A bill to amend title 46, United States Code, to exempt old vessels that only operate within inland waterways from the fire-retardant materials requirement if the owners of such vessels make annual structural alterations to at least 10 percent of the areas of the vessels that are not constructed of fire-retardant materials and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I will make this very brief. I know we are up against the clock here.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Shuster so very much for chairing the committee during my tenure on it and Mr. DeFazio, also, for his leadership. I want to also express my appreciation to the new chair, as well as the previous chair of the subcommittee, Mr. Hunter, with whom I was able to work over the last 3 years.

Essentially, this is a good bill. It covers the things that the Coast Guard needs. It increases their funding to a level that is necessary. The title of the bill is proper. We all thank Mr. LoBiondo for his many years of service.

There are a couple of things about the bill that I do want to speak to, and that is we have in the bill a backup system for the GPS that we so much rely upon now. It is finally going to get into the legislation. We also move forward with Blue Technologies and the autonomous, both air and underwater, vehicles that are going to be necessary for the Coast Guard to fully carry out its responsibilities.

Beyond that there are some things in the bill that are a compromise. I want to point one out that is very important, and that is section 834 to which I continue to object. This is a bill that actually allows for an aged wooden ship to ply the waters of the Mississippi. The Coast Guard correctly states that this vessel, constructed primarily of wood, and operating the overnight passenger trade, presents an unacceptable fire risk to its passengers and crew, and, accordingly, the Coast Guard is opposed to this particular section. It is unfortunate that is in the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record two letters, one from the Department of Homeland Security and another one from the National Volunteer Fire Council.

Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs,

U.S. Department of Homeland Security,

Washington, DC, June 28, 2017.

Hon. Bill Shuster,

Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Representative Shuster: This letter sets forth

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) views with regard to S.

89, a bill ``[t]o amend title 46, United States Code, to

exempt old vessels that only operate within inland waterways

from the fire-retardant materials requirement if the owners

of such vessels make annual structural alterations to at

least 10 percent of the areas of the vessels that are not

constructed of fire-retardant materials and for other

purposes.''

Notwithstanding the form in which S. 89 is drafted, only

one vessel, the Steamer DELTA QUEEN, would be eligible for

the exemption. Because of the advanced age, construction, and

configuration of the Steamer DELTA QUEEN, the vessel

represents an unacceptable degree of fire safety risk to its

passengers and crew. Given the risk that a marine casualty

aboard the Steamer DELTA QUEEN poses to life, property, and

infrastructure, the DHS must oppose S. 89.

Background:

The Steamer DELTA QUEEN is a 20th century vessel, the

superstructure of which is constructed of wood. The vessel's

boilers are original and open directly to the wood

superstructure. Uniquely, the vessel's configuration has been

altered such that the sole means of egress is the stage

(gangway) on the bow.

In 1966, Congress stipulated that, ``no passenger vessel of

the United States . . . shall be granted a certificate of

inspection . . . unless the vessel is constructed of fire-

retardant materials (emphasis added).'' During the ensuing

decades, Congress temporarily delayed the effect of the

mandate as it would apply to the Steamer DELTA QUEEN five

separate times. Finally, in 2008, the temporary delay

expired, and the mandate was made applicable to the Steamer

With that, I think I have consumed all the time allowed. I will simply close in this way: All in all this is our third effort to successfully pass legislation. I see the majority counsel over there. I thank John so very much for working with us. And on the minority side David is an extraordinary individual. It has been a pleasure working with him on this, the third

successful passage of the Coast Guard reauthorization.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to join my Chairman on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Congressman Bill Shuster, and my Ranking Democrat Member on the Transportation Committee, Congressman Peter DeFazio, to endorse and support S. 140, the Frank LoBiondo Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2018.

The Coast Guard is a special Federal agency, one that is selfless in service and highly proficient in its work. Ironically, the Coast Guard also is an agency that is over-worked, under-resourced, and rarely given the thanks that the men and women of the Coast Guard so rightly deserve.

Today, with the passage of this legislation, we can say that we are at last stepping up and authorizing funding levels commensurate with the many demands we ask our Coast Guard to undertake. The 2.6 percent increases for both fiscal years 2018 and 2019 will go far to address the deferred needs of the Coast Guard.

This stands in sharp contrast to the folly of the Trump administration's skinny budget for Fiscal Year 2017 that actually sought to cut Coast Guard funding by $1.3 billion--a gross mistake if there ever was one.

In general, I applaud Chairman Shuster and his staff, and Ranking Member DeFazio and his staff, for their cooperative and collegial, yet determined, negotiations with the other body to arrive at a final bill that advances or clarifies several maritime policy initiatives, improves Coast Guard administration and management, and enhances Coast Guard mission readiness and capabilities.

I am particularly pleased that this legislation advances the Coast Guard's future use of new technologies to improve maritime safety and security and maritime domain awareness.

Chief among these is my provision to direct the Department of Transportation to establish a reliable back-up timing system to function should the positioning, navigation and timing signals transmitted by GPS satellites be disrupted or degraded.

The loss of GPS signals has been characterized as a ``single point of failure'' for national security and for critical infrastructure systems. Simply stated, we no longer can afford to ignore this threat, and I urge members to join me and support this legislation today.

The bill also institutes a new acquisition policy for the Coast Guard to acquire unmanned aerial systems, or UAS. The inability of the Coast Guard to acquire UAS systems for its National Security Cutters is a chronic problem. Restricting the Coast Guard to acquire only systems already acquired and proven effective by other military or non-military agencies, should enable the Service to acquire a UAS system that meets its mission needs without, as they say, ``re-creating the wheel.''

In addition, the bill directs the Coast Guard to sponsor a National Academy of Science study on the status of unmanned, underwater vessels and their potential as mission platforms for the Coast Guard, especially for surveillance activities.

This study should help inform the work of the Coast Guard's Blue Technology Center of Expertise that Congress authorized earlier this year with the enactment of Public Law 115-265.

I also want to express my support for Title VII of the bill that reauthorize the activities of the Federal Maritime Commission and enact some important amendments to the Shipping Act made necessary by the disruption and consolidation in the global container shipping market.

Overall, I am pleased that this legislation would authorize increased funding levels for fiscal years 2018 and 2019 for the Federal Maritime Commission. Increased funding should enable the Commission to improve its capabilities to monitor shipping trades that remain turbulent.

The bankruptcy of Hanjin Lines in 2016 and the subsequent consolidation of the few remaining ocean carriers into three large alliances produced shock waves in global shipping markets. These new alliances also sent shock waves to U.S. marine terminal operators, tug operators, bunkering operators, and other marine service providers.

Title VII of this bill amends the Shipping Act to make some targeted and strategic amendments to improve the legal standing of U.S. port service providers. Additionally, this title strengthens the authority of the Federal Maritime Commission to oversee and intervene, if necessary, in future interactions between these alliances and U.S. port service providers to ensure fair competition.

I support these amendments to the Shipping Act as a good first step. I expect that these ideas will require additional refinement as the process moves forward, especially on how best to protect confidential and proprietary information gathered by the Federal Maritime Commission to understand market dynamics. I am open to those discussions and look forward to improving the bill.

I also want to express my support for Title IX of the bill that establishes new authorities for the regulation of ballast water and incidental discharges from commercial vessels.

While perhaps not perfect, the measure does provide for uniform regulation of vessel discharges within the scope of the Clean Water Act. In addition, the legislation addresses several important issues raised by coastal states, none the least granting states the ability to establish ``no discharge zones'' if necessary to protect sensitive state waters.

In closing, this bill is non-controversial legislation that addresses the interests of the Coast Guard and U.S. maritime industry. It also addresses the needs of the members on both sides of the aisle, and both sides of the Capitol. I support the legislation and urge its adoption.

Although I spoke earlier to express my full support for the underlying bill, I rise now to express my strong opposition to a provision that the Senate inserted into the legislation over my objection.

The specific provision is section 834, Fire Retardant Materials. Nothing could be further from the truth.

What this provision actually does is reinstate an exemption from a longstanding fire safety requirement for passenger vessels carrying 50 or more people on overnight voyages to be constructed using fire retardant materials.

And although the provision does not clearly state the vessel or vessels that would benefit from this exemption, the reality is that there is only one vessel, the Delta Queen, an aged paddlewheel steamship whose superstructure is almost entirely built out of wood, for which the exemption will apply.

In 2008, the 110th Congress decided--wisely in my view--not to renew this ill-advised exemption for the Delta Queen in favor of upholding maritime safety. It was the correct decision then, and it remains the correct decision today.

I have little choice but to raise my objections to this provision based on the manner by which the other body tacked it onto the Coast Guard bill despite the fact that companion legislation introduced in the House, H.R. 619, went nowhere.

This legislation would waive a critical maritime fire safety standard and consequently expose the American public to overnight travel on a vessel that the Coast Guard maintains is ``an unacceptable fire hazard to passengers and crew.''

The Coast Guard's position remains clear and unequivocal. As stated in its 2008 Special Inspection report, the Coast Guard found that ``The combustible construction of the vessel presents an unacceptable fire risk that cannot be mitigated by the addition of fire suppression measures.''

The Coast Guard also concluded that, ``The vessel, constructed primarily of wood and operating in the overnight passenger trade, presents an unacceptable fire risk to its passengers and crew.'' Accordingly, the Coast Guard has been, and remains, opposed to legislation to renew the exemption from fire safety standards for the Delta Queen.

Mr. Speaker, I have included in the Record the administration's views letter stating its opposition to S. 89, which is the underlying provision in section 834.

This provision also has drawn opposition from the National Volunteer Fire Council. The Council concludes that the ``fire safety exemption in S. 140 will endanger the lives of passengers and crew members aboard historical vessels, but also for the dangerous precedent it sets.''

Mr. Speaker, I have included in the Record the Council's letter stating its opposition to section 834.

I commend the Coast Guard for upholding its fire safety standards. I fail to see why it makes any sense for the other body to advance legislation that would sharply contradict the Coast Guard's recommendations and compromise maritime safety.

The American public trusts Congress to ensure that our nation's transportation system remains the safest in the world. Section 834 violates that trust.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, first, let me thank my friend and colleague from Nebraska for her indulgence.

Explosion in Saint Petersburg, Russia

Before I begin, Mr. President, I want to express our concern here in the United States for our friends in Saint Petersburg, Russia, in the wake of an explosion on their subway system this morning. Russia has been in the news a lot recently, typically in adversarial terms. Today is a time to remember that, whatever our differences, we wish no ill to the people of any nation. Our thoughts and prayers are with the families of the Russians who were killed this morning. We wish a swift recovery to the injured and hope the perpetrators are soon brought to justice.

Nomination of Neil Gorsuch

Mr. President, I rise this afternoon on the nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court, which was just advanced by the Judiciary Committee.

This afternoon, it has become clear that Judge Gorsuch does not have the 60 votes that are necessary to end debate on his nomination. So now the focus is shifting away from the issue of whether Judge Gorsuch will get 60 votes on the cloture motion and toward the fundamental question before us: Will the majority leader break the rules of the Senate in order to get Judge Gorsuch on the bench?

My friend, the majority leader, has said several times that Judge Gorsuch will be confirmed by the end of this week one way or another. What he really means when he says that is, if Judge Gorsuch does not earn 60 votes in the Senate, which is now the likely outcome, the Republicans must--underline ``must''--exercise the nuclear option to pass Judge Gorsuch on a simple majority vote.

I think the majority leader reasons that if he says it enough times, folks

will start believing it--that he has no choice--but they should not. It is a premise no one should swallow. The majority leader is setting up a false choice of supporting Judge Gorsuch or he will have no choice but to break the rules. Maybe, to the majority leader, the nuclear option is the only option, but there are many alternatives. The majority leader makes up his mind independent of what Democrats do on issue after issue, but on this one, he says he has no choice. Maybe he has no choice because the rightwing of the Republican Party--organizations like the Heritage Foundation--will go after him if he does not, but he certainly has a choice to do the right and courageous thing.

Instead, Republicans are playing the game of ``they started it.'' They say Democrats started this process by changing the rules for lower court nominees in 2013. They fail to mention the history that led to that change. The reason that Majority Leader Reid changed the rules was that Republicans had ramped up the use of the filibuster to historic proportions.

They filibustered 79 nominees in the first 4 years of President Obama's Presidency. To put that in perspective, prior to President Obama, there were 68 filibusters on nominations under all other Presidents--from George Washington to George Bush. Under President Obama, exclusively, in the first 4 years of his administration, Republicans filibustered 79 nominees. They deliberately kept open the DC Court of Appeals because it has such influence over decisions that are made by the government.

We all know the hard-right Federalist Society and the hard-right Heritage Foundation want to limit what government can do. The deal we made in 2005--a group of Senators, the so-called Gang of 14--allowed several of the most conservative jurists in the land to become judges and be confirmed to that circuit court. Yet, when President Obama came in, our Republican colleagues insisted on holding three seats of that court open. They, literally, said that they would not allow the seats to be filled at all by President Obama.

Sound familiar? Merrick Garland knows it is.

At the time, I pleaded several times with Senator Alexander, my dear friend from Tennessee, to let us vote on some of the judges for the DC Circuit. I asked him to go to Senator McConnell and say that the pressure on our side to change the rules after all of these filibusters was going to be large. Let's avoid it, I said. But Senator McConnell said no.

Republicans had refused all of our overtures to break the deadlock that they had imposed. So if the majority leader wants to conduct this partisan ``they started it'' exercise, I am sure we could trace it all the way back to the Burr-Hamilton duel.

The fact is that the Republicans blocked Merrick Garland by using the most unprecedented maneuvers. Now we are likely to block Judge Gorsuch, and that means neither party has gotten its party's choice in the last 2 years.

We can go back and forth and blame each other, but in the recent history of the vacancy caused by Justice Scalia's death, we have both lost. We lost Merrick Garland because of the majority leader's unprecedented blockade, and Republicans will lose on Judge Gorsuch because we are doing something we think is reasonable in asking that he be able to earn 60 votes as so many others have. We think the two are not equivalent, but in either case, we have both lost.

We are back to square one, and Republicans have total freedom of choice in this situation. No one is forcing them to break the rules. They don't have to treat the nuclear option as if it were their first and only option. It is a false choice.

To my friends on the other side, the answer isn't to change the rules; the answer is to change the nominee. Presidents of both parties have done so in the past when Supreme Court picks failed to merit confirmation. Again, the answer isn't to change the rules; the answer is to change the nominee.

The majority leader should have the vision and courage to see past this impasse, and I believe he should seriously consider a different option. The President, Senate Republicans, and Democrats should sit down together to come up with a mainstream nominee who can earn bipartisan support. We are willing to meet with them anywhere, anytime to discuss a consensus nominee.

Now, I know my colleagues on the other side will say Judge Gorsuch was a mainstream nominee and Democrats would never support any judge nominated by President Trump. We disagree. We probably can't support any nominee whose sole vetting is by the Heritage Foundation and the Federalist Society. They were the sole gatekeepers for the Scalia vacancy, and each is well known to be a rightwing, wealthy special interest group dedicated to moving the bench way to the right. Their selection of Judge Gorsuch shows it. Both the New York Times and the Washington Post did analyses done by experts that showed that Judge Gorsuch would be a very, very conservative--many would say rightwing-- Justice on the bench. The New York Times said he would be the second most conservative Justice on the bench--second only to Justice Thomas-- and more conservative than the late Justice Scalia. The Washington Post actually said he would be the most conservative Justice on the bench, based on his record--even more conservative than the very, very conservative Justice Thomas.

In fact, we Democrats have never let special interest groups be the gatekeeper. We have never said to any special interest group, as President Trump did: Give us a list, and we will choose from that list. That is what Republicans did. We have never done it.

In the past, Presidents have done just what we are suggesting for selecting Supreme Court Justices. President Bill Clinton sought and took the advice of Republican Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch in nominating Justices Ginsburg and Breyer instead of Bruce Babbitt. President Obama took the advice of Republican Senators when he picked Merrick Garland--a consensus, mainstream nominee.

President Trump, on the other hand, ignored the Senate and only sought the advice and consent of rightwing special interest groups when making Supreme Court picks. He was running. He had to shore up his support on the hard right. So he said: I am outsourcing the entire selection process to two groups--which, again, are not consensus groups. They would admit that themselves--the Heritage Foundation and the Federalist Society. Lo and behold, the process didn't produce a nominee who could earn 60 votes. By contrast, Justice Ginsburg earned 93 votes and Justice Breyer earned 87.

So we are offering President Trump and our friends on the other side a way forward. They don't have to break the rules to get a Justice on the bench. They don't have to break the Senate confirmation process, fundamentally weakening the constitutional principle of advice and consent, to get a Justice on the bench. President Trump could simply consult with Members of both parties to try and come up with a consensus nominee who could get approved and meet a 60-vote threshold.

The answer, again, isn't to change the rules. It is to change the nominee.

We Democrats are not going to oppose every Republican nominee. Of course, we realize a nominee selected this way would not completely agree with our views, but Judge Gorsuch is so far out of the mainstream that he isn't able to earn votes to pass the Senate. Even Justices Roberts and Alito--two very conservative judges--earned a bunch of Democratic votes, and each got more than 60--one, in his nomination, and the other, 72 votes in the cloture process.

So the Republicans are free actors. They can choose to go nuclear or they can sit down with Democrats and find a way forward that preserves the grand traditions of this body.

The majority leader himself has said the one thing the two leaders have always agreed upon is to protect the integrity of this institution. He continued, and this is a direct quote: ``I think we can stipulate . . . that in the Senate, it takes 60 votes on controversial matters.''

Mitch McConnell: In the Senate, it takes 60 votes on controversial matters. He has long stood for that proposition for the many years I have been here.

A Supreme Court seat, I believe, meets the majority leader's standard

for 60 votes. I hope that instead of crippling the Senate in a partisan way--removing that 60-vote threshold for controversial matters like the Supreme Court--my Republican friends consider the option of working together to find a solution we can both accept. It may seem like a novel concept around here, but that option is always on the table.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I wanted to come to the floor to talk about the important work for the Senate this week, now that the Judiciary Committee has voted on the Judge Neil Gorsuch nomination and he is available for floor consideration. But I wanted, first, to extend my deepest condolences to the families and friends of those tragically killed in an automobile crash near New Valley, TX, last week.

A bus carrying a group of 14 members of the First Baptist Church in New

Braunfels collided with a pickup truck on Highway 83. Thirteen people were killed and two others, including the driver of the other vehicle, were injured. You can imagine how heartbreaking this has been to everyone involved. I can't begin to imagine the pain and the grief felt by their loved ones, their church family, and their entire close-knit community of New Braunfels, TX, just north of San Antonio.

I had the opportunity to speak with the pastor of First Baptist of New Braunfels, Pastor McLean, the day after the accident. He is leading his congregation and that community during this very difficult time. He is shepherding his flock, though, with grace and strength. There is a phrase I am reminded off in times like this. After the terrible explosion in West Texas, I had a county commissioner from that area tell me: Being a Texan doesn't describe where you are from, it describes who your family is.

Today, our family is mourning. But I know Pastor McLean and all of my fellow Texans and all Americans really lift up this community in prayer, along with the families and friends of those we lost.

I am grateful to the first responders and medical professionals who were first to arrive at the scene of the accident and lent a hand to those in need.

Nomination of Neil Gorsuch

Separately, Madam President, as I have indicated, this is an important week for the American people. Earlier today, the Judiciary Committee voted to send Judge Gorsuch's nomination to the Senate floor for full consideration. Later this week, he will be confirmed as the next Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. For the past several weeks and through 20 grueling hours of questioning before the Judiciary Committee, Judge Gorsuch has proven to be one of the most qualified nominees to the Court in modern history.

Republicans in the Senate said we would give the American people a voice in who would select the next Supreme Court Justice. In a sense, we had a referendum of whether it would be a nominee selected by Donald Trump or by Hillary Clinton. On November 8, we saw the outcome of that election. This week, that referendum will be answered when the country will have its ninth Justice on the Supreme Court.

Unfortunately, our Democratic colleagues are doing their very best to decide that they should mount the first partisan filibuster of a Supreme Court nominee in American history. This is truly unprecedented. I know sometimes people want to talk about 1968 and the Abe Fortas nomination, but not even then was there a partisan filibuster that successfully blocked the confirmation of a Supreme Court Justice.

What I am talking about is blocking the ability to have an up-or-down vote. I am not talking about how people vote on the confirmation vote. I am talking about allowing us to have a vote--that up-or-down vote--or denying it by virtue of the filibuster. I, for one, have been encouraged to see people from across the country speaking out and urging our colleagues to drop their obstruction and to allow such an up-or-down vote on an incredibly qualified, upstanding, and brilliant judge.

Editorials from all over the country have registered their opposition to the idea of a filibuster and have done so rather bluntly. The Chicago Tribune, for example, said: ``Neil Gorsuch earns his Supreme Court seat.'' The Boston Herald says: ``Shame on Senate Dems.'' The Boston Herald specifically said that those going along with the strategy were ``blindly partisan for whom any nomination made by President Trump would never be qualified.''

The Denver Post, in the home State of Judge Gorsuch, urged Senators to confirm Judge Gorsuch to the Supreme Court and specifically urged the senior Senator from Colorado, Senator Bennet, not to cooperate with this blind partisanship and this filibuster but rather to allow the judge an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor.

Their editorial title made that much clearer. They said: ``Michael Bennet should buck Democrats and speak up for Neil Gorsuch.''

The Billings Gazette in Montana had this to say: ``Democrats refuse to rise above petty partisan politics.''

The Richmond Times-Dispatch took the junior Senator from Virginia to task and said: His opposition to Judge Gorsuch, ``suggests he can't come up with a defensible reason to oppose the nomination.''

Finally in New Hampshire, the New Hampshire Union Leader editorial last week was titled: ``Confirm Gorsuch: Dems plan pointless filibuster.'' ``Pointless'' about sums it up. There is no doubt that Judge Gorsuch is qualified. He has received the highest rating from the American Bar Association, which reportedly interviewed 500 leading lawyers and practitioners in the country, and the ratings system of the American Bar Association has been called by many of our Senate Democratic colleagues the ``gold standard'' when it comes to confirmations.

Among the legal and local communities, Judge Gorsuch enjoys broad bipartisan support, but that seems to make no difference to our friends across the aisle who voted on a party-line vote not to send his nomination from the Judiciary Committee. Of course, their minority position lost when the majority of the committee voted today to send that nomination to the floor.

I can't help but think that they are in an unenviable position, torn by their desire to do what they know is the right thing when it comes to confirming a good judge, and, on the other hand, being attacked by their own party's political base, telling them that if they vote to confirm this judge, they are somehow going to suffer some political damage.

Of these newspapers I mentioned, not one of them endorsed Donald Trump for President--not one. But unlike some of our Senate colleagues, they are able to distinguish between President Trump and Judge Neil Gorsuch, instead of using Donald Trump as a proxy not to vote to confirm Neil Gorsuch.

These newspapers are urging Senate Democrats to drop this pointless filibuster because they understand that it will not be President Trump we will be voting on next week. It is Judge Neil Gorsuch. Now, after repeatedly moving the goalposts for this nominee, my Democratic friends are saying that he has to pass the ``traditional'' threshold of 60 votes. Well, that is a made-up standard.

Throughout our Nation's history, the Senate has not had a tradition of filibustering judges. It was a strategy cooked up by Senator Schumer, Laurence Tribe from Harvard Law School, and other liberal activists to try to block President George W. Bush's judges when he was President of the United States. So there is no 60-vote threshold in Senate tradition. Actually, there have only been four cloture votes for a Supreme Court nominee--only four--and none of them for a partisan filibuster that actually succeeded in blocking an up-or-down vote for a nominee.

One of the newspaper fact checks concluded with this. They said: ``There is no traditional 60-vote `standard' or `rule' for Supreme Court nominations, no matter how much or how often Democrats claim otherwise.'' This should be a time when the Senate should come together in a bipartisan fashion and do what it is supposed to do when we receive the nomination of such a highly qualified person.

Judge Gorsuch has won bipartisan approval. People across the country understand that, as do a number of independent Democrats here in the Senate, and they understand the dangerous path the minority leader is setting us and them on. Unfortunately, the Democratic leader wants to mount the first successful partisan filibuster of a Supreme Court nominee in our history.

But I would point out that no Republican Senator in the Senate has ever voted to filibuster a Supreme Court nominee, including those nominated by Democratic Presidents. As a matter of fact, Justice Clarence Thomas was confirmed with 52 votes. If the threshold were really 60, then he would not currently be serving on the Supreme Court of the United States. Even such polar opposites as Justice Scalia and Justice Ginsburg were confirmed by virtually unanimous votes because people understood that once the President was elected, that the President's choice should matter, and the Senate should not artificially try to lift up a 60-vote threshold in order to block, effectively, the will of the voters in choosing the president.

A few years ago, when we considered the nominations of Justice Sotomayor

and Justice Kagan, we gave both nominees a simple up-or-down vote. So our friends across the aisle have a simple but very important decision to make. They can listen to the extremist groups on the left that are urging them to resist at all costs or they can assert some of their independence.

As of today, several of our Democratic colleagues have done exactly that. I congratulate them. I am glad Senator Heitkamp, Senator Manchin, and Senator Donnelly have said they will assert their prerogative, as Senators, to allow an up-or-down vote for this nominee and actually vote for them. I hope they stand firm, but I hope, more importantly, more of their colleagues will demonstrate the same sort of independence from the radical base of the Democratic Party that says no to everything this President does. I hope they at least afford Judge Gorsuch an up-or-down vote because, if the Democrats successfully block Judge Gorsuch, there is literally no nominee from this President who they will not block--plain and simple.

So as we have been saying, Judge Gorsuch will be confirmed at the end of this week, but it is up to the Democrats as to how that happens.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Isakson) and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to express my strong support for the confirmation of Judge Neil Gorsuch to be the next Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Few individuals over the last century have impacted the American legal discourse as profoundly as the late Justice Antonin Scalia.

In the wake of his untimely passing last February, Justice Scalia left behind a legacy of faithfully applying the law and upholding the principles of our Constitution. Judge Neil Gorsuch is a worthy successor to Judge Antonin Scalia.

Judge Gorsuch understands the protections granted in the Constitution, including the separation of powers, federalism, and the Bill of Rights. He knows that the Constitution provides Americans with an indispensable safeguard against government overreach.

His past opinions demonstrate that he will honor constitutional protections afforded through due process, the right to bear arms, equal protection under the law, and religious freedom.

Legal experts from across the political spectrum are very much in agreement with the Gorsuch nomination. The American Bar Association's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary unanimously gave Judge Gorsuch the highest possible rating of ``well qualified'' for the Supreme Court. I couldn't agree more.

One of Judge Gorsuch's associates, the chief judge of the Tenth Circuit who served with Judge Gorsuch, has said about him:

Judge Gorsuch brings to the bench a powerful intellect

combined with a probing and analytical approach to every

issue. He brings to each case a strong commitment to limit

his analysis to that case--its facts, the record, and the law

cited and applicable. He does not use his judicial role as a

vehicle for anything other than deciding the case before him.

President Obama's former Solicitor General Neal Katyal penned an op- ed in the New York Times supporting Judge Gorsuch and wrote:

I have no doubt that if confirmed, Judge Gorsuch would help

restore confidence in the rule of law.

His years on the bench reveal a commitment to judicial

independence--a record that should give the American people

confidence

that he will not compromise principle to favor the president

who appointed him.

Those are the words of the Solicitor General who argued on behalf of President Obama's administration in front of the Supreme Court.

Judge Gorsuch has been through the confirmation process before--as we have heard many times on this floor--when Senators, some of them in this body today, approved his nomination to the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit without opposition.

I was privileged to meet with Judge Gorsuch several weeks ago, and it was clear to me through our conversation, a thorough examination of his record, and watching last week's hearing in the Judiciary Committee that Judge Gorsuch will decide cases fairly, based on our Constitution and laws. Isn't that the way it should be? This is what West Virginians expect from a Supreme Court Justice.

Newspapers in my State have recognized this nominee's strong qualifications of independence and respect for the rule of law. The Charleston Daily Mail editorialized:

Gorsuch has strong legal credentials and deserves to be

confirmed.

He is the kind of pick that any president should make,

Democrat or Republican, because of his proven qualities

necessary for any justice: a strong understanding and respect

for the nation's founding document, the U.S. Constitution.

The Wheeling Intelligencer and News Register wrote:

During hearings last week, Gorsuch's suitability for a high

court post was made abundantly clear.

He is precisely the type of judge--faithful to the

Constitution not ideology on specific issues--the nation

needs.

And the Martinsburg Journal said:

Gorsuch seems to believe in using the plain language of the

Constitution to decide cases, regardless of his own

preferences.

That--someone who believes only the people not the courts

can change the Constitution--is precisely the type of Supreme

Court justice we Americans need.

The American people benefited from an open and transparent Supreme Court process that led to Judge Gorsuch being nominated.

During the 2016 Presidential election, both candidates were transparent about the type of Supreme Court Justice they would appoint if elected. President Trump released a list of 21 names, a list that included Judge Gorsuch, and promised voters that he would fill this Supreme Court vacancy with someone from that list. Voters paid attention.

According to an NBC News exit poll, 70 percent of voters said the selection of a Supreme Court Justice was either the most important factor in their vote for President or an important factor. Let me state that again--70 percent.

The American people weighed in, and President Trump acted wisely in selecting Judge Gorsuch. He is a mainstream judge who is well qualified for the U.S. Supreme Court.

Unfortunately, the Democratic leader has indicated that his party intends to engage in an unprecedented partisan filibuster of this nomination. A filibuster of a nominee of this caliber would be a tremendous mistake, I believe, that would harm the Senate as an institution. There has never been a Supreme Court nomination that has been defeated by a partisan filibuster of the type that the Senate Democrats are telegraphing. It is one thing to vote against a nominee on whatever grounds a Senator may wish, but it is quite another to filibuster in an effort to block a nomination that has been submitted by a duly elected President who has the support of the majority of the Senate.

Senators have always enjoyed the ability to filibuster nominations. That ability has remained available because Senators have shown restraint in applying the power that comes along with requiring unlimited debate. The clear tradition of the Senate--and this is a body of tradition, I have learned--over the course of its 230 years of history is a confirmation by a majority vote. That tradition has been demonstrated in recent Supreme Court nominations.

President Obama nominated both Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court. Neither Justice Sotomayor nor Justice Kagan faced a filibuster in the Senate.

President George W. Bush nominated John Roberts as Chief Justice. There was no filibuster attempt against that nomination.

President Bill Clinton nominated Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer to the Supreme Court. Neither faced a filibuster.

President George H.W. Bush nominated David Souter and Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court. Neither Justice faced a filibuster even though 48 Senators voted against the Thomas nomination.

One recent Supreme Court nomination did require a cloture vote when a group of Democrat Senators attempted to block a vote on the nomination of Justice Alito's nomination, but a large majority of Senators--72, in fact--invoked cloture, which preserved the bipartisan practice of rejecting filibusters against Supreme Court nominees. Among those who rejected the Alito filibuster in 2006 were the two Democratic Senators from my State--Senator Robert C. Byrd and Senator Jay Rockefeller. There were 72 Senators who voted to invoke cloture on Justice Alito's nomination, but only 58 ended up voting for the final confirmation.

The Senate has a very clear history of rejecting the use of the filibuster on Supreme Court nominations, but there is no justification for a filibuster on the Gorsuch nomination. Neil Gorsuch is a mainstream judge with the highest possible rating from the American Bar Association. He was confirmed by the Senate, without objection, in the year 2006. His service on the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals has earned him the respect of his judicial colleagues, and he has demonstrated the independence and respect for the law that the American people expect from a Supreme Court Justice. I hope that at least eight of my Democratic colleagues will join us regardless of how they, ultimately, will vote on Judge Gorsuch's confirmation. I hope they will recognize the need to invoke cloture on this nomination.

The Senate will confirm Judge Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. For the good of the Nation and for the good of the Senate, there should be no filibuster of this well-qualified nominee.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, as I have done from the time he was nominated and as I will continue to do until he is confirmed, I rise to support the nomination of Neil Gorsuch to serve on the Supreme Court. Judge Gorsuch is an accomplished, mainstream jurist. I look forward to helping make sure he can receive a vote here on the Senate floor.

In the weeks since his nomination, I have spoken at length about his qualifications to serve on the Supreme Court. I have recognized him as a conservative champion of religious liberty, a defender of the separation of powers, and a westerner who will bring some much needed geographic diversity and a regional perspective to the Court.

During his confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Judge Gorsuch showed the country what it means to be a judge.

Big or small, popular or unpopular, powerful or powerless, Judge Gorsuch promised to render judgments based on the facts of the case, nothing else. He also has a remarkable record of respectful cooperation with judges appointed by Presidents of both parties.

During his decade-long tenure on the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, Judge Gorsuch participated in more than 2,700 appeals. These comprised some of the most difficult cases across six States. Of those cases, 97 percent of them were decided unanimously--97 percent.

Judge Gorsuch was in the majority 99 percent of the time. He was in the majority on those cases 99 percent of the time. This is a testament to Judge Gorsuch's ability to consider other points of view and to seek out consensus, where possible. To try to paint Judge Gorsuch as an ideologue simply doesn't work. Those are essential qualities for any prospective Supreme Court Justice.

Now that we have reported Judge Gorsuch out of committee as of today, I would like to say a few words on the obstacles that stand in the way of his being considered here on the Senate floor.

As we proceed with Judge Gorsuch's confirmation, I would like to explain my support for confirming him in light of what transpired in the waning months of the previous administration.

For nearly 230 years, Presidents have been making nominations to the Supreme Court. According to the Congressional Research Service: ``From the appointment of the first Justices in 1789 through its consideration of Nominee Elena Kagan in 2010, the Senate has confirmed 124 Supreme Court nominations out of 160 received.''

I would like to reiterate that number. Out of 160 Supreme Court nominations in our Nation's history, 124 were confirmed.

The Congressional Research Service goes on to state: ``Of the 36 nominations which were not confirmed, 11 were rejected outright in roll-call votes by the Senate, while nearly all of the rest, in the face of substantial committee or Senate opposition to the nominee or the President, were withdrawn by the President, or were postponed, tabled, or never voted on by the Senate.''

The manner in which the Senate decides to provide its constitutional advice and consent on Presidential nominations has varied over the centuries

with respect to nominations. This includes decisions not to take up Supreme Court nominees.

As Jonathan Adler put it in his article in the George Mason Law Review:

Much as the Senate may reject a legislative proposal that

originated in the House of Representatives by voting it down,

killing it in committee, or simply refusing to take up the

measure, the Senate may withhold its consent by voting

against confirmation of a nominee, rejecting the nominee in

committee, or simply refusing to act.

Is refusing to act the preferred outcome? I can certainly see where some would say no, as would I.

However, the history of the Senate demonstrates that to do otherwise in similar circumstances, as we just experienced is, in fact, a rare exception.

To cite Adler's law review article again, he states: ``The last time a Supreme Court vacancy arose in the calendar year of a Presidential election and was filled prior to [the] election was in 1932.''

President Obama nominated Judge Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court in the heat of the 2016 Presidential election. When he was nominated, I understood the frustration of those on the other side of the aisle over the fate of that nomination.

I met Judge Garland. He is a good man and a good judge, but the decision by the majority not to take up Judge Garland's nomination was not inconsistent with a longstanding practice of filling Supreme Court vacancies after elections.

This brings us today to why I support confirming Judge Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. There is no question about the appropriateness of confirming Supreme Court nominees during the first years of the President's term, let alone the first 3 months. In fact, there is absolutely no justification for filibustering a highly qualified Supreme Court nominee put forward by the President who was just elected. That is just unprecedented.

There was an attempt to use this tactic in 2006 with Justice Samuel Alito's nomination to the Supreme Court, but he garnered sufficient bipartisan support so that cloture was invoked.

Today, it appears that we will not enjoy that same rational support. My preference would be to change the behavior of Senators rather than change the rules of the Senate. But here we are, where a nominee who would have received unanimous or nearly unanimous support just a few years ago is about to be filibustered.

My question is this: If we can't confirm a judge like Judge Gorsuch under contemporary use of Senate rules, who can we confirm?

It looks as if we will move forward later this week and make the rest of the Executive Calendar subject to the same simple majority threshold. Again, a change in Senate rules is not my preferred outcome, but this rule change will simply make de jure what was de facto prior to 2003, when filibusters were virtually never used on the President's Executive Calendar.

Now, I want to make clear my steadfast support to preserve the legislative filibuster. We need to distinguish between the President's Executive Calendar, which has traditionally never been filibustered or subject to filibuster, and the legislative filibuster, which is used frequently here to ensure that we work across the aisle.

The Framers of our Constitution had the wisdom to create a Senate with a strong minority to serve as a check on runaway power. If we were to eliminate the legislative filibuster, we would cease to be that check, and, indeed, the Senate would cease to be the Senate.

We have a qualified mainstream jurist before us. That is Judge Gorsuch. I encourage all of my colleagues to give him fair consideration and to advance his nomination to an up-or-down vote. I will be voting to confirm him, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

I yield back the remainder of my time.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.