Commitment to bring you live gavel to gavel coverage of congress. Working on executive nominations with votes this morning at 11 30 eastern. Live to the floor of the u. S. Senate here on cspan2. Dr. Bll open the senate with prayer. The chaplain let us pray. Eternal god, we continue to trust the powe of your prevailing providence. In times of trouble, you keep us safe from harm. You strengthen us when all seems lost, enabling us to reach your desired destination without stumbling or slipping. Lord, your plans are fulfilled, in spite of our enemies. Surround our senators with the shield of your divine favor. Inspire them to rejoice in your might because of your victorious guidance. Keep them from the paths of disgrace. Look with favor, o lord, upon us all. And may our service ever be acceptable to you. We pray in your great name. Amen. The president pro tempore please join me in the pledge of allegiance. 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 one minute for morning business, please. The presiding officer without objection. Mr. Grassley those on the other side of the aisle who openly say they will end the filibuster if they get the majority should have to explain why they continue to vote to filibuster important issues like Police Reform and covid relief. Do they somehow believe the filibuster is wrong in principle or do they admit that they think there should be two sets of rules depending on which Political Party has the majority of the United States senate . If you think at a minimum that the filibuster should be used sparingly and judiciously, how do you justify voting to block, even moving, even discussing lets say for instance to senator scotts Police Reform bill when youve been promised amendments by the majority leader and when you can always filibuster final passage if you still arent satisfied after the bills been discussed for a long period of time and a lot of amendments have been adopted. Its clear their position on filibuster is pure partisanship at its worst. If theres any way youre going to promote bipartisanship that the people are demanding, its only this institution of the United States senate when it requires 60 votes to get to finality on a bill where you have pressure to do things in a bipartisan way or nothing gets done. I yield the floor. Mr. Mcconnell madam president . The presiding officer the majority leader. Mr. Mcconnell i explained yesterday how moving ahead with a vote on the Forthcoming Supreme Court nomination will be consistent with both history and precedent. When an electionyear nomination to fill an electionyear vacancy occurs in divided government with the 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 a sameparty president , every such nominee has been confirmed save one bizarre exception of a nominee who had corrupt financial dealings. So 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. Now thats the thing about facts and history, madam president. Angry rhetoric does not change them. Partisan finger pointing does not alter them. Facts simply exist. Theyre there for everyone to see. History and precedent were on this Senate Majority 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, quote, spell the end of this supposedly great deliberative body. Spell the end of this supposedly great deliberative body . Thats what he said. It would be the death of the senate if a duly elected majority of the United States senate exercises its advice and consent power as it sees fit . Thats what th senators do. Its our job description. President s make 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. Now, the democratic leader is not alone in these pronouncements. Chairman jerry nadler of the House Judicial Committee has already announced that if the Senate Majority dares 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, well pack the court in 2021. Its that simple. Speaker pelosi intimidated on Television Last weekend she may consider launching a new frivolous impeachment simply to tie up the senates 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 says all of these matters will be on the agenda. The senior senator for connecticut says nothing is off the table. And 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. Its 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. Its 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 isnt 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 Trumps nominee. Let me say that again. They want badly for people to believe these new threats that democrats would take off the table if republicans would just help them sink President Trumps nominee. Well let me read another quotation. This is the junior senator for california speaking. Our distinguished colleague is now running for Vice President. Quote, we are on the verge of a crisis of confidence in the Supreme Court. We have to take this challenge headon and everything is on the table to do that. End quote. Sound familiar . Of course it does. Madam president , 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, quote, the court is now the court is not well. 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 partys president ial nomination made Court Packing a central element in their platforms. It was more than six months ago that the democratic leader appeared outside the court across the street outside the court and threatened specific justices if they did not rule his way. For goodness sakes, 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, quote, ive always said im 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 for delaware, said on television this sunday he wants to persuade republicans to forego filling this vacancy. But all the way back in june, long before five days ago, he himself notably refused it rule out breaking the senates rules to kill the filibuster. Theres no degree to which rewarding these threats would buy the nation any relief from this. Theres nothing you could give them to stop all the threats. Theres no deal that would stop these dangerous tactics. Giving in to political blackmail would not do a thing to secure our institutions. So, madam president , you do not put a stop to irresponsible hostage taking by making hostage taking a winning strategy. Ill tell you what really could threaten our system of government. Its 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 legit pat de legitimate defeat is an oxymoron, that, 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 while the senate why the senate is charged with protecting our independent judiciary and why this majoritys 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. And the only ones responsible for those threats will be the people making them. The presiding officer the clerk will call the roll. Quorum call the presiding officer the democratic leader. Mr. Schumer madam president. I ask unanimous consent the quorum be dispensed with. The presiding officer without objection. Mr. Schumer thank you, madam president. Now, tomorrow, the recently departed Supreme CourtJustice Ruth Bader ginsburg will lie in repose at the Supreme Court. And on friday, Ruth Bader Ginsburg will lie in state here in the capitol, the first time in our nations long history that a woman has ever received the honor. I can think of no more fitting tribute for a woman who made a lifes work of going where women had never gone before. Even with the benefit of a few days, the loss of Justice Ginsburg is devastating. You need only walk by the Supreme Court today where flowers, candles, notes and spontaneous demonstrations have clogged the sidewalks for four days straight will note the impact on this country. We will honor her this week, and by all rights, we should honor her dying wish imparted to her granddaughter that she, quote, not be replaced until the next president is installed. All the words and incomia for Justice Ginsburg from the other side ring hollow if they wont honor her last dying wish. And yesterday, the republican side, so often, President Trump seems to make it worse. President trump mocked Justice Ginsburgs dying wish by insinuating that his granddaughter was a liar. Once again, confirming every terrible thing we know about our president. He said that Justice Ginsburgs statement was something that sounds like, quote, a schumer deal or maybe a pelosi or shifty schiff. Thats the president of the United States of america baselessly suggesting that democrats fabricated the dying wish of the late Justice Ginsburg. It was a coarse, shameful, lying insult to the late Justice Ginsburg and to her family. If the president had a shred of human decency, even a little, hed apologize, but we all know he wont. Everyone here in the senate ought to be disgusted by the president s comments. How low can this president go . He knows no depth. You would never know that. You would think that after the republican majority led a historic blockade just four years ago to keep open a vacancy on the Supreme Court because it was an Election Year, they would have the honor and decency to apply their own rule when the same scenario came around again. Youd expect this Senate Majority to follow their own rule. Whats fair is fair. This is what leader mcconnell said in 2016. The American People should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president. This is the mcconnell rule, the mcconnell rule. This is the principle that leader mcconnell and thenchairman grassley used to justify their refusal to even meet with president obamas Supreme Court nominee. Here it is, the mcconnell rule. When its a president ial season, you cant vote on a Supreme Court nominee because the American People should have a voice. Now, leader mcconnell repeated that refrain for almost a year. So did almost every other republican in the chamber. Quote, the American People shouldnt be denied a voice, unquote. Quote, give the people a voice, unquote. Quote, the senate should not confirm a new Supreme Court justice until we have a new president , unquote. Quote, i dont think we should be moving on a nominee in the last year of a president s term. I would say that if it was a republican president , unquote. Quote, if an opening came in the last year of President Trumps term and the primary process had started, the primary process had started, well wait until the next election, unquote. I dont even have to tell you who those quotes came from. It was nearly every single republican in this chamber. Thats how they justified the unprecedented blockade of president obamas Supreme Court nominee. No vote during a president ial year because we have to let the people decide. They promised to stay consistent if a republican president won in november. Turns out a republican president did win that fall. And a Supreme Court vacancy did arise in the final year of his term. Not just during the primary process but long after it was over with little more than a month, a month before the election, and now whoops, didnt mean it. Its different now. Were supposed to believe this specious, flimsy, and dishonest argument that its about the orientation of the senate and the presidency or how angry republicans are at democrats and all the big, scary things we might do in the future. Maybe that will justify it. Anything, anything not to admit the plain fact that they all made one argument for a year, an argument they insisted was a principle when it was good for them politically, and now they are doing the opposite thing. The mcconnell rule, the American People should have a voice in their selection of the next Supreme Court justice. Turns out the mcconnell rule was nothing more than a mcconnell ruse. Leader mcconnell sadly, sadly is headed down the path of breaking his word to the senate and the American People. He has exposed once and for all that a supposed principle of giving the people a voice in selecting the next justice was a farce. Sadly again, sadly, leader mcconnell has defiled the senate like no one in this generation. And leader mcconnell may very well destroy it. If leader mcconnell presses forward, the republican majority will have stolen two Supreme Court seats four years apart, using completely contradictory rash analysis. How can we expect to trust the other side again . For those of you on the other side who are still thinking about this and maybe some who might change their minds, just think of what this does to this body and peoples word on one of our most solemn and sacred obligations, to choose a shuttlesworth justice fairly and honestly. Its obvious why the a sport justice fairly and honestly. Its obvious why the majority leader sounds so defensive in his remarks. I will note for the record the leader did n