[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 165 (Thursday, October 4, 2018)] [Senate] [Pages S6533-S6537] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] Calling for the Release of Pastor Andrew Brunson Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, I know that the Presiding Officer has been present in the Chair a few times when I have given this speech. It is not a prepared speech. It is an update on a travesty of justice that is continuing in Turkey. Today is October 4. On October 7, 2016, a man named Andrew Brunson, a Presbyterian minister from my State of North Carolina, up near Black Mountain, was arrested by Turkish authorities. Pastor Brunson has been a missionary in Turkey for about 20 years. In 2016, there was an illegal coup attempt. The people associated with it should go to prison because there should not be violent changes of power in nations. They have an election process, and they should honor it. I have no problem when there is evidence of people who have been associated with an illegal coup going to prison, but I have a real problem with a man who for the last 2 years has been in a Turkish prison and went 19 months without an indictment. He was held without charges for 19 months. Over the last couple of months, we finally got him into house arrest. Then they put together an indictment that is truly something that I don't think could keep someone in an American jail overnight. I read it and felt so strongly about it that I decided to go to Turkey and be in the courtroom for 16 hours when he sat through his nearly 12-hour hearing. I was in that courtroom for the whole time, a courtroom just outside of Izmir. It was the second time I was there. I was there 2 months earlier to visit him in prison and to let him know that the U.S. Senate and the U.S. Congress knows he is there and we are not going to forget him. We had nearly 70 Senators sign on to a letter to that effect. The reason I do this speech is to remind the American people about Pastor Brunson and to remind them about other Americans and Turkish- Americans who are in prison, suggesting that they were a part of trying to overthrow President Erdogan's government. It will be 2 years on the 7th of this month. That is 727 days that he has been held in prison. But what I want to talk about is kind of related to a subject we are discussing on the floor in another matter, and that is unsubstantiated allegations. This man has over 11 unsubstantiated allegations. What does that mean? Somebody says: I saw somebody do this. Yet they produce nobody else that can actually corroborate it, in other words, saying: Yes, I remember that happening; I agree with that testimony. There were 11 different allegations. Many of the people who testified wouldn't even show their faces. They were on a video screen with digital blocking and with their voices hidden. Some of them we now know are in Turkish prisons themselves. None of the allegations have been corroborated by a single person. Yet this American, this man who was bringing the word of God to the people who wanted to hear it--he wasn't forcing it on them; he was asking them into the church if they wanted to sit through a service on a Sunday or during the week--was put in prison. He was put in prison for allegations. One person who is also in prison said that one night they saw a light on up in the upstairs part of this very small church. It only fits about 100 people, and there is a little office upstairs. There was a light on for 4 hours, and, therefore, something bad must have been happening in there. There is another real problem with that allegation. It turns out that when I went to Izmir and to that church, there is no window in that upstairs room. Yet that is an unsubstantiated allegation that has landed this man in prison and subjected him to a possible 35-year prison sentence in Turkey. Another was a media post by his daughter, who ate a meal that the Turkish authorities said is a meal that is commonly eaten by terrorist organizations and so, therefore, she must be associated with that organization. That is the level of the allegation. In fact, it is one the more popular dishes enjoyed by many people--Kurds, Turks, and a number of people in the Middle East--but those are the unsubstantiated allegations that have kept this man in prison for 2 years and could potentially keep him in prison for 35 years. He is coming up on his final court date, where they will either release him or imprison him. I want to thank President Trump for making this a priority. I want to thank Secretary of State Pompeo for making this a priority. I want to thank my colleagues, including the Presiding Officer, who voted on a provision in the National Defense Authorization Act that says: Turkey, if you go down this path, there will be consequences. If you go down this path, you may not see the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter ever on Turkish territory. We may have to rethink the supply chain that runs through Turkey to build the F-35. We may actually have to take additional measures. I am watching them. Right now, I am trying to show them respect and hope that they do the right thing, but I want Pastor Brunson and his wife Norine and all of the people who belong to his church--the same church that the Reverend Billy Graham was associated with--to know that if justice is not served, then, we will continue to put the pressure on Turkey in any way that I can for as long as I am a U.S. Senator. Tonight I would just ask anybody watching this on C-Span and all of my colleagues to just pray for Pastor Brunson, to pray for his release. I hope that I don't have to come to you for additional support to remind Turkey that our American justice system would never put a Turkish person in prison and our NATO ally should understand that we want him treated with respect and their very strong partner, the United States of America, treated with respect. I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota. Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, a long and arduous process is finally drawing to a close. In the next couple of days, we will vote on Judge Kavanaugh's confirmation to the U.S. Supreme Court. I will be voting yes. Last week, Dr. Christine Blasey Ford testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee about an allegation she made about Judge Kavanaugh. Dr. Ford deserved to be heard, and she was. Her claims deserved to be investigated, and they were, thoroughly, by the Senate Judiciary Committee. Then they were investigated again by the FBI. Here is what we have learned after seven FBI background investigations, more than 2 weeks of committee investigations, and a day-long hearing in which both sides were heard: There is not one scrap of corroborating evidence [[Page S6534]] to back up her claims against Judge Kavanaugh. Person after person after person has given testimony of Judge Kavanaugh's good character, both in high school and in his adult life. Sixty-five women who knew Judge Kavanaugh in high school sent a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee noting that he always treated women with ``decency and respect.'' It has become clear that for many of my Democratic colleagues, zero evidence was never going to be enough. Innocent until proven guilty doesn't seem to be a concept that my Democratic colleagues understand. Instead, my Democratic colleagues seem to be putting forth a new standard: Guilty no matter what, even with evidence to the contrary, which is scary because innocent until proven guilty is a pretty foundational principle of our system of government, and it is a powerful safeguard against destroying the lives of innocent people with false accusations. The truth is, to many of our Democratic colleagues, Judge Kavanaugh has been guilty since the moment he was nominated. He is guilty of being a Republican. He is guilty of being nominated by a Republican President. He is guilty of pledging his allegiance to the law instead of to Democrats' preferred judicial outcomes. So any means of defeating him became fair game, no matter how unjust, no matter how outlandish. Dr. Ford certainly deserved to have her claims heard and investigated, but Democrats didn't stop there. They gave credence to almost every accusation that was thrown out, no matter how ridiculous or uncorroborated. It didn't matter if no less a paper than the New York Times had declined to publish an accusation for lack of any corroboration. If it would slow down Judge Kavanaugh's confirmation, they grabbed onto it. At least one Democratic Senator suggested that we needed an FBI investigation because Judge Kavanaugh had thrown ice at someone in college. Apparently, throwing ice in college is now grounds for an FBI investigation. What is next--an FBI investigation because Judge Kavanaugh stole another kid's toy in preschool or because he didn't share his swing on the playground during recess? The confirmation process for Judge Kavanaugh has gotten particularly ugly in the last couple of weeks, but the truth is, it was ugly from the beginning. Long before Dr. Ford had made any accusations, one Democratic Senator on the Judiciary Committee said that those who supported Judge Kavanaugh would be complicit in evil. For starters, let's point out that Judge Kavanaugh is a mainstream judge. During his time on the DC Circuit, Judge Kavanaugh's Democrat- appointed colleagues have been just as likely to join his majority opinions as his Republican-appointed colleagues. Judge Kavanaugh has won admiration from across the political spectrum for his intellect, his fairness, and his dedication to the law. Former Obama Acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal noted this about Judge Kavanaugh: I think it's very hard for anyone who's worked with him, appeared before him, to, frankly, say a bad word about him. In my practice we basically have a rule: If there's a Kavanaugh clerk who applies, we hire that person. Thirty-four of Judge Kavanaugh's law clerks wrote a letter on his nomination which said, in part: Our views on politics, on many of the important legal issues faced by the Supreme Court, and on judicial philosophy, are diverse. Our ranks include Republicans, Democrats, and Independents. But we are united in this: Our admiration and fondness for Judge Kavanaugh run deep. For each of us . . . it was a tremendous stroke of luck to work for and be mentored by a person of his strength of character, generosity of spirit, intellectual capacity, and unwavering care for his family, friends, colleagues, and us, his law clerks. Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan--certainly not someone Democrats think of as either evil or an extremist--hired Judge Kavanaugh to teach at Harvard Law School, where he has served as the Williston Lecturer on Law. Both inside and outside his profession, those who know him praise his character. Eighty-four women who worked with him in the Bush administration sent a letter praising him as ``a man of the highest integrity.'' A self-described liberal Democrat and feminist lawyer who knows Judge Kavanaugh and knows him well wrote the following in an op-ed for Politico: My standard is whether the nominee is unquestionably well- qualified, brilliant, has integrity, and is within the mainstream of legal thought. Kavanaugh easily meets those criteria. Just as a Democratic nominee with similar credentials and mainstream legal views deserves to be confirmed, so, too, does Kavanaugh--not because he will come out the way I want in each case and even most cases, but because he will do the job with dignity, intelligence, empathy, and integrity. That is from a liberal lawyer. This is the man that the junior Democrat from New Jersey said it would be ``evil'' to support. I frequently disagree with my Democratic colleagues on policy issues, oftentimes quite strongly, but I don't go around calling my colleagues ``evil'' because we disagree. I know that word should be reserved for people who have truly malicious motivations or who have done truly terrible things--not people who, like me, want to do what is best for our country but have different opinions about how to get there. What kind of an example does the Senator from New Jersey's rhetoric set for our children--that civil disagreement is impossible; that anyone whose opinion differs from our own should not be tolerated; that our fellow Americans are not just our political opponents but our enemies? Democrats like to accuse the President of using irresponsible rhetoric. I might suggest they take a long hard look in the mirror. But it is not just the Democrats' rhetoric that has been extreme and irresponsible throughout this process, so has their handling of Dr. Ford's allegation. The ranking member on the Senate Judiciary Committee, the senior Senator from California, sat on Dr. Ford's allegation for 6 weeks without sharing the allegation with Republicans. During that time, she never once questioned Judge Kavanaugh about the accusation, despite having multiple chances to do so, both in public and in private. If the ranking member thought this accusation was credible, she had an absolute responsibility to disclose it to the committee or to the FBI immediately. She also had an obligation to ask Judge Kavanaugh about it. She did neither. If, on the other hand, she thought it was false--which is the only excuse for her silence--then the Democrats' decision to exploit this accusation for political gain is appalling. In either case, Democrats have behaved with a total lack of responsibility throughout this process. Not only have they shown not the slightest concern about the possibility of tarnishing a good man's name, they also displayed no real concern for Dr. Ford. Clearly, they had no particular interest in giving her or her allegation a hearing until it became politically expedient to do so. If they had really cared about her accusation, they would have brought it up immediately and questioned Judge Kavanaugh about it immediately. Instead, they held it in reserve, apparently to be deployed in the event that they needed it to delay the confirmation process. It is shameful but not surprising. As I said earlier, Democrats made clear from the beginning that they would do anything they could to defeat Judge Kavanaugh's nomination. Throughout this process, they have grasped any straw that appeared: too few documents, too many documents, an unrelated investigation, outlandish accusations. Then, after last week's hearing, when it became clear there was no evidence against Judge Kavanaugh, they jumped on his demeanor at the hearing. Now he was unqualified because he passionately defended his good name in front of the committee. Apparently, it is not OK to be angry when your good name has been dragged through the mud and your family has been threatened. Today, of course, now that we have gotten the results of the FBI investigation, which Democrats requested, by the way, Democrats are now saying that Judge Kavanaugh shouldn't be confirmed because the FBI investigation wasn't long enough or thorough enough. I would like to ask: Does anyone here think there is any FBI investigation [[Page S6535]] that would have satisfied my Democratic colleagues? After all, we know Democrats have been opposed to Judge Kavanaugh from the very beginning. A number of them announced their opposition before the ink was even dry on his nomination. Are we really supposed to believe they were going to change their minds after yet another FBI investigation? Despite the well-coordinated intimidation tactics of the far left, we are moving forward. We are about to vote on Judge Kavanaugh's nomination, as we should be. But I can't help but reflect on the process of getting here. I would like to ask my Democratic colleagues if this is what they think the process should look like going forward. Do they really think that Supreme Court confirmations should be characterized by intense partisanship and unsubstantiated character attacks? Do they really want to do away with the presumption of innocence and allow innuendo--the substitute for evidence? Do they really think it is OK to stop at nothing to tank a nomination? Tomorrow and Saturday, I will be casting my vote for Judge Kavanaugh. I will be voting for him because he is supremely qualified. We all know that. The Democrats know that. I will be voting for him because he is a man of character and integrity, and I will be voting for him because I know that he can be relied on to uphold the rule of law and the Constitution. I invite not just my Republican but my independent- thinking Democratic colleagues to join me. It is not too late to say no to the politics of personal destruction. It is not too late to say no to unchecked partisanship. It is not too late to put this eminently qualified nominee on the Supreme Court. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll. The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll. Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, the American people have walked through Supreme Court nominations many times. There is a normal process of walking through Supreme Court nominations. They are nominated by the President. There are background checks that are done. It is extensive. They then meet with every single Senator or whoever wants to meet with them privately. They turn in documents so that everyone can read through their backgrounds and their writings. They get details, and they get interviews. Anything they have ever written, whether it was writing for their law school journals or writing articles for a sports magazine, is turned in. Everyone goes back through that. Once they go through all 100 Senators or whoever wants to meet with them, the Judiciary Committee meets with them. They do a week of hearings. They do extensive work and talk through everything. Outside witnesses will come in and will talk about their lives. There is a confidential meeting that happens with all the Senators in which they sit down and say there were some private accusations that might have been made or some issues about your finances or things that we saw in your background report that we want to ask you about confidentially. After all of that is done, there is time for questions for the record, and anyone who still has questions can submit them to the nominee. Then it is time for a vote. That is how it is typically done. Quite frankly, that doesn't look like how it was being done this time with Judge Brett Kavanaugh. He was nominated by the President. He turned over documents. Boy, did he turn over documents. There was an enormous number of documents turned over by him that were requested and continue to be requested. Brett Kavanaugh ended up having 480,000 pages of documents turned over to the committee. It was more than the past five Supreme Court nominees combined turned over. There were 57 days from the time he was nominated until the time the first hearing actually began with the Judiciary Committee. That is a longer period of time than it was for Justice Gorsuch, Justice Kagan, or Justice Sotomayor. It was a long period of time between when he was nominated and when he actually came, and there were more documents that were turned over than for any other person. He went through the hearings for 5 days. He went through all of the confidential meetings and those private meetings. He went through every private meeting with every Senator who wanted to meet privately. Then it was time for questions for the record. There were 1,300 questions for the record that were given to him as followup for the hearing. Those are more questions for the record than for all of the Supreme Court Justices combined in the history of the country. After all of that was done, a bombshell was dropped. You see, a month and a half before the end of the hearing, a lady named Dr. Ford had sent a letter to one of the other Senators here, to the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, saying: I have a concern from a memory that I have from high school time. That letter was turned over on July 30, early in the process, while Judge Kavanaugh was still meeting individually with Senators--before the hearings, before the classified meetings, before any of the questions for the record, before any of that. It was turned over early. Apparently, the ranking member's staff reached out to her then and had a phone call, and the ranking member had a phone call. Then that information was held. Apparently, from her own testimony--from Dr. Ford--she was then advised by the ranking member's staff: You need to hire an attorney and prepare yourself. Then nothing was said for a month. Suddenly, 2 days before the hearing, a leak comes out of the Judiciary Committee--from somewhere--and there was a story in the newspaper about this accuser. Then everything began to break loose. What is interesting is that accusations like these are made for a lot of different nominees of all different types and have been for years and years and years. So there is a process by which to handle this. When an accusation is made like that, you give it to the FBI early. It includes it in its background check so as to walk through it early. You sit down in confidential meetings so that accusers don't have to go through all of the public scrutiny. You resolve it in a private setting and bring as many witnesses as you want to talk through it, but you don't want accusers to have to be public, because they don't like to be public. This is something very private and personal to them. Yet that is not what happened with Dr. Ford. It was saved. She was just told: Get an attorney. You are going to need it. Then her story was plopped out into the news, forcing her out, making her sit in front of the American people and dragging the American people through an exceptionally painful season in our country's history. At the end of that, there was a hearing. Many Americans watched. It was riveting to try to figure out who was credible. How do I follow the story? All of this testimony came out from Brett Kavanaugh who adamantly--forcefully--denied anything like this had ever been done with Dr. Ford or any other person. It was unequivocal. Dr. Ford said: I 100 percent remember this, and here are the three people who will also corroborate my story. They were there. There was a push from my Democratic colleagues to say that this investigation had been done by the committee, and they want the investigation done by the FBI, with the unequivocal statement that during the Anita Hill hearings in 1991, the FBI took 3 days to do all of the investigation. We want 3 days. Give the FBI 3 days to do this. Then they came back later: Give them a week. That is all it would take. So a decision was made to pause and give the FBI time to do it. Here were the instructions to the FBI: Research any credible accusation--no boundaries, no limitations on them. Research a credible current accusation. It was not just ``keep adding forever.'' If there were new accusations that were to come in, there would have to be a new conversation. By that time, they had started rolling in. So the FBI was told to just go look at them all, and they were given instructions. No one from the House or the Senate, of either party, was tracking them. They just let the FBI do their task. [[Page S6536]] They have now come back several days later with the report that a lot of American people now know is stored downstairs, and every Senator has the opportunity to go through it. There are pages and pages of testimony. They went through all of the individuals who were claiming to have any kind of alleged firsthand knowledge, all of the individuals Dr. Ford had stated. Those three individuals were there to say they could testify on his behalf. Then there was the list from Brett Kavanaugh's calendar, saying: Here are all of the individuals who went to these parties. The FBI went through and interviewed them all. The FBI also went to Ms. Ramirez, saying: We will take a look at this, even though the New York Times wouldn't take that story when it was offered to them. The New York Times spent a week researching it, calling around, as they said, to dozens of people to find anyone who could corroborate Ms. Ramirez's story, and they couldn't find anyone. So the New York Times walked away from it, but a different periodical printed it anyway. The FBI went to Ms. Ramirez, interviewed her and interviewed anyone she said could corroborate her story. At the end of that investigation, all of those reports came in. We have now read through them, and every single one of those individuals reported back: I don't remember anything like what they are describing. Not only do I not remember anything like what they are describing, I know Brett Kavanaugh, and I can't even imagine that he would do something like that. Instead of agreeing with their story, with the accusation, person after person after person actually agreed with Brett Kavanaugh. What is interesting is Brett Kavanaugh has been through six different FBI background checks in the past. He has now had 150 people in his life who have been interviewed. Interestingly enough, of all 150 people in his life who have been interviewed--even before this time, one of the questions the FBI asks everyone when they are doing a background check is this: Do you know of any issues this person has with alcohol or drug use that would be a problem for them? Do they have a problem with drug or alcohol use? Every single one of those people, from two decades of background checks, six different times in his life--all of them reported: No, he does not have a problem with drugs or alcohol. Over the last couple of weeks, there has been an aggressive move to transform a person into a monster. In fact, some of my colleagues on this floor have labeled him as evil, and anyone who supports him is evil. It is the transformation of a person's reputation for political gain. The other accusations I have seen in the media have been fascinating to me. For the past several weeks, the media has been reporting there is another accuser. The big story will come out that there is another accuser, but the next day they don't ever seem to print when that accuser recanted, as many of them have. A story breaks out one day saying, ``Here is the story I remember,'' and they tell this whole sexually explicit story. The committee then contacts the individual of the story and says, ``Under penalty of perjury, would you be willing to testify in front of us and tell us your story?'' Instead of saying, ``Yes, I would agree to tell my story,'' the response that came back to them was, ``I made a crazy mistake. I apologize. I will recant my story rather than face perjury and testify.'' There was an accusation that came from an anonymous person in Colorado, who said, ``I know I saw Brett Kavanaugh in this year, at this time, slam his girlfriend against the wall in this public place,'' except the problem was the girlfriend that he had at the time came out publicly and said that never ever happened, and she can't imagine Brett Kavanaugh doing that. My favorite one is the accusation that was printed in which another accuser, who ended up being a person who had written in a tip, said: There was a really salacious frat party at Brett Kavanaugh's fraternity after he left Yale. It was a really big party, and it was really out of control. I bet Brett Kavanaugh came back to that party after he was out of college. I bet he came back and went to that party and someone should check. That was the big tip. This has really gotten out of control. This started with a serious accusation from an accuser whom we should take seriously--Dr. Ford. We should have been able to get to the facts and the information, but it suddenly spun out of control into random smear campaigns to try to destroy someone personally. The information that has come out has not corroborated any of the accusations. In fact, it has done the opposite. This has done tremendous damage to a family and to the reputation of someone who has served our country admirably for a long time and who, up until the last 2 weeks, had a stellar reputation, which has now been trashed for political gain. I grieve for the people who have experienced sexual assault in their lives. I have spent 22 years working with students in youth ministry, and I have met lots of families who have had lots of pain in their lives. How we deal with sexual assault in America is very important. People need to be believed, and things need to be taken seriously, but when the facts all come out, we also have to make decisions based on facts, not on accusations. This is a case where we have to be able to deal with the facts. I will vote for Judge Brett Kavanaugh to be on the Supreme Court based on his record for decades, based on now seven FBI backgrounds checks on him, based on 65 ladies who have come forward, who knew him from high school and college and have said: This is the Brett Kavanaugh we knew, and he isn't anything like all of these accusations. Based on 150 different people whom the FBI privately interviewed and asked about his alcohol use over the past 20 years--even reaching back to college, for instance--asking if he was ever out of control in his alcohol use, all of them say no. All of them say no. It is not based on a couple of recent accusations; it is over decades of history. I get that there are people who will disagree on this for political reasons or they may not like Brett Kavanaugh's positions on legal issues. I get that, but let's not smear a man's reputation forever because we don't like his opinions on something. Where do I think we go from here? I think there is something we can gain as a nation from this painful experience. If there is any one piece of advice that I could pass on to the country as a whole and to us as leaders, it is to encourage families to take care of their kids. As I read all of these stories--and I have gone through all of them-- all of them show some markers that I look at and say there is some need for conversation. I think moms and dads should sit down with their daughters and should lovingly say to them: If there is ever anything that happens to you, if any boy ever does something inappropriate to you, if he ever touches you in any way, we want you to know that we love you, we believe in you, and you can come to tell us right away because we want to make it right as soon as possible. Do not be afraid to talk to us about it. We will not blame you. We want to make it right. That conversation that moms and dads can have with their daughters could have great benefit for a lot of daughters for a long time. There is a conversation that moms and dads need to have with their sons and daughters about alcohol use because in all of the stories that I have read, all of them involve teenage drinking--all of them. Dr. Ford admitted drinking even at the party she described. All of them involved drinking and drug use. There is a conversation that moms and dads could have with their kids because, quite frankly, I have met way too many parents who have said: I know my children are going to drink. I just tell them not to drink and drive. If they are going to drink, I tell them just to stay over there or come to our house and drink, and that will be fine. Well, it is not fine. There are an awful lot of 15- and 16-year-olds who do not have the maturity to drink alcohol, and when parents sign off on it and say that it is OK, they need to understand there are very real consequences. I have not asked Judge Kavanaugh about it, but I bet he would love to take back some of his drinking when [[Page S6537]] he was in high school and college, to wait until he was more mature, because he was telling painful stories. I would encourage parents to be parents and to step up and help protect their kids so that they can make better decisions. It may be a good lesson for us as a nation to be able to pass on to our kids. One last lesson: We have to learn how to disagree about political issues without destroying someone personally for the sake of gain on anything in politics. We have to learn this lesson because in the days ahead, no matter what your political party is, no matter who is President, no matter who is nominated, we want the best and brightest of our country to step up. We want them all to be able to serve their country. I have not met a perfect person. What has been interesting to me is the number of times that I have had Democratic colleagues say to me in the last week and a half, ``You know, I really hope they don't go through my high school record like we are going through Judge Kavanaugh's record'' or the number of times I have heard folks say, ``Do you know what I really want said at the committee hearing? I want someone to step up and say that he who is without sin should cast the first stone, but that hasn't been said.'' Maybe an ounce of compassion and a tremendous amount of affection for those who have suffered greatly from assault would be of great benefit to us as a nation, as a community, and as a Senate. I yield back. I suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll. The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll. Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. ____________________