Work on a measure that was approved by the house yesterday providing 8. 3 billion in emergency funds to combat the coronavirus. Senate lawmakers are expect today vote on that measure later this afternoon and work on a bill to reset u. S. Energy and environmental policy. And now to live coverage. U. S. Senate here on cspan 2. The president pro tempore the senate will come to order. The chaplain, dr. Barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. The chaplain let us pray. God of us all, thank you for this moment that unites us in the fellowship of prayer. Make us conscious of your presence and unite us in our efforts to do your will on earth. Inspire the hearts and minds of our lawmakers to strengthen the bonds between us, as they seek to live lives of integrity. May no partisanship mar the unity of spirit they must have to make america stronger, wiser, and better. Deliver them from every unworthy motive, as they labor to honor you. Lift their burdens, lessen their fears, and give them 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 i would like to speak in morning business for one minute. The presiding officer without objection. Mr. Grassley an independent judiciary is one of the cornerstones of our democracy. Judges serve Lifetime Appointments free from political pressure so that they can render impartial judgment without fear of retribution. Yesterday, unfortunately, our country took a step in the wrong direction with the Democratic Leaders comments. At a microphone in front of the Supreme Court, the democratic leader harangued and warned justices gorsuch and kavanaugh by name. He said they would, quote, pay a price and, quote again, wont know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions, end quote. At best, it was an injection of partisan politics into the process that should be immune to these justices. At worst, it was a threat targeting two sitting members of the Supreme Court. Now, either way, i encourage my colleague, the democratic leader, to apologize to those Supreme Court justices and to do it here on the floor. I yield the floor. Mr. Mcconnell madam president. The presiding officer the majority leader. Mr. Mcconnell i had planned to spend my remarks today discussing our bipartisan, bicameral agreement to fund the fight against the new coronavirus. I was looking forward to congratulating all my colleagues and discussing all the important ways this funding will help our Public Health experts, Frontline Health care professionals, and state and local officials combat the spread of this virus and mitigate its effects. Its a serious agreement to meet a serious challenge, and today we will send it to President Trumps desk. So today will be an important day for the country, and it was going to be a proud day for the senate, but instead, the nations eyes are on this body for an entirely different reason. A few weeks ago, i spoke on this floor about a dangerous trend that threatens our selfgovernment. I explained how some in the Democratic Party appear more interested in attacking the institutions of our government than in working within them. How democrats increasingly respond to political disappointments with extreme claims that our system of government itself must be broken. The failure cant be their own. It cant be that the left needs better arguments or ideas. No. No. The fault must lie with the constitution itself. Democrats have tried to cloak their anger at President Trump in rhetoric about protecting norms and institutions, but in reality, it is their own side of the aisle where any institutionalism is rampant. Rampant. We could talk about attacks on the office of the presidency, on the electoral college, on the first amendment, on the senate itself, but most striking of all have been the shameless efforts to bully our nations independent judiciary, and yesterday those efforts took a dangerous and disturbing turn. By now, many already know what the democratic leader shouted outside the Supreme Court yesterday morning. Im sorry to have to read it into the record. First, he prompted a crowd of leftwing activists to boo two of the associate justices, as though Supreme Court justices were professional athletes and senator schumer were jeering from the stands. And then the senior senator from new york said this i want to tell you, gorsuch, i want to tell you, kavanaugh, youve released a whirlwind and you, you will pay the price. You wont know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions, end quote. Madam president , im not sure where to start. There is nothing to call this exception a threat, and there is absolutely no question to whom, to whom it was directed. Contrary to what the democratic leader has since tried to claim, he very, very clearly was not addressing republican lawmakers or anyone else. He literally directed the statement to the justices by name, and he said, quote, if you go forward with these awful decisions, which could only apply to the court itself. The minority leader of the United States senate threatened two associate justices of the u. S. Supreme court, period. Theres no other way to interpret that. Even worse, the threat was not clearly political or institutional. As ill discuss in a moment, these kinds of threats are sadly nothing new from Senate Democrats. This was much broader, much broader. The democratic leader traveled to the workplace of the two judges, and in front of a crowd of activists, he told those judges you will pay the price, right in front of the Supreme Court building. And you wont know what hit you, he said, right in front of the Supreme Court building. If any american had these words shouted at them from the sidewalk outside their office, they would hear those threats as personal. And most likely they would hear them as threatening or inciting violence. Thats how any american would interpret those words if they were directed at us, and thats certainly how the press and leading democrats would have characterized them if President Trump or any senior republican had said anything remotely, remotely similar. Weve seen much more hay made out of much less. Perhaps our colleague thinks this is absurd. Perhaps he would like the most generous possible interpretation that he got carried away and didnt mean what he said. But if he didnt even admit to saying what he said, we certainly cannot know what he meant. At the very best, his comments were astonishingly, astonishingly reckless and supplemental irresponsible, and clearly, as the chief justice stated in a rare and extraordinary rebuke, they were, quote, dangerous, end quote. Because no matter the intention, words carrying the apparent threat of violence can have horrific unintended consequences. In the most recent year on record, madam president , the United StatesMarshal Service tracked thousands of threats and inappropriate commutations against the judiciary. Thousands of threats against the judiciary. Less than three years ago, of course, an unhinged and unstable leftwing activist attempted a mass murder of Congressional Republicans at a baseball field right across the river. A Senate Leader appearing to threaten or incite violence on the steps of the Supreme Court could literally be a matter of deadly seriousness. So i fully anticipate our colleague would quickly withdraw his comments and apologize. Thats what even reliably liberal legal experts like Laurence Tribe and neil kagel have publicly urged. Instead, our colleague doubled down, doubled down. He tried to gaslight the entire country and stated that he was actually threatening fellow senators, as though that would be much better. But thats sufficient. And then a few hours later, the democratic leader tripled down. Instead of taking chief Justice Roberts sober statement to heart, he lashed out again and tried to imply the chief justice was biased, biased for doing his job and defending the court. Let me say that again. He tripled down and he lashed out yet again and tried to imply the chief justice was biased for doing his job and defending the court. Our colleague therefore succeeded in attacking 33 of the Supreme Court in space of a few hours. Throughout the impeachment, in the senate trial, for months, washington democrats preached sermons about the separation of powers and respect between equal branches. So much for all of that. And sadly, this attack was not some isolated incident. The leftwing campaign against the federal judiciary did not begin yesterday, not yesterday. My colleagues will recall that during the impeachment trial, the senior senator from massachusetts, and outside pressure groups tried to attack the chief justice sitting right in that chair for staying neutral instead of delivering the outcomes that they wanted. These same groups same to senator schumers defense yesterday with gratuitous attacks against the chief justice for condemning the threat against his colleagues. And last summer, last summer, a number of Senate Democrats sent an extraordinary brief to the Supreme Court. It threatened to inflict institutional change on the court if it did not rule the way the democrats wanted. In other words, give us the ruling we want or well change the numbers of the court. Heres what they wrote. The Supreme Court is not well. Really . The Supreme Court is not well. Perhaps the court can heal itself before the public demands it be restructured. Now, what that means is you rule the way we want or were going to expand the numbers and change the outcome. A political threat, plain as day. As you read the document, you have expected it to end by saying thats some nice Judicial Independence youve got over there. It would be a shame if something happened to it. It couldnt have been more clear. Independence from political passions is the cornerstone of our judiciary and our country. Judicial independence is what enables courts to do justice, even when it is unpopular to protect Constitutional Rights even when powerful interests want them infringed. Judicial independence, madam president , is what makes the United States of america a republic of laws rather than of men. Its been almost a century since the last time democrats threatened to pack the Supreme Court because they wanted different rurallings. Different rulings. History still judges that disgraceful episode to this day. So i would suggest that my democratic colleagues spend less time trying to threaten impartial judges and more time coming up with ideas that are actually constitutional. Fortunately, this extraordinary display contains oneironic silver lining. These clumsy efforts to erode a pillar of american governance have just reminded everyone why that pillar is so crucial. These efforts to attack Judicial Independence remind us that independence is essential. Every time democrats try to threaten sitting judges, we are reminded exactly, exactly why the framers gave them life tenure and salary protection. Precisely why they did it. Every time democrats toy with packing new seats on the court, were reminded exactly why Justice Ginsburg recently said, nine seems to be a good number. Justice ginsburg said nine seems to be a good number. The distinguished men and women of the Supreme Court do not and must not serve at the pleasure of angry partisans. Must not serve at the pleasure of angry par partisans. Me do not need to pay any mind to unhinged threats as shameful as they may be. In fact, as the chief justice reminded us yesterday, they are duty bound to pay such things no attention at all. Their Job Description is simple. To apply the law to the facts as the chief justice put it, without fear or favor from whatever corner. I have great confidence the court will do just that. Im confident that if the facts and the constitution would have led the court to disappoint democrats the day before yesterday, they will still feel free to do so today. And tomorrow. And beyond, notwithstanding these shameful tactics. Now, i had hoped i would not need to reiterate what every republican senator told the court in august after Senate Democrats sent their threatening brief. But today i have no choice but to say it again. Republicans are absolutely and unshakeably committed to the core constitutional principle of an independent federal judicia judiciary. The core constitutional principle of an independent federal judiciary. As long as this majority holds the gavel, we will never let the minority leaders dangerous views become policy. This majority will ensure the only casualties of this recklessness are the reputations of those who engage in it. The presiding officer under the previous order, leadership time is reserved. Morning business is closed. Under the previous order, the senate will resume consideration of s. 2657 which the clerk will report. The clerk calendar number 357, s. 2657, a bill to support innovation in advanced Geothermal Research and development and for other purposes. Mr. Schumer madam president. The presiding officer the democratic leader. Mr. Schumer are we in a quorum . The presiding officer we are not. Mr. Schumer thank you, madam president. Now, madam president , i just listened to the republican leader, and there was a glaring omission in his speech. He did not mention what the rally yesterday, my speech, or the case before the court was about. A womans constitutional right to choose. To the women of america, what were talking about here, what i am fighting for here is your right to choose. An issue, of course, leader mcconnell completely ignored in his speech. I feel so passionately about this issue and i feel so deeply the anger of women all across america about Senate Republicans and the courts working hand in glove to take down roe v. Wade. I just read about a woman in shreveport who under the louisiana law now before the Supreme Court would have to travel over 300 miles to exercise her constitutional freedoms, and this is happening in states across the country. Republican state legislatures are restricting a womans right to choose so severely as to make it nonexistent, and the courts are now likely to go along because Senate Republicans have confirmed nominees they believe will strip away womens rights and fundamentally change this country. Going so far as to deny a duly elected president the right to pick a Supreme Court justice. Republicans are afraid here in the senate to confront this issue directly so they try to accomplish through the courts what they never would accomplish in the court of Public Opinion, and they leave women out in the cold. So yes, i am angry. The women of america are angry. And yes, we will continue to fight for a womans right to choose. I will continue to fight for the women of america. Now, i should not have used the words i used yesterday. They didnt come out the way i intended to. My point was that there would be political consequences, political consequences for President Trump and Senate Republicans if the Supreme Court , with the newly confirmed justices, stripped away a womans right to choose. Of course i didnt intend to suggest anything other than political and Public Opinion consequences for the Supreme Court, and it is a gross distortion to imply otherwise. Im from brooklyn. We speak in strong language. I shouldnt have used the words i did, but in no way was i making a threat. I never, never would do such a thing. And leader mcconnell knows that. And republicans who are busy manufacturing outrage over these comments know that, too. Now, what will remain long after the clamor over my comments dies down is the issue at hand, a womans constitutional right to choose and republican attempts to invalidate it. The fact that my republican colleagues have worked systematically over the course of decades to install the judicial infrastructure to take down roe v. Wade and do very real damage to the country and to the american way of life, that is the issue that will remain. And we owe, i owe an obligation to the women of america to fight for their Constitutional Rights. I yield the floor. The presiding officer the democratic whip. Mr. Durbin madam president , i come to the floor this morning as a Senate Colleague who may know Chuck Schumer better than most. We lived under the same roof for almost 20 years. We know one another. We know each others families. We have been together through moments of sadness and triumph. I know him well, and i come to the floor this morning to make this statement i respect chief justice john roberts, but i respectfully disagree with the statement he made yesterday about senator schumers