Confident, yet humble, wise, yet dependent on your guidance. Give them the wisdom to cultivate a faith that preserves, keeping them from growing weary in doing what is right. Strengthen their ability to see among their colleagues your divine image. May our senators increase in favor with you and humanity. Fill them with a passion to live for your glory. We praise you for being our helper and we desire to magnify your holy name. Amen. The president pro tempore please join me in reciting 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 is a recognized. Mr. Grassley i ask one minute in morning business. The presiding officer without objection. Mr. Grassley quite often in our newspapers you can read about a lot of city, state Pension Funds that are in trouble. Theres one at the National Level weve got to be dealing with. So today i speak about the multiemployer Pension System problems and the need for reform. According to the pension benefit guaranty annual projections, and those reports were released last week, theres a very big need for reform as important as ever and getting more important every day. The report estimates the Multiemployer Insurance Program will become insolvent in 2026. Now thats a year later than predicted last year so people might feel a little more comfort, but thats only because we gave relief last year to the mine workers plan. Whats worse is that insolvency will come at the same time that the Central States pension fund will become insolvent and then creating an even bigger strain on the pbgcs Insurance Fund the reaching a bipartisan reform agreement continues to be critically important. Now im very encouraged by recent indications from my democratic colleagues that they are interested in working for with us to find a solution, a solution that will strengthen this important part of a retirement system while ensuring that taxpayers arent left holding the bag again in the future. I yield the floor. I note the absence of a quorum. The presiding officer the clerk will call the roll. Quorum call mr. Mcconnell madam president. The presiding officer the majority leaders recognized. Mr. Mcconnell two days ago the democratic leader are we in a quorum call . I ask consent the quorm call be suspended. The presiding officer without objection. Mr. Mcconnell two 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, quote, 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 Intelligence and security center. This is the nations top counterintelligence official, among other things, he works directly on protecting our elections our elections and our politics from foreign interference. Thats his job. Were going they were going to hear from him. This is the same democratic leader who declared a few weeks ago, if the Intelligence Community did not stay close to congress on Election Security, it would be, quote, 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 now the democratics leader temper is more important. He denied chairman rubio routine permission for the Bipartisan Committee to me. He said we wont 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 well find out whether the Democratic Leaders embarrassing they at ricks were just a oneday 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 would hope our colleague from new york gets out of the way. But the democratic leader didnt 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 justices amazing life. Normally such measures are adopted with unanimous bipartisan support. Thats 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 peaced the tribune i had written, put his name on top, and added two divisive references to our debate over what to do next. He didnt devote any time or attention to the praise of Justice Ginsburgs life or 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 tribune. I hope our colleague from new york will let us pass one sometime soon. Now, madam president , on another matter, i have already talked a lot about history this week, but before we shift focus to President Trumps nominee, we need to review Senate History one more time. As we await the hurricane of misrepresentations and badfaith attacks that seem almost guaranteed to pour out, we need to understand in very clear terms why our colleague from new york is uniquely, uniquely a non noncredible messenger when it comes to the senates role in judicial nominations. It was Senate Democrats who began our modern challenges with the 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 neverused tactic of filibustering nominations and turned it into a constant routine for the first time ever. So, madam president , who was the Main Driving Force behind these tactics . Lets consult some new york newspapers from the year 2003. Quote, schumer decided to put ideology on the front burner in the confirmation process. I am the leader of the filibuster movement. And you know, im proud of it, said the senator from brooklyn. Quote, 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 43s two terms, our colleague built an entire personal brand out of filibustering judicial nominees. Talented, hardworking peoples careers were destroyed. Like the brilliant lawyer miguel estrada, a close friend of nowjustice elena kagan who says he is extraordinary and thoughtful and would have made an excellent addition to any federal court. People like that literally destroyed by democratic tactics. This version of the nowdemocratic 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 cant get their way on every judge, it will be doomsday for democracy. Doomsday for democracy. But, of course, in the very next president ial administration, the democratic leader leapt at the chance to press that doomsday button himself. Democrats could not abide president obama 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, quote, the old rules need to be modified. He voted to use the Nuclear Option to lower the bar. So their action 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, any judges. 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 wont know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions. Thats 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. Thats the argument. Thats 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 . Madam president , 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 yetunnamed nominee, and the American People. It is a fair hearing, a fair process, and a fair vote. Thats 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. Now, madam president , 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 need to farm country and rural america. They tried to use our nations 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, its been routinely refilled, refilled with bipartisan support. But this year, Speaker Pelosi tried to take Middle America hostage for an unrelated political brinksmanship. So im grateful to senator ernst and to 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. So i know all members will carefully review the continuing resolution sent over by the house. Im optimistic that with bipartisan cooperation, well be able to make law well before the government funding deadline at the end of this month. Now, madam president , i understand there are two bills at the desk due a second reading en bloc. The presiding officer the clerk will read the titles of the bills for the second time. The clerk s. 4653, a bill to protect the health care of hundreds of millions of people of the United States and prevent efforts of the department of justice to advocate courts to strike down the Patient Protection and Affordable Care act. H. R. 8337, an act making continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2021, and for other purposes. Mr. Mcconnell in order to place the bills on the calendar under the provisions of rule 14, i would object to further proceedings en bloc. The presiding officer objection having been heard, the bills will be placed on the calendar. The presiding officer under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. Mr. Schumer madam president. The presiding officer the democratic leader is recognized. Mr. Schumer thank you, madam president. First let me thank all of my colleagues who were here until late last night and made such persuasive arguments as to why the new Supreme Court justice who matters so much to the American People, to their health care, to the working peoples rights, to womens rights, to preserving the right to choose, to making sure we have a good green planet, to lgbtq rights, they did an eloquent job. And i hope america was listening because this nomination matters. It matters to the average daily lives of average americans. And last night by holding the floor until the late hours, democrats made really strong arguments. So i thank my colleagues for doing that. Now for the third day in a row leader mcconnell has come to the floor and completely ignored the principle , quoteunquote, he established in 2016 when mere hours after Justice Scalia passed away, leader mcconnell said that the American People should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court justice, his words the American People should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court justice, referring to the upcoming election. But that election was more than eight months away. We are now only 42 days away, but the socalled mcconnell rule that supposed principle that the American People deserve a voice in the selection of a Supreme Court justice hasnt come up. The republican leader cant mention it. No wonder he never mentions it and he sticks to just diversionary, irrelevant remarks in his speeches on the floor instead of addressing the main issue, why he said one thing in 2016 and a different thing now. Instead the senate is forced to suffer these tortured explanations and misleading precedents. At a press conference yesterday, heres how the republican leader described the senate role in confirming Supreme Court justices. He actually said, quote, we have an obligation under the constitution to consider a Supreme Court justice should we choose to take advantage of it. Did you catch that . Did you catch that, madam president . Its an obligation, but only if the republican leader chooses to take advantage of it. So i see, when theres a democratic president , its one of those obligations you dont have to take advantage of. But when theres a republican president , its a solemn constitutional duty. Are we really supposed to swallow the argument that when the senate and the president are of the opposite party, one rule applies, but when theyre of the same party a different rule applies . I didnt hear that right after scalia died when leader mcconnell explained why he was holding it up. So this idea that when its of one party, one rule applies, and another party a different rule applies . We have a term for that. Its called a double standard. And if the leader really wants to discuss precedent, real precedent, not fiction, we can dispatch with that conversation in about 30 seconds. So, madam president , i have a parliamentary inquiry for the chair. Is there a Senate Precedent for confirming a Supreme Court nominee between july and election day in a president ial year . The presiding officer materials from the office of the secretary of the senate do not show such a precedent. Mr. Schumer thank you, madam president. July is long gone, august is over. Were now at the end of september. As you just heard, not from the democratic leader but from the records in the senate as spoken by the chair, there is no, no, no precedent for confirming a Supreme Court justice between july and election day. The republican leader can come up with arguments that twist things, that jump through hoops, but it doesnt gainsay. No, no precedent for any Supreme Court nominee being confirmed between july and election day. So as you know, july has gone, august is over. Were now at the end of september, six weeks before an election in which some people have already begun to vote. Simply my republican friends have no ground on which to stand. None. No logic to excuse completely flipping their position four years apart under the same circumstances. No justificatio