Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I just listened to my friend the majority leader and the majority whip on the floor. They are able legislators, but they are sort of misleading the public as to our motivation. They have tried to paint every Democratic request as leftover resentment from the election. ``Sour grapes'' the majority leader said a few weeks ago. They can say it day after day after day, but it will never be true.

All we Democrats are insisting on is careful, careful consideration of nominees who we believe almost universally are below par. These nominees are going to have a tremendous effect on the American people.

Every mother and father in America should worry about Betsy DeVos's lack of dedication and almost negative feelings about public education. She heaps abuse on public education. Ninety percent of our children are in public schools. Of course, there should be discussion about it. She shouldn't be the nominee.

Yes, I understand, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, there is a new President. My guess is, if we went in their cloakroom and heard their whispers, our Republican colleagues would say: I wish he could have come up with someone else.

Betsy DeVos is the negative trifecta. She is negative on competence. She doesn't even understand the basic aspects of education. She is negative on philosophy. She disdains public education, where 90 percent of our kids are. She is negative on ethics. Her conflicts of interest are legion, and she hasn't, unlike some other of the Cabinet nominees, tried to erase them.

So of course there should be a tremendous amount of discussion. Of course Democrats ought to bring to light who Betsy DeVos is. So when she does her acts as Secretary, when she does things that hurt public education as Secretary, the American people know what is happening and can stand up against it.

I have to tell my colleagues, it is not Democrats who are bitter about the election; it is the American people who are bitter about the nomination of Betsy DeVos, and that is why millions and millions of calls--almost unprecedented on a Cabinet nomination--have poured into this Capitol, into Democratic and Republican offices alike. The distinguished chairman of this committee--who is a dear friend; I have such respect and admiration for him, and we have spent time together socially--was put in the awkward position of having to rush through a nominee, 5 minutes of questions, that is it, for each Senator; 5 minutes at night, no second rounds. There was no rationale for that, other than he was afraid of what she would say or might not say. Sure enough, when she testified, those fears were actualized because Betsy DeVos couldn't answer the most fundamental questions about public education.

She couldn't get her paperwork in on time. What kind of nominee is that? How is someone who is going to run the Department of Education, with tens of thousands of employees, unable to get her paperwork submitted in enough time to clear the ethics organizations? How was she unable to get her paperwork in on time? Every nominee of President Obama's did, and we didn't hear from them until they did.

The rush; a few extra days, some hours last night so we might examine a nominee who has tremendous power over the future of millions of American kids and their families--oh, no. If anything, we should be spending more time on Betsy DeVos, not less. What should be happening is she should go back for a second hearing now that her paperwork is in. What should happen is she should be asked more questions because she was so unable to answer so many rudiments last time. What should happen is, there should be more time, not less, on debating this nominee, not because we want to be dilatory but because we want a nominee who at least meets some basic tests, and she does not.

That is why every Democrat will be voting against her, and two Republicans, who showed tremendous courage. Again, I have been around here a while. I know the pressures. That is why I have such respect for the Senators from Alaska and Maine who voted against Betsy DeVos not for political considerations, not in frustration that they lost the election but because they knew how bad she would be for public education because their States are largely rural. In rural America, there is not much choice, which has been Betsy DeVos's watchword, although the charter schools she set up have been, by and large, a failure. They don't have that choice. So someone who decries public education, who disdains public education, is not good for their State and, I would dare say, is not good for the States of a lot of Senators on the other side of the aisle who feel compelled--that party loyalty-- to vote for her. In fact, when we talk about parties demanding things, it is the Republican side demanding a vote for an unqualified candidate, not the Democrats delaying the vote.

I hope against hope that another Republican will have the courage of the Senators from Alaska and Maine and join us. Then what can happen is the President will get to make the nomination. We Democrats are not going to pick the Secretary of Education, but it will be a qualified nominee because they will have learned their lesson at the White House that they can't brush through these nominations with such little vetting.

I yield one hour under my control to Senator Murphy.

Mr. President, I yield 1 minute to the Senator from Maine.

Mr. President, if the average American heard someone read a letter from Coretta Scott King that

said what it said, they would not be offended. They would say that is someone's opinion; that is all.

It seems to me that we could use rule XIX almost every day on the floor of the Senate. This is selective enforcement, and another example of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle escalating the partisanship and further decreasing comity in the Senate.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, it is my understanding--I was not there-- that there was a warning over Senator Kennedy's letter, but the actual ruling was based on Coretta Scott King's letter; is that correct?

Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. President, I don't want to prolong this much more. In light of what my friend from Florida said, I would just reread what I said earlier.

If average Americans heard someone read a letter from Coretta Scott King that said what it said, they would not be offended. They would say that is someone's opinion. That is all.

It seems to me we could use rule XIX almost every day on the floor of the Senate, as my colleague from Maine so pointedly and piquantly exhibited a few minutes ago.

This selective enforcement is another example of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle escalating the partisanship and further decreasing the comity of the Senate, which I treasure as well. This was unnecessary.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, we here in the Senate have a tradition of mutual respect among our fellow Senators. We have a spirit of comity. It is a tradition that I hold in high esteem.

Last night that tradition was violated, and the Senate went in a very bad direction. I believe my Republican colleagues were far too zealous in trying to enforce that tradition and in doing so were guilty of the exact same thing they were trying to police.

My friend the Senator from Massachusetts was reading a letter written by Mrs. Coretta Scott King, the widow of Martin Luther King, Jr., to the Judiciary Committee--her testimony about the nomination of then- Judge Jeff Sessions to be a Federal judge. For that, the Chair and my friend the majority leader interrupted her remarks, invoked rule XIX, and forbid her from continuing. The Chair directed the Senator to take her seat. In my view, it was totally, totally uncalled for. Senator Warren wasn't hurling wild accusations; she was reading a thoughtful and considered letter from a leading civil rights figure. Anyone who watches the Senate floor on a daily basis could tell that what happened last night was the most selective enforcement of rule XIX.

My friend the Senator from Massachusetts was here when one of her colleagues called the leadership of my dear friend Senator Reid ``cancerous'' and said that he ``doesn't care about the safety'' of our troops. That was not enforced as a rule XIX violation, but

reading a letter from Coretta Scott King--that was too much.

Suggesting that the distinguished majority leader had repeatedly lied to the press--a comment made by a fellow Republican, by the way--that was fine. Reading the letter of a civil rights icon? At least to the other side, unacceptable.

Just last week I heard a friend on the other side of the aisle accuse me of engaging in a ``tear-jerking performance'' that belonged at the ``Screen Actors Guild awards.'' It was only the second time that week I had been accused of fake tears on the floor of the Senate, but I didn't run to the floor to invoke rule XIX. But when my friend from Massachusetts read a piece of congressional testimony by Coretta Scott King, she was told to sit down.

Why was my friend from Massachusetts cut off when these other, much more explicit, much more direct, much nastier attacks were disregarded? There is a shocking double standard here when it comes to speech. Unfortunately, it is not constrained by the four walls of this Chamber.

While the Senator from Massachusetts has my Republican colleagues up in arms by simply reciting the words of a civil rights leader, my Republican colleagues can hardly summon a note of disapproval for an administration that insults a Federal judge, tells the news media to ``shut up,'' offhandedly threatens a legislator's career, and seems to invent new dimensions of falsehood each and every day.

I certainly hope that this anti-free speech attitude is not traveling down Pennsylvania Avenue to our great Chamber, especially when the only speech being stifled is speech that Republicans don't agree with--even speech that is substantive, relevant, on point to the matter this body is considering, and appropriate and measured in tone.

I would make a broader point. This is not what America is about, silencing speech, especially in this Chamber. What we do here is debate. We debate fiercely and forcefully but respectfully. The Founders of the Republic and titans of the early Senate--Webster, Clay, and Calhoun--debated until they were blue in the face. From time to time, they probably had tough words for one another. We are not afraid of tough words in America. We don't look to censor speech. The rule is only intended to keep Senators on the facts, to keep them from making baseless accusations about another's character. My friend from Massachusetts was following the letter and the spirit of the rule last night. She was engaging in that tradition of forceful but respectful debate when she was cut off. That is not what the Senate is about. That is not what our dear country is about.

Every Member on the other side of the aisle ought to realize that what they did to Senator Warren was selective enforcement. It was the most selective enforcement of a rarely used procedure to interrupt her, to silence her, and it was the only violation of the spirit of mutual respect and comity in this body that occurred last night.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, very briefly because I know we have to vote, the nominee for the Secretary of Education is one of the worst nominees who has ever been brought before this body for a Cabinet position. On the grounds of competence, on the grounds of ideology, and on the grounds of conflict of interest, she scores very, very low. That is why my good friend, who has great integrity, the Senator from Tennessee, had to rush her hearing through. Five minutes of questions and nothing else--they were so afraid to hear what she might or might not know.

So I would urge my colleagues over the weekend--those who have committed and those who have not--to look into their consciences. Sometimes loyalty to a new President demands a bit too much. With this nominee, it does. Please think about it over the weekend. This person, Mrs. DeVos, does not deserve to be Secretary of Education.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I spoke at length about the Supreme Court nomination yesterday, but I just want to underscore a few points. We in the Senate have a constitutional duty to examine the record of Judge Gorsuch robustly, exhaustively, and comprehensively, and then advise and consent, as we see fit. We have a responsibility to reject if we do not.

We Democrats will insist on a rigorous but fair process. Part of that process entails 60 votes for confirmation. Any one Democrat can require it. Many already have. It was a bar met by each of Obama's nominations; each received 60 votes. Most importantly, it is the right thing to do. And I would note that a 60-vote threshold was reached by each of them either in cloture or in the actual vote.

On a subject as important as a Supreme Court nomination, bipartisan support is essential and should be a prerequisite. That is what a 60- vote threshold does; 60 votes produces a mainstream candidate. And the need for a mainstream consensus candidate is greater now than ever before because we are in major new territory in two ways.

First, because the Supreme Court, under Chief Justice Roberts, has shown increasing drift to become a more and more pro-business Court-- siding more and more with corporations, employers, and special interests over working and average Americans--we need a mainstream nominee to help reverse that trend, not accelerate it. I will remind my colleagues, that is how President Trump campaigned, but his nominee seems not to be in that direction at all--not for the average working person but, rather, for special business interests.

Second, given that this administration--at least at its outset--seems to have less respect for the rule of law than any in recent memory and is testing the very fabric of our Constitution within the first 20 days, there is a special burden on this nominee to be an independent jurist, someone who approaches the Court without ideological blinders, who has a history of operating outside and above politics, and who has the strength of will to stand up to a President who has already shown a willingness to bend the Constitution.

Requiring 60 votes has always been the right thing to do on Supreme Court nominations, especially in these polarized times. But now in this new era of the Court, in this new administration, there is an even heavier weight on this tradition. And if the nominee cannot gain the 60 votes, cannot garner bipartisan support of some significance, then the answer is not to change the rules; the answer is to change the nominee and find someone who can gain those 60 votes.

Changing the rules for something as important as the Supreme Court gets rid of the tradition, eliminates the tradition of mainstream nominees who have bipartisan support. It would be so, so wrong to do. I know many of my colleagues on the other side are hesitant to do it, and I hope they will remain strong in that regard.

Now, on another matter, the pending nominations of the President's Cabinet, again, we are in

unchartered waters with this administration. They have not proposed a normal Cabinet. This is not even close to a normal Cabinet.

I have never seen a Cabinet this full of bankers and billionaires, folks with massive conflicts of interest and such little experience or expertise in the areas they will oversee. Many of the nominees have philosophies that cut against the very nature of the Department to which they were nominated.

Let me give you two examples this morning: Betsy DeVos, the nominee for the Department of Education, and Andrew Puzder, nominee for the Labor Department.

First, Betsy DeVos. When you judge her in three areas--conflicts of interest, basic competence, and ideology, views on education policy--it is clear that Betsy DeVos is unfit for the job of Education Secretary.

In all three areas, ideology, competence, and conflicts of interest, she rates among the lowest of any Cabinet nominee I have ever seen. At her hearing, she didn't seem to know basic facts about Federal education law that guarantee education to students with disabilities. She didn't seem to know the basic facts of a long simmering debate in education policy measuring growth proficiency. And in her ethics agreement, which was delivered to the committee after her first hearing, it was revealed that she would keep interests in several companies that benefit from millions of dollars in contracts from the Department of Education, which she would oversee.

There was a rush to push her through--one round of questions, 5 minutes each. Why? Why did someone generally as fair as the chairman of that committee do that? My guess, an educated guess: He knew how incompetent this nominee was, how poorly she fared under normal questions, and the idea was to rush her through.

Well, that is not what we should be doing on something as important as this. And if the nominee can't withstand a certain amount of scrutiny, they shouldn't be the nominee.

The glaring concerns have led two of my Republican colleagues, the Senators from Maine and Alaska, to pledge a vote against her confirmation, leaving her nomination deadlocked at 50 to 50. I believe both of them cited the fact that in their State, charter schools are not the big issue; it is public schools. How are we going to treat public schools? Particularly in rural areas, as I am sure my friend the Presiding Officer knows, there is not a choice of schools outside the major metropolitan areas, the major cities. If you don't have a good public school, you have nothing. So particularly people from the rural States should be worried, in my judgment, about our nominee's commitment to public education.

For the first time ever, we have the chance that the Vice President and a pending Cabinet nominee, the nominee for Attorney General, Senator Sessions, are casting the deciding votes on a controversial Cabinet position for Betsy DeVos. Mr. President, this has never happened before.

The White House will, in effect, get two deciding votes in the Senate on a nominee to the President's Cabinet: the Vice President and the nominee for Attorney General, our friend Senator Sessions.

It highlights the stunning depth of concern this nominee has engendered in Republicans and Democrats alike. It is clear now that Senators of both parties agree she is not qualified to be Secretary of Education. And I would hope that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle--this is such an important position; the nominee is so laddered on issue after issue after issue that we could get someone better. I don't think it will be that hard. It will be President Trump's nominee. It will not be us deciding, but it will be someone who has basic competence, fewer conflicts of interest, and, above all, a commitment to public education.

So I urge my Republican colleagues, friends, to stand up and reject Betsy DeVos, as the Cleveland Plain Dealer urged in an editorial this morning.

This is not a normal nominee, once again. In my view, when I dipped into her record and how she performed in her brief hearing, she has not earned and should not receive the Senate's approval.

Second, the nominee for the Department of Labor, Andrew Puzder. The hearing for his nomination has now been delayed four times because he still hasn't submitted key paperwork laying out his disclosures and detailing a plan for divesting, if necessary, to avoid conflicts of interest. But that might be the least of the Senate's concerns.

This is a nominee who is being sued by dozens of former employees due to workplace violations. This is a nominee who has repeatedly attacked the minimum wage, opposed the overtime rule, and advocated for more automation and fewer jobs. He talked about--I think in very positive terms--robots and how they may run the fast food industry. This is a nominee for Secretary of Labor who not only wants workers to earn less, he wants fewer workers.

For several of these Cabinet positions, it seems the President has searched for candidates whose philosophies are diametrically opposed to the very purposes of their Departments. For Education, pick someone with no experience in public schools and has spent her career advocating against them. For Labor, pick someone who has spent his career trying to keep the wages of his employees low and advocated against policies that benefit workers.

Again, I repeat: This is not your typical Cabinet. This is highly, highly unusual.

So when my Republican colleagues come to the floor every day to complain about delays and holdups, I would remind them that this is very serious. These Cabinet officials will have immense power in our government and wield enormous influence over the lives of average Americans: their wages and the education of their children, for instance.

To spend a few more days on the process is well worth it. And if they prove unfit for the austere and powerful roles they are about to take up, then it is our responsibility, as Senators who advise and consent, to reject their nomination.

One final point: I want to take a moment to mention Ukraine.

Yesterday Rex Tillerson was sworn in as Secretary of State. In addition to dealing with the fallout from the President's first engagements with Australia and Mexico, I want to call the Secretary's attention to the situation in Ukraine.

Since President Trump's call with Mr. Putin last weekend, there has been a significant increase in violence. I hope Secretary Tillerson will ensure that there is a strong statement from the Trump administration condemning these escalatory actions by the Russians.

I also hope my Republican counterparts will start doing what they did last year every time this happened: Come to the floor and demand that the Senate act on tough sanctions against Russia. As I have said before, Russia remains a strategic threat to our Nation, and countering them needs to remain a deeply bipartisan effort.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence have leave to meet after 2 p.m. today.

Madam President, I rise today on a matter of great importance to everyone in this body and everyone in America: the future of the Supreme Court. Last night, the President nominated Judge Neil Gorsuch. We in the Senate have a constitutional duty to examine his record robustly, exhaustively, and comprehensively, and then advise and consent if we see fit. We have a responsibility to reject if we do not. We Democrats will insist on a rigorous but fair process. There will be 60 votes for confirmation. Any one Member can require it. Many Democrats already have.

And it is the right thing to do.

On a subject as important as a Supreme Court nomination, bipartisan support should be a prerequisite; it should be essential. That is what 60 votes does.

This is nothing new. It was a bar met by each of President Obama's nominations. In my mind, 60 votes is the appropriate way to go, whether there is a Democratic President or a Republican President, Democratic Senate or a Republican Senate.

Because a 60-vote threshold is essential, those who say that at the end of this process, there are only two possible results--that the Senate will confirm this nominee or the Republicans will use the nuclear option to change the rules of the Senate--are dead wrong. That is a false choice.

If this nominee cannot meet the same standard that Republicans insisted upon for President Obama's Supreme Court nominees--60 votes in the Senate--then the problem lies not with the Senate but with the nominee.

The answer should not be to change the rules of the Senate but to change the nominee to someone who can earn 60 votes. Sixty votes produces a mainstream candidate, and the need for a mainstream, consensus candidate is greater now than ever before because we are in new territory in two ways; first, because the Court, under Chief Justice Roberts, has shown increasing drift to become a more and more pro-business, pro-special interest Court, siding more with corporations and employers and special interests over working and average Americans. This in an environment where starkly unequal concentrations of wealth and ever-increasing corporate power--aided and abetted by the Citizens United decision--has skewed the playing field even more decisively toward special interests and away from the American citizen. A mainstream nominee would help reverse that trend, not exacerbate it; and, second, another important reason we are in a new world here, making a 60-vote margin even more important than it was before--as important as it was before--is this: This administration, at least since its outset, seems to have less respect for the rule of law than any in recent memory and is challenging the Constitution in an unprecedented fashion. So there is a special burden on this nominee to be an independent jurist.

Let's go over each point. First, we have a special responsibility to judge whether this nominee will further tip the scales on the Court in favor of Big Business and powerful special interests instead of the average American because over two decades this Court has shifted dangerously in the direction of Big Business and powerful special interests.

According to a study by the Minnesota Law Review, the Roberts Court has been the most business-friendly Supreme Court since World War II. It is the most corporate Court in over 70 years. It was pro-corporate when it frequently favored forced arbitration as a way to settle disputes, a process that limits the ability for individuals to form a class and collectively go after large corporate interests; it was pro- corporate when it repeatedly refused to hear legitimate cases where individuals have been harmed by faulty products, discriminatory practices, or fraud; and it was pro-corporate when it came down with one of the worst decisions in the history of the Court: Citizens United. By equating money with speech, the Citizens United decision cut right at the heart of the most sacred power in our democracy: the franchise of our citizens. It has poisoned our politics by allowing dark money to cascade into the system, entirely undisclosed.

With absolutely no precedent, the Roberts Court came up with the theory that money necessarily equals speech, and under the First Amendment, you are allowed to put your ad on TV 11,000 times to drown out all others, especially average Americans. That dampens the power of their voices, dilutes the power of their votes. The Citizens United decision was the worst decision in 100 years, and it is the embodiment of this new era of the corporate special interests Court.

At a time when massive inequality plagues our economy, dark money floods our politics, and faith in institutions is low, this rightward shift in the Court is an existential threat to our democracy.

Now, more than ever, we require a Justice who will move the Court back in the direction of the people, not only because that is what the law requires but because that is what our system of government requires--summed up, of course, by President Lincoln's declaration that it is ``a government of, by, and for the people.''

Second, we must insist upon a strong, mainstream, consensus candidate because this Supreme Court will be tried in ways that few Courts have been tested since the earliest days of the Republic, when constitutional questions abounded, because, again, this administration seems to have little regard for the rule of law and is likely to test the Constitution in ways it hasn't been challenged for decades.

Just 2 weeks in, the new administration has violated our core values, challenged the separation of powers, stretched the bounds of statute, and tested the very fabric of our Constitution in an unprecedented fashion. The President has questioned the integrity of our elections without evidence, issued legally and constitutionally dubious Executive actions, such as the one on immigration and refugees, and fired his Acting Attorney General for maintaining her fidelity to the law, rather than pledging obedience to the President. For that, the White House accused her of betrayal.

Acting Attorney General Sally Yates offered her professional legal opinion, but because it contradicted the administration's position, she was fired, even though the very purpose of the Department of Justice is to be an independent check on any administration.

We are just 13 days into this new administration. How many more of these dismissals will take place over the next 4 years?

This is not even close to normal. Many of us have lived through the first few weeks of several administrations of both parties. This is not even close to normal.

Now, more than ever, we need a Supreme Court Justice who is independent, who eschews ideology, who will preserve our democracy, protect fundamental rights, and will stand up to a President who has already shown a willingness to bend the Constitution.

The Supreme Court is now the bulwark standing between a President who, in too many instances, has little regard for the law, for the separation of powers, for American ideals, for the power of the legislative branch, and for the sanctity of the Nation.

Now, more than ever, we require a Justice who will fulfill the Supreme Court's role in our democracy as a check and balance on the other branches of government.

Because this President has started out in such a fundamentally undemocratic way, we have to examine this nominee closely. As to the nominee himself, I have serious concerns about how he measures up on these two great issues I just described.

First, Judge Gorsuch has consistently favored corporate interests over the rights of working people. He repeatedly sided with insurance companies which wanted to deny disability benefits to employees. In employment discrimination cases, Bloomberg found he has sided with employers a great majority of the time. In one of the few cases he sided with an employee, it was a Republican woman who alleged she was fired for being a conservative.

He wrote in an article in 2005 that securities class actions were just tools for plaintiffs' lawyers to get ``free ride[s] to fast riches,'' ignoring the fact that these lawsuits often bring justice to thousands and thousands of people who have no power without the class action suit.

On money and politics, he seems to be in the same company as Justices Thomas and Scalia, willing to restrict the most commonsense contribution limits.

It seems President Trump, who has said he would be for the working man and woman, has not chosen someone who routinely sides with the average American. Instead, it seems he has selected a nominee to the Supreme Court who sides with CEOs over citizens.

Second, Judge Gorsuch lacks a record demonstrating the kind of independence the Court desperately needs right now. He has shown a tendency to let ideology influence his decisions, criticizing ``liberals'' for turning to the courts to advance policy. The irony is this: Those who blame liberals for legislating through the courts are usually activist judges themselves. In recent years, conservative judges have proven to be the true activists, completely reimagining the scope of the First Amendment through Citizens United, gutting key provision of the Voting Rights Act that had lasted for decades and decades, and attempting to roll back the established law of the land, Roe v. Wade.

Judge Gorsuch has shown disdain for the use of the courtroom to vindicate fundamental rights, a viewpoint that should be anathema to anyone in the legal system but is particularly inappropriate for somebody who seeks a seat on the highest Court in the land. Because of this, women are duly worried about the preservation of their rights and equality, as is the LGBT community. With an administration that has already challenged fundamental American rights and will do so again, the courtroom must be a place where those rights can be vindicated.

As Senators, we are endowed with an awesome power to judge whether this man, Judge Gorsuch, has the right to a title that is higher than all the others in our judicial system, the title of ``Justice.''

Therefore, we must be absolutely certain that this person is a strong, mainstream candidate who has respect for the rule of law and the application of basic constitutional rights to all Americans, a deference to precedent, a nonideological approach to the Court, and the resolve to be a bulwark against the constitutional encroaches of this administration.

Judge Neil Gorsuch, throughout his career, has repeatedly sided with corporations over working people, demonstrated a hostility toward women's rights, and, most troubling, hewed to an ideological approach to jurisprudence that makes me skeptical that he can be a strong, independent Justice on the Court. Given that record, I have very serious doubts that Judge Neil Gorsuch is up to the job.

The Supreme Court now rests in a delicate balance. We cannot allow it to be further captured by corporate influence or bullied by Executive overreach.

The Senate has a responsibility to weigh this nominee with the highest level of scrutiny, to have an exhaustive, robust, and comprehensive debate on Judge Gorsuch's fitness to be a Supreme Court Justice. We Democrats will ensure that it does.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the request in relation to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence be vitiated.

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

Madam President, I am coming back to the floor to correct the record on my earlier comments, where I said Republicans ``insisted'' on 60 votes for each of President Obama's nominees. Sixty votes is a bar that was met by each of President Obama's nominees, but at the time, there was no need for a cloture vote because we knew each of them would garner 60.

This is important to clarify because I believe 60 votes is the right standard

for this nominee--not because they did it to us or we did it to them but because 60 votes, as I mentioned in my remarks, produces a mainstream candidate and, as I laid out earlier, the Supreme Court requires a mainstream candidate now more than ever.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Coons) and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Durbin) are necessarily absent.