Mcconnell filed cloture on brian mcguires nomination to be deputy undersecretary of the treasury. We expect a vote on his nomination today. The senate live here on cspan2. The president pro tempore the senate will come to order. The chaplain, dr. Black, will lead the senate in prayer. The chaplain let us pray. Savior of humanity, your unfailing love sustains us. Stagger freedoms enemies and bring them to their knees. Use our lawmakers so effectively that our citizens may rejoice because of your mercy. Be for our nation a towering rock of safety, a shelter in the time of storm. Lord, we wait quietly before you, so use your strong arms to bring us your peace. We pray in your great name. Amen. The president pro tempore please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to our flag. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Mr. Grassley madam president. The presiding officer the senator from iowa. Mr. Grassley could i address the senate for one minute . The presiding officer without objection. Mr. Grassley the latest political ploy by the democrats is to paint the Senate Majority leader as an obstructionist because he hasnt moved to consider certain bills passed by the other body. Well, lets think about that just for a minute. They can hardly use that talking point anymore. Yesterday the Senate Majority leader moved to take up the housepassed appropriation package, and the Senate Democrats blocked that motion. The senate isnt obliged to consider every partisan bill from the house or the senate doesnt or the house doesnt have to consider every bill passed by the senate or if i said that wrong. The house doesnt have to pass every bill thats passed by the senate. But if theres any house bills, the senate has a responsibility to take up, to debate, and to amend, it is the spending bills to keep government operating. Weve got to fund the government, and thats what were doing. So i hope we dont hear any of this bellyaching anymore when we take up the house bill. I yield the floor. The presiding officer the majority leader. Mr. Mcconnell i want to thank the senior senator from iowa for his observations this morning. That is exactly where we find ourselves. What happened on the floor yesterday afternoon. Senate democrats blocked this years funding for national defense, they voted it down. We cant move the legislation forward. They blocked the funding to keep pace with russia and china. Democrats blocked money for the tools an training that our men and women in uniform badly need while our adversaries pour money into technology. Democrats voted against a pay raise for our Service Members. All but two democrats voted to filibuster all of this, kept the senate from even considering the legislation. Never mind that before we adjourned in august, democrats in the house and senate all agreed to a carefully negotiated framework to keep our appropriations process on track. In fact, the speaker of the house and the democratic leader in the senate publicly agreed to the exact dollar figure for the defense bill they just voted down yesterday. They publicly agreed to the number in the defense bill they just voted down yesterday. And we all agreed in the agreement that poison pill riders or any changes to president ial transfer authorities were off the table unless both sides were on board. So the appropriations process, including at the Committee Level with chairman shelby and Ranking Member leahy, appeared to be going pretty smoothly. But then, as weve seen a number of other times in the recent past, the democratic leadership seemed to have a change of heart. Perhaps it sunk in that actually meeting President Trump and republicans halfway has divided as government obviously requires might have earned some criticism from the far left. But whatever the reason, our democratic friends turned on a dime, reneged on the bipartisan agreement and began demanding the kind of poison pills and partisan policy changes that we all agreed not to do. So thats how we get to a spectacle like what happened yesterday, madam president. Thats how we get to a place where 42 Senate Democrats vote to filibuster defense funding and obstruct a pay raise for our Service Members for all the world to see. Because democratic leadership decided they saw more political upside in picking new fights with the president than keeping their word and investing in our men and women in uniform. In fact, i understand that just yesterday our democratic colleagues were offered even more money for the labor h. H. S. Bill, but they declined tvment so its not about the money, madam president , its not about compromising and getting to yes. Its about not wanting to take yes for an answer. I have Great Respect for my democratic friends, but i think this episode has to go down as a new highwatermark for the policy consequences of what some people call trump derangement syndrome. Were at a point where 42 Senate Democrats will decline to fund the u. S. Armed forces just to spite the occupant of the white house. If you ask me, that is one heck of a price to pay to put on a show for the resistance. But yesterdays vote is now a matter of record. Its in the past and i am really hopeful that we can get on track with the kind of democratic process that my colleagues already pledged to support. When the good work that takes place in committee is allowed to proceed without this topdown partisan maneuvering, it tends to yield pretty good results. I think we were all pleased with the bipartisan funding bill that chairman shelby and Ranking Member leahy produced last year and i understand that this markup is expected to be bipartisan as well. For example, im proud the Financial Services and the general government bill included a bipartisan amendment providing another 250 million from the administration and of elections to help states improve their defenses and shore up their voting systems. Im proud to have helped develop this amendment and cosponsor it in committee. That will bring our total allocation for Election Security, listen to this, to more than 600 million since fiscal 2008. The Trump Administration has made enormous strides to help states secure their elections without giving washington new power to push the states around. Thats how we continued the progress we saw in 2018, and thats exactly what were doing. This is exactly the kind of positive outcome that is possible when we stop posturing for the press and let chairman shelby and senator leahy conduct a Bipartisan Committee process. As time grows shorter before the end of december, i hope the critical defense funding that democrats blocked yesterday will soon earn the same kind of productive treatment. Because i dont think the American People will have much patience for the notion that democrats first responsibility is irritating the white house and funding the department of defense comes second. I hope we can reboot this process and move forward for the sake of our senate process and for the sake of funding for the federal government, and for the ache of our nations security. The presiding officer under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. Morning business is closed. Under the previous order, the senate will proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the following nomination, which the clerk will report. The clerk nomination, department of the treasury, brian mcgwire, of new york, to be deputy to the under secretary. The presiding officer the clerk will call the roll. Quorum call quorum call quorum call mr. Thune madam president . The. The presiding officer the majority whip. Mr. Thune mr. President , is the senate in a quorum call . The presiding officer it is. Mr. Thune i would ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be lifted. The presiding officer without objection. Mr. Thune madam president , last week the Senate ConfirmedPresident Trumps 150th judge. Thats a milestone. Again, and again, democrats have used the timeconsuming cloture vote process to delay confirmation of President Trumps nomination. Even nominees that they ultimately chose to vote for. By this point in president obamas first term, republicans had required cloture votes on just three of president obamas judicial nominees three. Compare that to today. As of september the 12th, democrats had required cloture votes on a staggering 71. 7 of President Trumps picks for the bench. 71 . Basically two out of every three more than two out of every three judges, madam president , the democrats are requiring cloture votes. And by that, it simply means theyre filibustering that particular nominee. The way that you end a filibuster is you have to invoke cloture. When republicans were in the minority, when president obama was in the white house, at this point in president obamas first term, we had or the democrat at that time majority had to invoke cloture just three times for three judges that republicans had tried to block. But as i said, right now same point in President Trumps first term were talking about almost 72 of every judge all the nominations combined have been filibustered. So if you think about that and you add it up totally cumulatively, its about 100. As i said, madam president , many of these are nominees that democrats went on ultimately to confirm. In other words, its not that President Trump has nominated scores of extreme nominees whom democrats felt they couldnt support. Again and again, democrats have delayed a nominee, then turned around and voted in favor of him or her. In one particularly memorable example, in january of 2018 democrats forced the senate to spend more than a week considering four District Court judges, even though not one single democrat voted against their confirmation. Not one single democrat. These judges could have been confirmed in a matter of minutes by voice votes. Instead, democrats forced the senate to spend more than a week on their consideration, time that could have been spent on genuinely controversial nominees or on some of the many important issues that are facing our country. This september the senate has confirmed six District Court judges. Democrats forced cloture votes on four of them. Despite the fact that all four were eventually confirmed by huge bipartisan margins. In fact, one was confirmed by a unanimous vote of 940. Now, madam president , if democrats had a serious reason for their obstruction of the president s judicial nominees, they would not be repeatedly turning around and voting for them. Their obstruction isnt based on principle. Its based on partisanship. They dont like this president , so theyre obstructing his nominees, even when they agree that theyre wellqualified that are their positions. As a result, were forced to spend hours upon hours of Senate Floor Time on uncontroversial nominations, time we could be using for other priorities. Democrat delays are not representing the judicial vacancy rate, which is still high, despite republican efforts to get judges confirmed. High numbers of vacancies result in long waits to get cases heard, which serves nobody. Madam president , while democratic obstruction is bad enough, unfortunately weve had a lot more to worry about. In recent months, democrats have moved beyond obstruction and into directly threatening the independence of the judiciary. Court packing, an idea which pretty much everybody thought had been consigned to the dustbin of history almost a century ago, is enjoying a revival among members of the democrat party. For anyone who needs a refresher, the theory of court pack something quite simple. If the Supreme Court is not deciding cases to your liking, add more judges to the court until you start getting the decisions that you want. Its not hard to see why this is a terrible idea. But that hang stopped it from gaining but that hasnt stopped it from gaining traction in the democratic party. The second ranking democrat in the senate recently filed an amicus brief in the Supreme Court threatening the court if it failed to rule according to democrats preference p much the Supreme Court is not well, they said, and the people know it. Perhaps the court can heal itself before the public demands it be restructured in order to reduce the influence of politics, end quote. Translation if you dont rule the way that we want you to, you wont like the consequences. Madam president , threatening members of the judiciary is the domain of dictators and despots, not members of the United States congress. And it is deeply disturbing that prominent democrats now apparently see nothing wrong with trying to intimidate the Supreme Court. But unfortunately its becoming apparent that there are few leapts to which democrats will not go in their increasingly desperate partisanship. Just this week we saw democrats leap on the opportunity to drag Justice Kavanaughs name through the mud yet again, based on yet another vague and unsubstantiated rumor. More than one democrat president ial candidate instantly cried that he should be impeached. What was their basis for such a drastic suggestion . A New York Times article that was, as the leader pointed out, so short on reporting that it ran on the opinion page of the New York Times instead of in the news section. Not to mention that after running this piece, the times quickly had to issue a correction, noting a glaring omission in the original story. What was the omission . The fact that the supposed victim of Justice Kavanaughs supposed behavior declined to be interviewed and that her friend said she had no memory of the alleged incident. Its not hard to see whats behind democrats Relentless Campaign to smear Justice Kavanaughs name. They are furious that it was a republican, not a democrat president , who got the opportunity to choose a justice to replace a perceived swing vote on the Supreme Court. And theyre afraid that Justice Kavanaugh wont issue the rulings that they want. And here we get to the heart of the problem with democrats increasingly unhinged left youism and attacks on the judiciary. Democrats arent looking for a judiciary that will rule according to the law. Theyre looking for a judiciary that will rule in accordance with democrats preferred policies, whether they have anything to do with the law or not. And that, madam president , is a very dangerous goal. Sure, it might seem nice when an activist judge who shares your opinions reaches outside of the meaning of the statutes and rules for your preferred outcome. But what happens when that same judge reaches beyond the law to your detriment . What protection do you have if the judge and not the law becomes the highest authority . The only way to ensure the protection of individual rights is to ensure the rule of law. And that means having judges who will make decisions according to the law, not according to their personal preferences or the principles of a particular political party. In the wake of democrats threat to the Supreme Court, all 53 republican senators cent letter to the justices sent a letter to the justices underscoring our commitment to protecting the independence of the judiciary. As we noted in the letter, and i quote from it, there is no greater example of the genius of our constitution than its creation of an independent judiciary. At the same time and again, our independent federal courts have protected the Constitutional Rights of americans from government overreach even when that overreach was politically popular, end quote. Madam president , if we want our courts to continue protecting americans Constitutional Rights, then we need to ensure that they remain independent. Democrats interests in having judges who will rule according to their preferred outcomes is not new, but in the past their interest has not led them to attempt to bully judges into voting their way. I hope, madam president , democrats will think better of their repressive tactics before our independent judiciary becomes the victim of their political agenda. Madam president , i yield the floor. A senator madam president . The presiding officer the senator from illinois. Ms. Duckworth madam president , i could say i could stay here all day listening to the names of the braver than brave men and women who i was lucky enough to serve with in the military. I could stay here all night telling stories about their heroism and courage. I could stay here all week, all month talking about the troops serving overseas right now, about those who are on their eighth or ninth tours of duty, or about those teenagers that werent even alive when the twin towers fell but yet are ready to ship off right now if thats whats asked of them. I still would not be able to convey the sacrifices they are making because they love this country and would do anything to defend her. I will not stand idly by and let a single one of them shed blood in an avoidable conflict because donald trump has abdicated matters of war and peace to a despot who regularly flouts human rights and openly murders journalists. And yet after tensions spiked between saudi arabia and iran this past weekend, thats exactly what he seemed willing to do, tweeting that the u. S. Was locked and loaded, just waiting for the crown prince to tell him how to proceed. We cant let that slip by. The president , the commander in chief of the greatest milita