Floor Statements

Madam President, last night the Internal Revenue Service made an important announcement. It is particularly welcome news to those of us who are intently focused on defending the First Amendment, for those of us who, over the years, have raised concerns during the last administration about activist regulators punishing free speech and free association.

It is a straightforward, commonsense policy decision. The Internal Revenue Service is cutting back on the amount of nonpublic information it collects and stockpiles about Americans who donate to nonprofit causes. The IRS will no longer pointlessly demand private contributor lists from whole categories of tax-exempt organizations. I say ``pointlessly'' because the identity of nonprofit donors serves no compelling purpose under sections 501(c)4, and 501(c)6 of our Tax Code.

Contributions to these organizations are not tax deductible--not tax deductible--so the IRS does not need to see this data for accounting purposes. These organizations are not required to release that information under the public inspection and availability requirements.

Let me repeat. The identity of the donors to these organizations is not necessary for accounting and is not required for public inspection by the Internal Revenue Code.

It raises the question that if the IRS isn't permitted to do anything with this set of Americans' private information, why collect it in the first place?

Unfortunately, we know exactly what happens when the government stockpiles private data about the donations through which Americans participate in the public discourse. We know exactly why many on the left are keen for bureaucrats to have this confidential information. Where it leads is Americans being bullied for exercising their First Amendment rights. This bullying is established by bureaucrats and, in some cases, by elected officials.

Sometimes the government itself does the bullying. Case in point: the Obama administration's IRS scandal. The agency slow-walked the applications of groups that appeared conservative, including some of my own constituents. Donors and groups faced unusually aggressive questioning, unreasonable deadlines followed by unreasonable delays. These were Federal authorities using the weaponry of government to punish Americans for supporting speech they didn't like.

Other times, government simply enables the harassment. It fails to protect this private information from leaking to the army of angry leftwing activists who stand eager to harass and bully anyone who is contributing to national conversations with political views with which they disagree.

Back in 2014, the IRS had to settle a lawsuit on this very issue. An IRS worker broke the law and leaked an unredacted copy of a group's confidential tax forms which wound up in the hands of a liberal organization on the opposite side of the issue. Needless to say, private information about Americans' political speech was quickly weaponized for political purposes. In one case, the CEO of a technology organization was hounded from his job by liberal activists for daring to see this subject differently than they did.

Some State governments began demanding their own copies of the information the IRS was gathering. There were similarly troubling results. In 2012, California, which had promised nonprofits that donor lists would only be seen by the State's Registry of Charitable Trusts, accidentally--accidentally--published the donor lists of hundreds of nonprofits from across the political spectrum. More States, like New York, have sought to copy California, allowing more activist regulators to access this information.

So the pattern is unmistakable. This particular political movement wants to erase our age-old tradition that citizens should be able to keep their private views and the causes they privately support private.

Back in the 1950s, it was the NAACP who took on the State of Alabama over precisely this issue. The State government tried to get their hands on the NAACP's donor list. The issue went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, where the NAACP won a big victory for the First Amendment.

Here is what Justice Harlan wrote in that opinion: ``Inviolability of privacy and group association may in many circumstances be indispensable to preservation of freedom of association, particularly where a group espouses dissident beliefs.''

He said that forcing private organizations to disclose their donors was not so different from forcing people with certain views to wear armbands or other clothing, advertising their beliefs to the world.

In both cases, the government's action would be inviting harassment and intimidation upon Americans--those whose beliefs were either unusual or unpopular or, in today's culture of intimidation, those whose beliefs the left disagrees with. The result is, more speakers stay silent, fewer Americans choose to exercise their right of free association.

It is bad enough to wield government power to chill political speech and invite harassment of citizens based on what an angry mob might assume their opinions are, based on their private financial records. It is even more egregious to pursue that nakedly political goal while calling it--believe it or not--good government.

In this country, good government means protecting citizens' First Amendment rights to participate in the competition of ideas, not trying to shut down that competition. We persuade. We don't intimidate.

So I welcome this announcement and applaud the leadership of Secretary Mnuchin and Acting IRS Commissioner David Kautter. I am glad this step will make the right of Americans to freely advocate for their strongly held beliefs less vulnerable to the malice of some in government and to the proven failures of bureaucracies. I urge continued vigilance for all of us who cherish the First Amendment.

Madam President, on a different matter, it is becoming a historic year for favorable economic news. There are plenty of ways to measure how American workers, job creators, and entrepreneurs are writing a new chapter.

After nearly a decade of stagnating pay and vanishing opportunities, recent months have brought remarkable milestones. Optimism among American small businesses has reached its highest level since President Reagan's first term. Sixty-seven percent of Americans believe that now is a good time to find a quality job in the United States--the highest percentage in 17 years of Gallup polling. Just last month, a manufacturing industry measure reported growth in 17 out of 18 sectors, from textiles to precision technologies.

It is no surprise, then, that the National Association of Manufacturers found last month that a record-high 95.1 percent of American manufacturers have a positive view of their company's outlook.

What do these numbers mean to real workers on the floor of American factories? At Mack Molding, an injection molder and contract manufacturer, with locations in Statesville, NC, and Arlington, VT, it means a $5.4 million investment in facilities with preparations to hire 100 new workers. At Sabel Steel, based in Montgomery, AL, it means large pay raises for most of the company's 230 employees and new, more efficient equipment at facilities across the South. Both companies credit last year's historic tax reform law with helping make their 2018 success possible.

Our Democratic colleagues can talk all they like about repealing middle-class families' and job creators' historic tax cuts and sending that money back to Washington instead, but this united Republican government is proud of the new prosperity they are building. We will not let the Democrats take away their tax cut.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, it has been less than a week since the President nominated Judge Brett Kavanaugh to serve as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. Already, praise has poured in for his legal abilities, professional accomplishments, and personal character.

Some of the most interesting testimony has come from the men and women who may know better than anyone how Judge Kavanaugh approaches his work--his law clerks. You can learn a lot about a leader by asking the men and women who work for and with him. Thirty-four of his past clerks sent an open letter to Chairman Grassley and Senator Feinstein last week.

Their own political and legal views are quite diverse:

Our ranks include Republicans, Democrats, and Independents.

But we are united in this: our admiration and fondness for

Judge Kavanaugh run deep.

They describe his commitment to legal excellence:

We never once saw him take a shortcut, treat a case as

unimportant, or search for an easy answer. Instead, in each

case, large or small, he masters every detail and rereads

every precedent.

They also compliment the way Judge Kavanaugh conducts himself both inside and outside the courtroom. They call him ``unfailingly warm and gracious, grounded, and kind.'' They describe a ``fundamental humility.''

A subset of those clerks wrote a second letter. It was from every one of Judge Kavanaugh's female clerks whose current employments allowed them to sign it.

These 18 women explain: ``We feel compelled to write separately to convey our uniformly positive experiences with the Judge as a boss on issues of gender and equality in the workplace.''

``In our view,'' they write, ``the Judge has been one of the strongest advocates in the Federal judiciary for women lawyers.''

They explain how Judge Kavanaugh seeks out the best and brightest, how he goes above and beyond to advise and mentor all of his clerks.

Judge Kavanaugh's hiring reflects, in their words, ``rare gender parity.'' Note

that I did not say ``equity'' but ``parity''--25 women clerks and 23 men. In 2014, in fact, all four of Judge Kavanaugh's clerks were women--a first for a judge on the DC Circuit. There have been 84 percent of those 25 women who have gone on to Supreme Court clerkships, thanks, in large part, to Judge Kavanaugh's guidance and support.

Here is how they conclude their letter:

As you likely know by now, Judge Kavanaugh has two

daughters, Margaret and Liza. If they decide to follow in

their dad's--and grandmother's--footsteps and become lawyers,

they will enter a legal profession that is fairer and more

equal because of Judge Kavanaugh.

We have also heard from Professor Amy Chua, who has served on Yale Law School's clerkship committee for most of the last decade. During that time, 10 Yale Law School graduates have clerked for Judge Kavanaugh, 8 of whom are women.

She emailed them to ask about their experiences. As she explained in the Wall Street Journal, they lauded his work ethic, his commitment to excellence, his humility, and his decency, and ``to a person they described his extraordinary mentorship.''

One woman said:

He's been an incredible mentor to me despite the fact that

I am a left-of-center woman. He always takes into account my

goals rather than giving me generic advice.

With respect to Judge Kavanaugh's approach to deciding cases, Professor Chua pointed out that he ``actively seeks out clerks from across the ideological spectrum who will question and disagree with him'' because ``he wants to hear other perspectives before deciding a case.''

``Above all,'' she observed, Judge Kavanaugh ``believes in the law and wants to figure out, without prejudging, what it requires.''

Again, we have already heard so many speak up to recommend this impressive nominee.

In the weeks ahead, we will hear more, including from Judge Kavanaugh himself, when our colleagues on the Judiciary Committee conduct hearings on his nomination. Yet I wanted to call special attention today to the warm words of those who have worked with and for Judge Kavanaugh. They have seen firsthand just how rigorously he approaches his work as a judge and how graciously he shares his time and his talent with others. Judge Kavanaugh is certainly an impressive nominee.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate resume legislative session for a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 436, S. Res. 386.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported amendment be agreed to.

Mr. President, I know of no further debate on the resolution.

I ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported amendment to the preamble be agreed to, the preamble, as amended, be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10 a.m., Tuesday, July 17; 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. I ask that following leader remarks, the Senate proceed to executive session and resume consideration of the Blew nomination, under the previous order, and that at 11:45 a.m. all time be yielded back and the Senate then vote on confirmation of the nomination with no intervening action or debate, and that if confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action; further, that following disposition of the Blew nomination and notwithstanding rule XXII, the cloture motions filed on Thursday, July 12 ripen; finally, that following the cloture vote on the Quarles nomination, the Senate stand in recess until 2:15 p.m. to allow for the weekly conference meetings.

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, following the remarks of Senators Brown and Sasse.

Madam President, the President of the United States made a superb choice. He chose to fill a place on the Nation's highest Court with one of the Nation's brightest legal minds. Brett Kavanaugh brings unimpeachable academic credentials as a student at Yale and a lecturer at Harvard. He carries over a decade of experience ruling from the Nation's most consequential circuit court. Along the way, he has earned the admiration and praise of his peers--legal professionals with all manner of judicial and political philosophies--for his professional abilities and his experience, as well as qualities that simply go beyond his resume.

Nevertheless, the instant Judge Kavanaugh was announced, far-left groups and some of our own Democratic colleagues in the Senate started pushing the same old scare tactics. More than a week before the nomination, one Democratic Senator explained on cable news that President Trump's nominee, whoever it was, would threaten ``the destruction of the Constitution, as far as I can tell.'' The President hadn't even named his selection, and already our entire system of government was on its last legs? Give me a break. This Senator, by the way, serves on the Judiciary Committee.

One leftwing group had an angry press release all ready to go for whoever the nominee would be, but after Judge Kavanaugh's nomination was announced, they forgot to fill in his name. They had the press release ready with a big blank there, and they forgot to fill in the name. They wound up decrying all the terrible things that would happen if we confirmed the President's ``nomination of blank to the Supreme Court,'' and they sent it out. That kind of says it all--fill-in-the- blank opposition.

Our Democratic friends have learned Judge Kavanaugh's name by now, but the hysterical attacks haven't gotten any less desperate or any more sensible. No sooner are these silly attacks launched than they are beaten back by the facts.

One of the flavors of the week was the outlandish claim that in law review articles he wrote 10 or 20 years ago, Judge Kavanaugh supposedly said that sitting Presidents cannot be held accountable under the law. Some far-left special interests claimed he said that. So did some congressional Democrats. It was the perfect conspiracy theory, catnip for their far-left base. The only problem was, it wasn't true. People who have actually looked at these articles note that Judge Kavanaugh ``does not reach legal conclusions on issues'' of Presidential accountability. If anything, he seems to arrive at the opposite conclusion of what has been alleged.

Professor Noah Feldman of Harvard Law School observed that ``from a legal and constitutional perspective,'' Judge Kavanaugh ``wasn't saying that the courts should find that the President shouldn't be investigated'' or held accountable; ``to the contrary.'' To the contrary. Professor Feldman observes that Judge Kavanaugh's logic would seem to imply that any President is open to being investigated and held accountable under the law. Here is how Professor Feldman finished his debunking of this unfair attack. This is what he said: ``Trying to oppose him on logically backward grounds doesn't serve anyone's interests.''

The Washington Post Fact Checker jumped on the Democrats' mischaracterization. It explained that Judge Kavanaugh's scholarly articles actually contained ``a mainstream view'' on this constitutional question. They blasted the Democratic rhetoric as ``an extreme distortion of what he has written.''

Let me sum that up. According to the Washington Post, it is Judge Kavanaugh's analysis that is mainstream. It is the distortions of his record by congressional Democrats and far-left special interest groups that are extreme.

We have a word for blatantly misrepresenting the record and character of a judicial nominee in order to achieve a political objective. We call it an attempt to Bork the nominee. It refers to how Judge Robert Bork was

slandered in the 1980s, when people both inside and outside the Congress blatantly and shamelessly distorted his record to claim he would do terrible things if confirmed to the Supreme Court.

It is actually in the dictionary now, literally. Judge Bork's last name is in the Merriam-Webster Dictionary as a verb. This is what ``Bork'' means: ``to attack or defeat (a nominee or candidate for public office) unfairly through an organized campaign of harsh public criticism or vilification.'' To be Borked is now in the dictionary. It is completely unfair vilification.

Looking back, most people agree now that this episode was grossly unfair, insulted the intelligence of the American people, and stained the history of the U.S. Senate.

Jeffrey Rosen was a Democrat who worked in Senator Biden's office on the Democrats' side during that episode. Here is what he wrote a few years ago:

I remember feeling that the nominee was being treated

unfairly. Senator Edward Kennedy set the tone with a

demagogic attack. . . . Bork's record was distorted beyond

recognition. . . . It [was] bad for the country.

This was a man named Jeffrey Rosen--a Democrat--who worked in Senator Biden's office during this episode.

Here is what a lawyer who helped lead the anti-Bork effort wrote just last year:

I regret my part in what I now regard as a terrible

political mistake.

He was seized with guilt after all these years of having participated in this Borking. Because of that episode, he goes on, ``we have undermined public confidence in the judiciary.''

There is widespread and bipartisan agreement that trying to Bork judicial nominees is harmful to our Democratic process and to our judiciary.

Judge Kavanaugh's impressive record, impeccable credentials, and his enormous, bipartisan fan club of judicial peers and legal scholars all attest to the outstanding service he would render on the Supreme Court. I am glad that outside fact checkers are already swatting down Democrats' desperate attacks on his nomination.

In a breaking-news bombshell report just last night, we learned that Judge Kavanaugh enjoys America's pastime. Investigative reporters scoured his financial disclosures and learned that he and his friends buy tickets to baseball games and that he pays his bills. As you can see, there is still plenty of silliness to go around.

I urge every one of my colleagues to treat Judge Kavanaugh's record truthfully and treat the confirmation process with the respect that it and this institution in which we serve deserve. We need to act like a responsible United States Senate going through a confirmation process to the United States Supreme Court.

Madam President, on another matter, while Judge Kavanaugh's nomination has filled the headlines this week, the Senate has continued to attend to important business. Yesterday, the Senate voted to proceed to conference with the House on the first three of this year's appropriations bills. I understand the conferees are planning to meet as soon as today. The day before, we voted to go to conference on this year's Defense authorization bill. Soon, we will do the same with respect to the farm bill.

I am proud that we are continuing to deliver on our commitment to bring regular order back to the appropriations process, along with attending to the needs of our Armed Forces and confirming more of the President's nominees. Let's keep this momentum going. I hope the collaborative, bipartisan approach that Chairman Shelby, Senator Leahy, and our subcommittee chairmen have brought to the appropriations process will continue to characterize our progress on the floor as well. With continued hard work and steady cooperation, we can achieve our shared goal of funding our government through the regular appropriations process.

Madam President, on one final matter, the evidence keeps mounting that with Republicans at the helm in the White House, the House, and the Senate, the American people are enjoying what amounts to the most pro-worker, pro-opportunity economic moment in recent history.

Already in 2018, the number of Americans who say it is a good time to find a quality job has risen to its highest level in at least 17 years of data on record. The jobs report released last week showed, in June, that the rate of hire throughout the United States hit an 11-year high.

Interestingly, American workers voluntarily left their jobs at the highest rate in 17 years. What that means--and I would like to drill down on that point for a moment--is that during the Obama administration, we heard a great deal of talk from our Democratic friends about a phenomenon they called job lock.

The idea was that many workers were trapped in jobs that did not pay enough or did not take full advantage of their skills because there weren't enough open opportunities to justify taking the leap and looking for a better position.

Republicans agreed with our Democratic colleagues that we could build a better economy for middle-class workers. We just didn't think tax increases and massive new regulations were the way to do it. Now, following a year and a half of Republican policies, including historic tax reform, the voluntary quit rate has hit a 17-year high. Workers now feel free to climb up the ladder and move on to bigger and better things.

I have just one more data point: This economy is thriving, and the Republicans' bold agenda is helping to make it happen.

Mr. President, I move to proceed to legislative session.

Mr. President, I move to proceed to executive session to consider Calendar No. 595.

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

Mr. President, I move to proceed to legislative session.

Mr. President, I move to proceed to executive session to consider Calendar No. 892.