancy anywhere in the Nation for the first time in at least 40 years. There will not be a single circuit court vacancy anywhere in the Nation for the first time in at least 40 years. As I have said many times, our work with the administration to renew our Federal courts is not a partisan or political victory; it is a victory for the rule of law and for the Constitution itself. If judges applying the law and the Constitution as they are written strikes any of our colleagues as a threat to their political agenda, then the problem, I would argue, is with their agenda

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, on another matter, today was supposed to bring progress for an issue that is weighing heavily on the minds of Americans. In the wake of the killings of Breonna Taylor and George Floyd, following weeks of passionate protests from coast to coast, the Senate was supposed to officially take up police reform on the floor today. Instead, our Democratic colleagues are poised to turn this routine step into a partisan impasse. Frankly, to most Americans, the situation would sound like a satire of what goes on in the Senate: a heated argument over whether to invoke cloture on a motion to proceed to a proposal--a heated argument over whether to invoke cloture on a motion to proceed to a proposal. We are literally arguing about whether to stop arguing about whether to start arguing about something else. I can stand here for an hour and extol the virtues of Senator Tim Scott's JUSTICE Act. His legislation has already earned 48 cosponsors because it is a straightforward plan based on facts, based on data, and based on lived experience. It focuses on improving accountability and restoring trust. It addresses key issues like choke holds and no-knock warrants. It expands reporting, transparency in hiring, and training for deescalation. I am proud to stand with this legislation, but the reality is that nobody thought the first offer from the Republican side was going to be the final product that traveled out of the Senate. What is supposed to happen in this body is that we vote or agree to get onto a bill, and then we discuss, debate, and amend it until at least 60 Senators are satisfied, or it goes nowhere. It goes nowhere at the end until 60 Senators are satisfied. So what are they giving up? Nothing. They don't want an outcome. The vote we will take in a few hours is just the first step. We aren't passing a bill. We aren't making policy decisions. It is just a procedural vote to say that police reform is the subject the Senate will tackle next. That is all it says--that police reform is the subject the Senate will tackle next. Alas, our Democratic colleagues have suddenly begun to signal they are not willing to even begin the discussion on police reform. They are threatening to block the subject from even reaching the Senate floor. Yesterday, in a letter to me and on the floor, the Democratic leader and the junior Senators from New Jersey and California put forward an argument that was almost nonsensical. First, they explained a number of policy differences they have with Senator Scott's proposal. No problem there. The Senate has a handy tool for settling such differences; it is called legislating. We take up bills. We debate them. We consider amendments from both sides. And only if and when 60 Senators are satisfied can we even vote on passage. But this time, Senate Democrats say the legislative process should not happen. This time, the Democratic leader is saying he will not let the Senate take up the subject of police reform at all--at all--unless I pre-negotiate with him in private and rewrite our starting point until he is satisfied. This last-minute ultimatum is particularly ironic given the weeks of rhetoric from leading Democrats about how very urgent--how very urgent--it was that Congress address police reform and racial justice. For weeks, the Democratic leader has blustered that the Senate simply had to address this issue before July 4. Well, that is what the vote this morning is about. Last week, Speaker Pelosi said: ``I hope there's a compromise to be reached in the Congress. . . .'' because ``How many more people have to die from police brutality?'' So, as recently as last week, leading Democrats called it a life-or-death issue for the Senate to take up the subject this month. Well, here we are. Here we are. We are ready to address it. But now, in the last 48 hours, this bizarre, new ultimatum. Now they don't want to take up the issue. They don't want to debate. They don't want amendments. They will filibuster police reform from even reaching the floor of the Senate unless the majority lets the minority rewrite the bill behind closed doors in advance. Let me say that again. They will filibuster police reform from even reaching the floor unless the majority lets the minority rewrite the bill behind closed doors in advance. Yesterday, the Speaker of the House told CBS News that because Senate Republicans do support Senator Tim Scott's reform bill, we are all-- listen to this jaw-dropping comment--``trying to get away with murder . . . the murder of George Floyd.'' That is the Speaker of the House accusing Senate Republicans of trying to get away with murder. Are you beginning to see how this game works? Two weeks ago, it was implied the Senate would have blood on our hands if we didn't take up police reform. Now Democrats say Senator Scott and 48 other Senators have blood on our hands because we are trying to take up police reform. What fascinating times we live in. Armies of elites and Twitter mobs stand ready to pounce on any speech they deem problematic. Yet unhinged comments like these get a complete free pass--a complete free pass. When our country needs unity, they are trying to keep us apart. When our Nation needs bipartisan solutions, they are staging partisan theater. This is political nonsense elevated to an art form. In a body that has amendments and substitute amendments, it is nonsense to say a police reform bill cannot be the starting point for a police reform bill. It is nonsense for Democrats to say that, because they want to change Senator Scott's bill, they are going to block the Senate from taking it up and amending it. If they are confident in their positions, they should embrace the amendment process. If they aren't confident their views will persuade others, that just underscores why they don't get to insert these views in advance--in advance--behind closed doors. No final legislation can pass without 60 votes. If Democrats do not like the final product, it will not pass. The only way there is any downside for Democrats to come to the table is that they would rather preserve this urgent subject as a live campaign issue than pass a bipartisan answer. The majority has done everything we can to proceed to this issue in good faith. I have fast-tracked this issue to the floor this month, as our Democratic colleagues said they wanted until 48 hours ago. I have expressed my support for a robust amendment process, as our Democratic colleagues said they wanted until 48 hours ago. So make no mistake about it: Senate Republicans are ready to make a law. We are ready to discuss and amend our way to a bipartisan product, pass it, and take it to conference with the House. The American people deserve an outcome, and we cannot get an outcome if Democrats will not even let us begin--not even let us begin. I hope our colleagues reconsider and let the Senate consider police reform later today. If they do not, the next time another appalling incident makes our Nation sick to its stomach with grief and anger yet again, Senate Democrats can explain to the Nation why they made sure the Senate did nothing

Mr. McCONNELL

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

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I enter a motion to reconsider the vote.

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I want to explain the reason I changed to no. I am in strong support of the bill that has been crafted by the Senator from South Carolina. In order to have an opportunity to reconsider the vote without waiting for 2 days, I changed my vote and moved to reconsider, which means that it could come back at any time should progress be made.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. 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. Mr. President, I move to proceed to Calendar No. 483, S. 4049.

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

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

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

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, over the school's two centuries, some of Kentucky's brightest students have walked Centre College's campus. Our Commonwealth's first Governor, Isaac Shelby, chaired the inaugural board. Prominent Kentucky surgeon Dr. Ephraim McDowell, whose accolades include a statue here in the U.S. Capitol, also served as a trustee. To date, Centre's alumni include two U.S. Vice Presidents, one Chief Justice and an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, as well as more than a dozen Senators, 43 Members of Congress, and 11 Governors. Today, I would like to pay tribute to another leading member of Centre's community: its 20th president and my good friend Dr. John Roush. At the end of this month, John will complete his service to the school, closing out 22 years of achievement that have brought well- deserved praise and growth to Centre. Since coming to Danville, John has led a transformation of the school. He championed major investments into campus infrastructure, the addition of new endowed professorships, and the completion of a $120 million capital campaign. Along the way, a national publication twice named Centre the top school in the South. Of course, Centre College is no stranger to making national headlines. In 2000, Centre hosted a Vice Presidential debate between Dick Cheney and our former colleague Joe Lieberman. When Centre was selected for this prestigious honor, it was the smallest higher educational institution in history to host a Presidential or Vice Presidential debate. By any objective standard, the event was a total success, and it came as a clear result of John's creativity and ingenuity. Afterward, a Washington Post writer praised the debate as ``one of the best ever. The whole day was a happy pageant of Norman Rockwell meets Alexis de Tocqueville.'' That writer wasn't the only one impressed by Centre's performance. The Commission on Presidential Debates went back to John, asking Centre to host another Vice Presidential debate. Once again, the Centre community planned and executed an extraordinary event with the eyes of the country on them. Last year, John led Centre in the celebration of its bicentennial anniversary with a full year of events. While the school honored its distinguished history, John seemed to consider his own place in it. He announced his retirement from Centre, making him one of the three longest serving presidents in the school's history. Perhaps John's greatest legacy at Centre will be his fierce devotion to students. Every single graduate was invited into his home at least twice during their undergraduate years. With his beloved wife Susie, who is an institution herself, John brought compassionate leadership to all aspects of his work. His colleagues called John the institution's ``beating heart.'' As he leaves campus at the end of this month, 1 day before his 70th birthday, he should take pride in a job very well done. I am sure Centre College planned several opportunities for its students, faculty, staff, alumni, and friends to express their sincere appreciation to John. Unfortunately, the coronavirus pandemic changed many of those plans. But there is nothing that can change our heartfelt gratitude to John and Susie for all they have done for Centre College and the Commonwealth of Kentucky. As they embark on their next adventure together, we wish them the very best.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, 2 weeks ago, I argued that civil discourse in America faces a crossroads. A major newspaper had buckled under pressure from the social media mob. They apologized profusely for publishing a policy argument from a U.S. Senator and made personnel changes to prove their penitence. I said that we could either recommit to our tradition of seasoned debate or let an angry mob run our culture. Recent days have reminded us that it is not just our present-day debates that far-left radicals want to overwhelm. They also want to rewrite the past. Back in 2017, when people wondered whether our important conversations over Confederate monuments would give the far left a broader taste for pulling down statues, major newspapers and media figures literally mocked that concern. They said there were obvious differences between rebel generals and our Nation's Founders. They said nobody would come gunning for Washington or Jefferson. Well, the far left missed the memo. A few days ago, in Portland, OR, a mob graffitied a statue of our first President, pulled it down, and burned an American flag over his head. This is George Washington. Another Washington statue was defaced in Baltimore. A statue of Thomas Jefferson was ripped down in Portland also. This is the general and first President who built our Nation and the author of the Declaration of Independence--genius statesmen who helped begin this grand experiment that has brought freedom to hundreds of millions and saved the world a few times for good measure. Yet, a crazy fringe is treating their monuments like vanity statues of tinhorn tyrants. Our Founding Fathers are being roped to the ground like they were Saddam Hussein. The list goes on: Saint Junipero Serra, the missionary settler whom Pope Francis celebrated here in Washington a few years ago to bipartisan applause, sided with native people over soldiers; Ulysses S. Grant, the general who crushed the Confederacy, the President who used Federal force to fight the Klan. They, too, have been placed on the historical hit list for this new Red Guard that nobody elected. There are more monuments toppled up and down the west coast. There could be no clearer sign that these far-left radicals have severed any connection to the righteous cause of racial justice. They have literally tried to succeed where Robert E. Lee failed and bring General Grant to the ground. Like any cultural revolution, this far-left anger is sparing some heroes of their own. I understand that in Seattle, a large statue of Vladimir Lenin stands quite untouched. Apparently, people claim with a straight face that this Communist statue has survived because it is located--wait for it--on private property. So the Founding Father of the mass-murdering Soviet Union watches over Seattle streets, but our own Founding Fathers are dragged in the dirt. A small slice of our national elite has spent years cooking up highfalutin theories to justify the cheapest, basest forms of anti- Americanism. The absurd claim that America's deepest founding principle is bigotry has escaped the ivory tower and begun seeping into society. The United States of America can and should have nuanced conversations about our complex past. We can and should have discussions about our future. We can and should have peaceful protests. But this lawlessness serves none of that. It is just an alliance of convenience between angry criminals who think it is fun to wreak havoc and a slice of elite society that profits off saying that our country is evil and deserves the abuse. Enough. Enough. The vast majority of Americans know full well that imperfect heroes are still heroes, that our imperfect Union is still the greatest Nation in world history. Americans know that our imperfect Framers built our Nation on moral truths that fueled improvement beyond anything their generation could have built themselves. The American people know this. They also know that we cannot let angry mobs carrying ropes act outside the rule of law. It was central to the 14th Amendment and the civil rights movement that law enforcement and local authorities may not do their jobs selectively. If ``equal protection of the laws'' means anything, it means mayors and Governors cannot selectively stand down because they would rather not pay the political price for confronting a particular mob. But that is precisely what we are seeing in Democratic-governed cities all across our country. In Seattle, for weeks now, a mayor has let bands of people ban police from several square blocks. People have been shot. A teenager has died. But, apparently, stopping this insanity has been deemed less politically correct than letting it continue. Night after night, Governors and mayors have stood down and watched criminals spray paint churches and topple statues. Public order is now totally optional and depends on the lawbreaker's politics. Here in Washington, last night, local police protected one monument from a memorial-hunting mob over near the White House. It is past time for that courage to be replicated in every city, every night, until Americans have the peace and the rule of law that all of our citizens deserve. It is no surprise that people who want to say our country is intrinsically evil are so frantic to erase history that they will break the law to do it. Erasing history is the only way their claims could carry any water. Americans know that an imperfect nation built by imperfect heroes is still the most perfect Union the world has ever seen. We are proud to build statues of the geniuses who fought to found this country. We are proud to build statues to the leaders who have preserved it. We are proud to build statues of prophetic civil rights leaders who made the country confront gross injustice. We thank God that all kinds of imperfect people have made us a more perfect Union. When the dust settles, it is never--never--the mobs or bullies whom we honor. It is the brave leaders who confront them

Mr. McCONNELL

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

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10 a.m., Wednesday, June 24; 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 to resume consideration of the Wilson nomination and that the time until 11:30 a.m. be equally divided between the two leaders or their designees; that further notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the postcloture time on the Wilson nomination expire at 11:30 a.m. tomorrow; finally, that if confirmed, I ask that with respect to the Wilson nomination, 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. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it stand adjourned under the previous order.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration and the Senate now proceed to S. Res. 621.

Mr. McCONNELL. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

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 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, on a totally different matter, last week, Senator Scott of South Carolina and a group of our colleagues rolled out the JUSTICE Act--a serious set of proposals to move the ball for police reform across the country. This legislation identifies a number of smart levers that Congress can pull to advance and encourage smart reforms of law enforcement without steamrolling States' and localities' constitutional powers. It would step up transparency in reporting and recordkeeping. It would expand accountability and disciplinary measures needed to establish and restore community trust. It would directly address issues, such as choke holds and no-knock warrants, which have been in the news lately for reasons that nobody believes are acceptable. These are the subjects that the country needs us to address. Accordingly, these are the subjects Senator Scott's proposal does address. The American people expect us to do our jobs, discuss, debate, and legislate on this subject that has captured the Nation's attention-- discussion, debate, and votes on amendments. Tomorrow, we will find out whether even these modest steps are a bridge too far for our colleagues on the Democratic side. Earlier this month, Senate Democrats were telling everyone who would listen that we would be derelict in our duty if we did not have police reform legislation on the floor of the Senate this month. But then, as soon as the junior Senator from South Carolina actually published something concrete, their tune changed rather sharply. Now, suddenly, our Democratic colleagues are reportedly agonizing and debating whether to let the Senate have this discussion at all or whether to kill any chance of reform legislation before it can even taxi onto the runway. The American people deserve better than a partisan stalemate. The American people deserve for the Senate to take up this issue at this time. Senate Republicans want to have this discussion. We are ready to make a law, not just make a point. Tomorrow, we will find out whether our Democratic colleagues share our ambition or whether they choose to duck the issue and leave the country in the lurch.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, while the House continues to be absent, the Senate continues to be open for business. While taking smart precautions, Senators have stood with all the other essential workers who are continuing to man essential posts. So as our Nation continues to work through medical, economic, and social challenges of historic proportions, the Senate has been able to lead on serious action to help our Nation heal. The killings of Black Americans, such as Breonna Taylor and George Floyd, have rightly accelerated the national conversation on policing and racial justice. Large majorities of Americans support new steps that would help the vast majority of good, decent, and brave law enforcement officers re-earn the trust of Black Americans for their vital institutions. We need to be a country where communities of color feel confident that the police are there to safeguard their rights to equal justice and equal protection under law and not to infringe on those rights. To that end, while the Constitution means many of the specifics of police reform are primarily State and local issues, there is an enormous appetite in the Senate to incentivize change and move toward greater progress using Federal policy. The junior Senator from South Carolina has led the development of a strong new proposal. The JUSTICE Act is informed by data, by the facts, by stories from across America, and, sadly, by his own lived experience. It enjoys the support of 46 cosponsors already. The legislation Senator Scott has put forward identifies productive ways that Congress can encourage and incentivize smart police reform efforts in communities all across our country. Recognizing the urgent need for greater accountability, it supports expanded use of body cameras and expanded review and disciplinary measures to back them up. Recognizing the need for more transparency, it steps up efforts to establish the records of police activities and requires full Federal reporting of all incidents involving the discharge of a service weapon. The bill takes immediate action to help end departments' reliance on choke holds and to facilitate enhanced training for deescalation. It includes further steps to protect the physical safety of people in custody and to finally--finally make lynching a Federal crime. It lays out new requirements for departments to explain their policies on how, when, and why no-knock warrants are used. On behalf of the many people looking for answers in my hometown of Louisville, I am, unfortunately, especially interested in that provision. In recent weeks, the Democratic leader and many of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have insisted--insisted--over and over and over again that they wanted to consider legislation on this subject prior to the Fourth of July. My friend the Democratic leader repeatedly expressed how eager--eager he was to consider these issues here on the Senate floor, but now we read this: ``Senate Democrats are agonizing over what to do about Senate Republicans' police reform proposal.'' What is there to agonize over? And we read this: ``[The] Senate Democratic leader . . . faces a tough call on whether to let a Republican-backed police reform bill advance on the Senate floor.'' ``Agonizing''? ``Tough call''? It seems to me that proceeding to consider Senator Scott's legislation, proceeding to take up the subject on the Senate floor, would only be an agonizing prospect if Members were more interested in making a point than in actually making a law. For anyone who actually wants to legislate, it shouldn't be a difficult call to vote to begin considering Senator Scott's legislation. It will be exactly the vote which this moment demands. Last week, I understand the Speaker of the House herself said: ``We'd like to end up in conference'' on police reform legislation. The only way to do that would be if the Senate passed a bill. Even the Speaker does not seem to understand why Senate Democrats would block this Chamber from even considering the JUSTICE Act. Senator Scott and Senate Republicans are interested in making a law. The President and the administration want to make a law, and even the Democratic House leadership apparently would be happy to see a conference committee. So maybe the only group left in Washington who are reportedly agonizing over whether to block discussion of police reform or to let it proceed seem to be our Senate Democratic colleagues. I hope that whatever strange political calculations are making this difficult for our friends across the aisle will yield to common sense and to the American people's hunger for progress. We are going to find out when we vote later this week.

Mr. McCONNELL

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

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I move to proceed to Calendar No. 480, S. 3985.

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

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