vote:

vote: vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change their vote? if not, the yeas are 49, the nays are 44. the nomination is confirmed. the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion: we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of keith e. sonderling of florida to be a member of the equal employment opportunity commission. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the questions is, is it the sense of the senate the is that

debate on the nomination of keith e. sonderling of florida to be a member of the equal employment opportunity commission shall be brought to a close. the yeas are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: on this vote the yeas are 52, the nays

are 41. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, equal employment opportunity commission, keith e. sonderling, of florida, to be a member.

mr. schumer: madam president. the presiding officer: the democratic leader. mr. schumer: thank you, madam president. now, over the course of her extraordinary life, justice ginsburg did as much to advance the cost of justice as she managed. she was a trailblazer of women of all ages from all walks of life who watched her tear down the barriers that sprayed men from women, first -- operated men from women.

as i said this morning, it is only fitting that she is the first woman to lie in state in the nation's capitol. after all she made a life's work out of going where women had not gone before. i rise now to offer a resolution that will honor her long and ee ee -- her long career. the republicans ignored justice ginsburg's dying wish, what she called her most fervent wish, that she not be replaced until a new president is installed. we added to the exact same text of the resolution the republicans gave us. all the kind words from the republican majority about justice ginsburg will be totally empty if those republicans ignore her dying wish and instead move to replace her with

someone who will tear down everything she built, someone who could turn the clock back on a woman's right to choose, someone who could turn back the clock on marriage equality, someone who would make it impossible to join a union, someone who can take health care away from tens of millions of americans, send drug prices soaring and rip away protections for up to 130 million americans with preexisting conditions. that is what we're talking about when we talk about this vacancy. for hundreds of millions of americans, everything is on the line. perhaps that's why justice ginsburg expressed her fervent wish that she not be replaced until the next president is installed. she knew how important the supreme court was in american life and she knew there would be great temptation to take advantage of the timing of her death for political purposes.

she knew the risk of her vacancy, turning into a power game driven by rank partisanship. so she expressed a simple idea. let the next president decide whomever it might be. could be president trump, could be vice president biden, bur let the -- but let the next president decide. don't rush a nominee through mere days before an election in what is sure to be the most controversial supreme court nomination in our nation's entire history. maybe justice ginsburg hoped that her dying wish could save the senate majority from itself. it doesn't appear that way, but here on the floor this afternoon we ask our colleagues to acknowledge her entire life and legacy, including her dying wish.

as in legislative session, i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of the schumer resolution relating to the death of ruth bader ginsburg, associate justice of the supreme court of the united states, and which is at the desk. i further ask that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or business. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. cruz: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cruz: reserving the right to object. this endeavor started with a resolution that the majority put forward that was intended to be a bipartisan resolution commemorating the life and service of justice ruth bader ginsburg. that follows the bipartisan tradition this body has followed commemorating justices when they have passed. unfortunately the democratic

leader has put forth an amendment to turn that bipartisan resolution into a partisan resolution. specifically, the democratic leader wants to add a statement that justice ginsburg's position should not be filled until a new president is installed, purportedly based on a comment justice ginsburg made to family members shortly before she passed. that, of course, is not the standard. under the constitution, members of the judiciary do not appoint their own successors. no article 3 judge has the authority to appoint his or her own successor. rather judicial nominations are made by the president of the united states and confirmations are made by this body, the united states senate. i would note that justice ginsburg was someone whom i knew

personally. i argued nine times before justice ginsburg in the supreme court. she led an extraordinary life. she was one of the finest supreme court litigators to have ever practiced, and she served 27 years on the court leaving a profound legacy. justice ginsburg understood full well that the position being put forth by the democratic leader is not the law and is not the constitution. indeed, i will quote what justice ginsburg said just four years ago. reported in "the washington post" on september 7, 2016, justice ginsburg is reported to have said, quote, the president is elected for four years, not three years. so the power he has in year three continues into year four. maybe members of the senate will

wake up and appreciate that that's how it should be. now, of course, when justice ginsburg said that, that was when president obama had made the nomination of merrick garland to the supreme court, and the senate declined to consider that nomination. and without even a hint of irony, every democrat who is now screaming from the ramparts that we cannot consider a vacancy on the court during this election year was screaming equally loud from the ramparts that we must consider a nomination during a presidential election year just four years ago. joe biden vociferously called for the senate to consider that nomination. barack obama called for the senate to consider that nomination. hillary clinton called for the senate to consider that nomination. the democratic leader said the senate was not doing its job if we didn't consider that

nomination. to my knowledge every democratic member of this body likewise decried the decision not to take up that nomination and insisted the senate was not doing its job. well today obviously the situation is changed. we're -- where all of those democratic members who demanded the senate take up a nomination of the supreme court are now demanding the senate not take up a nomination to the supreme court. now to be sure, the republican majority that declined to consider that nomination is now going to take up president trump's nomination to this vacancy, but i would note the circumstances are markedly different. and history and more than two centuries of precedent is on the side of what this senate will do. the question of whether a president should nominate a supreme court justice to fill a vacancy that occurred in a presidential election year has

occurred 29 times in our nation's history. this is not new. 29 times. of those 29 times, presidents of both party, democrats and republicans, have nominated justices 29 times. every single time there's been a vacancy in a presidential election year, a president has nominated a justice to that vacancy. of the 44 individuals who served as president of the united states, 22 have done so. fully one half of the presidents who ever served this country have made supreme court nominations during presidential election years. so what's the difference? well, there is a sharp difference in or nation's history, depending upon whether the senate is controlled by the same party as the president or a different party from the president. so the 29 times in history, 19 of those times the senate and the presidency were controlled

by the same party. when that happened, the senate took up and confirmed those nominees 17 of the 19 times. you want to ask what history shows this body does when the president and senate are of the same party and a nomination is made in a presidential election year, this body takes up that nomination and assuming a qualified nominee, confirms that nominee. on the other hand, what happens when the president and the senate are of different parties? well, that's happened ten times in our nation's history. all ten times the president has made a nomination but in those circumstances, the senate has confirmed those nominees only twice. 2016 was one of those examples. now, the democratic leader gave a passionate speech which i know he believes about what kind of justice he would like to see on the court. democratic members of this body have long championed judicial activists who would embrace a

view of the constitution that i believe would do serious damage to the constitutional liberties of the american people. but the interesting thing about the democratic leader's speech is that argument was presented to the voters and the voters disagreed. in 2016 hillary clinton promised to nominate justices just like the kind that the democratic leader said he wanted to see. and president trump promised to nominate justices, quote, in the mold of justice scalia and justice thomas and the american people had that issue squarely before them and the voters chose that we wanted constitutionalist judges nominated to the supreme court of the but not only the presidential election but the senate majority, the american people voted for a republican majority in the senate in 2014. the american people voted for a republican majority again in 2016 and in 2018, the american people grew our majority in all three of those elections. the question that the democratic

heeder has put forward was directly before the voters. what kind of justices do you want? and the voters clearly decided and had given a mandate the president has said he is going to nominate a justice this week, that's the right thing to do and this body, i believe, will take up, will consider that nomination on the mefer rites, and i -- merits and i believe we will confirm that nominee before election day. that is consistent with over 200 years of senate precedent from both parties. there is, however, something that the democratic leaders and democratic members of this body are threatening that is not consistent with history or precedent or respect for the constitution. and that is namely a threat to pack the supreme court. we have heard multiple democrats say that if the senate confirms this nominee and the democrats take a majority, that next year

they will try to add two or four or who knows how many justices to the supreme court. you know, there was another democratic president who tried to do that, f.d.r., even though he had a supermajority, the democratic congress rejected his efforts as an effort to politicize the supreme court. and since the democratic leader believes we should follow the wishes of justice ginsburg, i think it's worth reflecting on what justice ginsburg said about this. she was asked in an interview with npr and her statement was as follows. quote, nine seems to be a good number. it has been that way for a long time. i think it was a bad idea when president franklin roosevelt tried to pack the court. well, unfortunately, it seems the democratic leader and

democratic senators are repeating the partisan mistakes of their predecessor, threatening the court and threatening to pack the court which would be truly a radical and bad idea as justice ginsburg explained. accordingly, what i am going to do is propose modifying the democratic leader's resolution to delete his call that we leave this vacancy open, that we leave the court with just eight justices which opens up the possibility of a 4-4 tie, not able to resolve a contested election and leaving this country for weeks and months of chaos if we have a contested election in november. but instead replacing in the resolution the quote from justice ginsburg that packing the court is a bad idea and the senate agrees that packing the court is a bad idea and, madam president, i'm confident that when i ask the democratic leader, he's going to reject

this because we are sadly seeing one side of the aisle embrace more and more dangerous and radical proposals, including trying to use brute political force to politicize the court. that is not consistent with the constitution, nor is it consistent with two centuries of this body's precedence. accordingly, i ask that the senator modify his request and instead take up my resolution at the desk. i further ask that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: does the senator so modify his request? mr. schumer: reserving the right to reject. -- to object. i believe justice ginsburg would easily see through the legal sophistry of the argument of the junior senator from texas. to turn justice ginsburg's dying words against her is so, so

beneath the dignity of this body. i do not modify. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. cruz: i object. the presiding officer: the objection is heard. the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: thank you, madam president. last week former vice president biden released his presidential tax plan. i wish he would release his list of people he's going to put on the supreme court like he said he was going to do in june. he hasn't done that and i think yesterday he said he wasn't going to do it. but we do have his high tax plan. he vowed to raise taxes immediately on u.s. businesses, even though our country is recovering from a worse economic crisis since the great depression and usually when you're in that economic

condition, you don't raise taxes. but the very last thing struggling americans need and particularly the businesses that create the jobs is a massive tax increase at this time. of course, mr. biden's tax plan shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone. that party seems to think the answer to every problem in america is raising taxes and spending more money. when he was vice president, the u.s. corporate tax rate was the highest in the industrialized world. it isn't now because of president trump's tax proposals. and the bill that we got passed december 2017. u.s. companies weren't competitive with their foreign counterparts prior to the recent

tax legislation. and there were constant headlines all the time about companies moving their headquarters overseas, largely because of our outdated tax system. in fact, a number of mr. biden's proposals make me think that he's reliving his time as vice president because during those years -- during those eight years, his plan to increase the corporate tax rate from 21 to 28 would quite very quickly take us back to those days. once again this country would be saddled with the highest business tax rates in the industrialized world taking into account federal and state taxes in this country. u.s. companies both large and small would see higher taxes than their foreign competitors

in france, germany, the u.k., and other major trading partne partners. in some cases those taxes would be as much as 15 percentage points higher. mr. biden says our tax system encourages offshore profit shifting and inversions and back when he was vice president, those things actually happened. offshoring, profit shifting, and inversions. but that's no longer true since we passed the tax cut and jobs act december 2017. when mr. biden was vice president, the u.s. tax law allowed companies to defer their foreign earnings until they were brought back to the united states. why would you bring them back when we have the highest tax rate in the history of the

country sitting in some bank overseas. they're not taxed at that rate until the money comes home. that system allowed many companies then to delay paying any tax on their foreign earnings and in some cases that could be indefinitely. as part of tax reform, we specifically sought to end the parking of profits overseas. we wanted that money to come home because that money being invested in this country would create jobs so that's why we enacted the tax on global and tangible low-tax income, or guilty, as it's referred to, the acronym, which imposes a minimum tax on low-tax companies. and when biden was vice president, there were plenty of

opportunities for what we call base erosion, in other words incentives to park the money overseas. that's why we created then the base erosion anti-abuse tax or the acronym beat which targets deductible payments made to foreign limits. we have -- together these policies addressed loopholes so companies can't erode the u.s. tax base and avoid taxes. while tax reform cracked down on notable abuseses, it also had the positive effect of -- made in the united states here far more attractive place to invest, not only for those profits in this country coming home but for foreign investment as well in america. we created the foreign derived

intangible income rules to incentivize companies to keep intellectual property in this country, not abroad. we also allowed immediate expensing of investments to encourage companies to put their facilities and jobs here on u.s. soil, and president trump has gone way beyond even what the tax laws have provided as an incentive to get industry back here. now mr. biden may be harking back to 2014, but let's all remember that companies then were announcing leaving left and right their plans to invert or move their headquarters overseas. but since our 2017 trump tax reform, i haven't heard any of e