Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate recess until 2:15 p.m. today for the weekly conference meetings.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I rise to discuss problems that affect almost every aspect of our everyday life no matter who we are, where we live, our level of income, or any other distinction that might be possible to make. These problems have to do with America's surface transportation system.

Like most Nebraskans, I believe infrastructure is a core duty of the Federal Government. It represents investment in our economy, public safety, and national security. In the Senate, much of my work has been focused on removing unnecessary obstacles to the flow of goods, materials, and, most importantly, people along our Nation's surface transportation networks. Through legislation and with Executive orders, we did lower the coefficient of friction on these systems. We can lower that enough that people and products can get where they need to go quicker and at a lower cost. I have been proud to support several pieces of legislation to do just that.

In 2015, Congress passed the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act--the FAST Act. It was our first long-term highway bill in more than a decade. As chairman of the Surface Transportation Subcommittee in the Senate, I was glad to help steer it to final passage.

I am also proud to have authored a significant number of its provisions. For example, the bill includes a new national strategic freight program that provides every State with annual guaranteed funding. Because of the freight program, States will have greater flexibility to work with key stakeholders and local officials to develop strategic investments in transportation. The program funnels transportation funds to States and allows them to decide on their terms how to use it. By dedicating funding for rural and urban freight corridors, the program enhances the flow of commercial traffic, and it increases safety on our Nation's roads.

The true beauty of this program is that it offers States the opportunity to make critical investments to best meet their specific geographic and their specific infrastructure needs. Nebraska can elect to invest in a rail grade crossing or a truck parking lot along a rural road. California could choose to invest in ondock rail projects at our Nation's largest port complex located just outside of Los Angeles. It works for all States without leaving any behind.

The FAST Act was an important first step, but there is more to be done. President Trump has spoken frequently about the need to invest in our transportation infrastructure. Just yesterday, the administration released a set of principles for reexamining how we do that. I am encouraged to see these proposals that will give States greater flexibility to develop our infrastructure as well as reduce unnecessary regulations that delay these very important projects.

The proposal also talks about providing long-term solutions, which is something I have long supported. This is critical for States to develop, construct, and maintain infrastructure. Last week, at a Senate Environment and Public Works Committee hearing, we heard an update from Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao. She committed to working closely with Congress as we continue to develop commonsense solutions for our infrastructure needs. She outlined some of the proposals the Department of Transportation is reviewing to include in this infrastructure package. During that hearing--the Presiding Officer was there as well-- the Secretary told me she is committed to working closely with my colleagues and me to develop a national infrastructure policy.

I also brought up the issue of delays due to burdensome regulations like the National Environmental Policy Act permitting process that directly affects Nebraska projects. To address these delays, the Nebraska Unicameral unanimously passed legislation that would allow the Nebraska Department of Roads to assume the NEPA permitting process. NDOR has sent a letter to the Federal Highway Administration to begin the implementation of this program, and that could take up to 18 months to complete.

I asked the Secretary for an update on the progress of the application, and she assured me the Department is following it closely. She said: ``We know the issue, we are tracking it, and we will continue to pay attention.'' Furthermore, Secretary Chao explained that the administration ``will not specify any list of projects'' in an infrastructure plan. States know their transportation needs best, not the Federal Government. The larger the role States have from start to finish in developing their own infrastructure, the more they can direct funding to the projects that directly affect their citizens.

For the benefit of families across America in both our urban and our rural areas, we need to look for out-of-the-box solutions to ensure that our infrastructure is up to date. That is why I have introduced the Build USA Infrastructure Act, which looks to solve two major challenges to our transportation

system. The first is the near-term solvency of the highway trust fund's expiration of the FAST Act in 2020. The second is a lack of flexibility for States in starting and finishing major transportation infrastructure projects.

According to the March 2016 Congressional Budget Office projections, by the year 2026, the highway trust fund will face a cumulative shortfall of approximately $107 billion. Meanwhile, we see construction costs climbing. The rise in the use of electric and alternative-fuel vehicles is causing trust fund revenues to fall. Heavy Federal regulations continue to eat away at that purchasing power of the highway trust fund.

America needs a new plan to successfully meet the looming highway trust fund shortfall and to strengthen our transportation system. The Build USA Infrastructure Act gives us a plan.

For 5 years following the expiration of the FAST Act, this legislation would direct the U.S. Treasury to dedicate approximately $21.4 billion in Customs and Border Patrol-collected fees and revenues to the highway trust fund. Now, CBP revenue collections on freight, cargo, and passengers include tariffs, duties, taxes, and user fees at U.S. land, water, and air ports of entry. CBP revenues from these sources amounted to nearly $46 billion in fiscal year 2015. Because of their nature as charges on freight and travelers, Customs duties and fees closely abide by the ``user pays'' principle that we look at in transportation funding. According to CBP, the agency only utilizes $2 billion of that revenue for its operations, so the diversion of revenue would not negatively impact CBP's operating budget. By using an existing revenue stream which has a transportation nexus, we provide stability to the highway trust fund without increasing fees or taxes, and that is sound policy.

The Build USA Infrastructure Act also offers greater flexibility to States so their limited highway dollars can go further for them. I served 8 years in the Nebraska Legislature. I know our States, counties, and cities face real challenges in starting and completing infrastructure projects because of excessive procedural costs, delays, and really an overall lack of transportation funding. According to the Congressional Research Service, major Federal highway projects can take as long as 14 years to complete from start to finish. It took less time to build the Panama Canal, and we did that more than a century ago.

Greater flexibility, improved collaboration, and more autonomy can help States begin and complete their vital infrastructure projects in less time, which means lower costs. The Build USA Infrastructure Act would let them do that through State remittance agreements. This legislation would offer States more flexibility and control of infrastructure funding by establishing a new partnership between them and the U.S. Federal Highway Administration. Under this arrangement, States are permitted to enter into voluntary remittance agreements whereby they can remit 10 percent of their Federal aid highway dollars in exchange for State purview over design, permitting, and construction aspects of Federal aid highway projects. The State-remitted money to the Federal Highway Administration would be deposited into the highway trust fund to help further address its growing deficit. It would give States breathing room as they work to bring in projects on time and on budget.

I am so confident in this bill because I have seen these concepts work at the State level. As a State senator in the Nebraska Legislature, I introduced the Build Nebraska Act. It directed a quarter of each cent of sales tax revenue toward maintaining Nebraska's roads and bridges. Because of it, more than $1 billion will be available to meet Nebraska's infrastructure needs over the next 17 years.

I also introduced legislation that tasked the Nebraska Department of Roads with developing the Federal Funds Purchase Program. In exchange for giving up a portion of Federal transportation dollars, Nebraska counties and their towns can now receive funds with more reasonable regulatory requirements. Because of this program, major Nebraska transportation projects, such as the longstanding bridge replacement in Buffalo County and a major arterial street in South Sioux City, are up and running.

Investing in infrastructure means so much more than just adding a few lines to a map. It means connecting our families and delivering goods and services. In Nebraska's case, it means feeding the world. With persistence and prudent planning, we can build for the future, we can give greater economic opportunity to rising generations, and we can connect communities--family to family, town to town, and coast to coast.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise today to remember another of Nebraska's fallen heroes--those young men and women who have given their lives defending our freedom in Iraq and Afghanistan. They all have different stories. Their families all have the same request: Remember their sacrifice. By telling the stories of these heroes here on the Senate floor, we honor the request of these Gold Star families.

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

Mr. President, I rise today in support of the nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch to be our next U.S. Supreme Court Justice. Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution entrusts Members of the Senate with a responsibility vital to our democracy: providing advice and consent on the President's Supreme Court nominees.

The significance of this task cannot be overstated, and it is one that I take very seriously. Days after President Trump nominated Judge Gorsuch to fill the late Justice Scalia's seat on the Supreme Court, I shared the qualities that I wanted to see in a Justice. They included a strong commitment to the rule of law, first-rate credentials, and a solid judicial record. The time has come to determine whether the nominee meets those criteria.

After meeting personally with Judge Gorsuch, watching his confirmation hearing, and evaluating his background and legal record, I believe that answer is a resounding ``yes.'' Judge Gorsuch's credentials are exemplary. He has an extraordinary resume and a brilliant mind. For 10 years he has served on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. The Senate confirmed him to this position by unanimous consent in 2006. No rollcall vote was needed because all 100 Members supported the nomination.

To date, Judge Gorsuch has decided 2,700 cases, and 99 percent of the time he sided with the majority. He has offered opinions in 800 of those cases, and 98 percent of the decisions in these cases were unanimous. This record tells us something important: He is well within the mainstream. It is why he has gained the respect of prominent attorneys on the right and on the left. Several of my Democratic colleagues have made similar observations.

Senator Donnelly recently said that he would support Judge Gorsuch's nomination because ``he is a qualified jurist who will base his decisions on his understanding of the law.''

Similarly, Senator Heitkamp indicated that she would vote to confirm Judge Gorsuch because ``he has a record as a balanced, meticulous, and well-respected jurist who understands the rule of law.''

My colleagues have it right. A Justice should be a follower of the Constitution, not a trailblazer or an advocate. His or her role is to interpret and uphold the laws, not to create them. Judge Gorsuch understands this. He takes it seriously.

In his confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Gorsuch emphasized the importance of judicial precedent and a fair approach to the law. He said: ``I come here with no agenda but one . . . to be as good and faithful a judge as I know how to be.'' Similarly, in a private meeting in my office, the judge promised to ``follow the law, wherever it may lead.''

Judge Gorsuch recognizes the pivotal but limited role that the Constitution allows judges to play in our Republic. During long days of testimony at his confirmation hearing, he made clear that while legislators answer to the people, a judge answers only to the law. At the same time, Judge Gorsuch said that he interprets his judicial oath as a promise to ``make sure that every person, poor or rich, mighty or meek, gets equal protection of the law.''

``Equality before the law'' is Nebraska's State motto. It represents the commitment Nebraskans made 150 years ago when we entered the Union. That principle remains strong today. It should be a cornerstone of judicial philosophy for any nominee to our Nation's highest Court. It is why the words ``Equal Justice Under Law'' are engraved on the front of the Supreme Court. Judge Gorsuch is dedicated to this principle. He is committed to applying the laws neutrally, equally, and fairly to all people.

Some of my Democratic colleagues are saying that Judge Gorsuch is out of the mainstream. They argue that he will not look out for the little guy. They are prepared to take the unprecedented and extreme step of filibustering this nomination. This would be the first successful totally partisan filibuster of a Supreme Court Justice in the history of the U.S. Senate.

Let me share some of the facts about this institution. In our country's history, no Cabinet nominees have ever been denied their appointments by a Senate filibuster. In our country's history, no Federal district court judges have ever been denied their seats by a Senate filibuster.

The first time a filibuster was used to defeat a judicial nomination was for a Circuit Court judge, Miguel Estrada, who was nominated by President George W. Bush to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit.

In our country's history, the filibuster has been invoked only to block a Supreme Court nominee. It was in 1968, and a threatened bipartisan filibuster by Republicans and Democrats prevented Associate Justice Fortas from becoming Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. The nominee ended up withdrawing because of ethical concerns. Two sitting members of the Supreme Court were confirmed by fewer than 60 votes on an up-or-down vote, but neither one was the subject of a filibuster.

A filibuster of this nominee sets a dangerous precedent and undermines the reputation of this institution. Judge Gorsuch will make an excellent Supreme Court Justice. The American people deserve to have him on the bench. I look forward to voting in support of Judge Gorsuch's nomination to serve as our next Supreme Court Justice. And I urge my Senate colleagues to do the same.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to discuss a true American value: equal pay for equal work. This is something that we all believe in, and tomorrow is National Equal Pay Day. It is a meaningful reminder that equal pay remains among the challenges before us.

Women make the world work. We are breadwinners for our families. We are also financial planners, nurses, and teachers. We have always been a powerful force, and our progress has been hard-earned.

Women today are managers, entrepreneurs, public servants, and CEOs, and our country is stronger for it. But despite these great strides, there is more work to do to encourage prosperity for America's families.

For nearly 4 years in this body, I have led discussions about equal pay. I am encouraged by the interest from the White House on addressing the workplace challenges that women face today. To that end, I have reintroduced a proposal I believe will make a real difference for families. It is called the Workplace Advancement Act.

The idea behind it is fairly universal and straightforward: equal pay through empowerment. The bill aims to empower employees--especially women--with information about wages so they can be informed advocates for their compensation. When it comes to discussing wages in the workplace, sometimes it can hurt to ask. A culture of silence and fear of retaliation can keep people in the dark about how their compensation compares to others. The Workplace Advancement Act would lift that fear, free up information, and create a more transparent workplace.

A simple principle is at play here. When workers, especially women, have more information, they can more confidently pursue favorable work and wage arrangements. Knowledge is power. With this flexibility, women can better negotiate arrangements that make sense for them. For example, they might be willing to accept less pay if they can have Fridays free for doctors' appointments or family time or simply as a day for self-care.

The Workplace Advancement Act contains language similar to an Executive order that President Obama issued in 2014. Many congressional Democrats requested this action, which is actually more limited in scope than my legislation. Some even praised it. Senator Heinrich called the action ``a critical step to ensure that every woman has a fair shot at fairness and economic success.'' Congresswoman Susan Davis of California said the action was a ``historic step forward.''

Importantly, for employers, the Workplace Advancement Act would not impose new Federal regulations, and no employer would be compelled to disclose salary information. It simply prevents retaliatory action against employees who ask after it.

Fifty-three Republicans and five Democrats in the Senate supported a version of the Workplace Advancement Act last Congress. With bipartisan support like this, this bill is possible.

Let's take advantage of this rare moment when we have common ground on a commonsense and straightforward solution. Let's come together so we can look families in the eye and say: We heard you. We have heard you on this issue, and we are going to take action on it.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I rise to recognize a pivotal moment in our Nation's history. On this day, 150 years ago, the Territory of Nebraska became the 37th State to enter the Union.

Let me tell you the story of Nebraska. In a deep and powerful way, it is the story of America. America grew up in Nebraska. We were the first State admitted after the Civil War, but our admission was first vetoed by President Andrew Johnson. It was the only time in American history that this had happened. The reason? President Johnson disagreed with a fundamental condition of Nebraska's statehood--that Black men be allowed to vote.

Fortunately, Congress overrode this veto, and on March 1, 1867, Nebraska became a State. I said before that Nebraska's statehood was a pivotal moment for our country. Nebraska gave America a chance to be better.

By bringing Nebraska into the Union, our country turned away from slavery forever. We turned toward the truth about humankind--that everyone is precious in Heaven's eyes. By making Nebraska a State, America reached for a future more closely aligned with that truth.

Since that new birth of freedom, our Nation has taken many more steps--some bold strides, some stumbles--but always we seek to be more fully the country we were made to be. At a crucial moment, Nebraska strengthened our commitment to do that. Nebraska renewed America's identity.

As a State, Nebraska had not only hard but also humble beginnings. They called it the Great American Desert. In the early 1800s, the famous military officer and explorer Zebulon Pike shrugged us off, saying simply: ``Not a stick of timber.'' A few years later, geologist Edwin James and MAJ Steven Long gave us this review: ``The land was uninhabitable by a people depending on agriculture.''

Today, wagon ruts can still be seen on Windlass Hill on the Oregon- California Trail, where settlers passed through. They were looking for greener pastures.

Well, last year Nebraska ranked No. 1 in the Nation in beef exports. The State ranked No. 1 in both the number of mother cows and cattle on feed. We are the beef State. We are Corn Huskers. With both corn and cattle, we produce high quality protein products that are sought by consumers all around this globe. We are No. 1 in the Nation in great northern bean production, popcorn production, and irrigated acres of cropland. Nebraska agriculture is diverse and it is expansive.

We also have more miles of river than any other State. As we sit over the great High Plains in the Ogallala Aquifer, water flows to seven other States from Nebraska. Our abundant supply of groundwater makes us leaders in producing soybeans, wheat, pork, and grain sorghum.

But I am getting ahead of myself.

In 1862, President Abraham Lincoln signed the Homestead Act. It made Americans really a simple offer: Strike out west, cultivate 160 acres of surveyed government land for 5 years, and at the end of that time, the land would be theirs. Families crossed the plains in covered wagons to take Mr. Lincoln up on that offer, and this time they stayed. In fact, the law's very first claimant was a doctor and a Civil War veteran named, fittingly enough, Daniel Freeman. So powerful was his dream that Dr. Freeman filed his paperwork just a few minutes after midnight on New Year's Day, 1863, the day that law went into effect. His homestead lies just outside of Beatrice, NE, where today we find the Homestead National Monument of America. In this vast and ruthless land, the homesteaders made the American dream real. They tilled the earth, first to feed themselves and then to feed the world.

Nebraskans made the Great American Desert into one of the greatest agricultural exporting regions in world history. They did this in part by scientific discovery. Developments in agricultural technology, including the center pivot, pioneered in Nebraska, have allowed Nebraska ag producers to feed the world. Nebraska continues to lead the Nation in center pivot irrigation technology, and today we are home to the four largest irrigation companies in the United States.

Other technological breakthroughs came in transportation, especially rail. These developments helped us to connect our communities and our country. The route of the First Transcontinental Railroad runs through my State. Today, Bailey Yard in North Platte is the world's largest railroad classification yard. In addition, Nebraska now connects her families by 97,000 miles of public roads. Well, that is a far cry from those wagon ruts. These improvements allow us to continue that noble work which we gladly accept of feeding the world.

I would like to take a moment to reflect on something. Nebraska not only helped America find its moral compass again, but our State also shows what wonders a free and virtuous people may work, and it reveals the relationship between the two. When you seek the right thing first and you work at it hard, amazing things follow. This is true not only in our rural areas but also in our cities.

Omaha began as the ``Gateway to the West.'' Pioneers and immigrants made it a mighty city in its own right. From the former stockyards to the strong family businesses and Fortune 500 companies that you will find there today, the fingerprints of hardworking, dedicated people cover every inch of concrete.

Omaha leads in banking, insurance, telecommunications, transportation, and in medicine. Last year, the University of Nebraska Medical Center was ranked fifth in America among the best medical schools for primary care. I think Dr. Daniel Freeman, America's first homesteader, would be proud of that, but I doubt if he would be surprised. This is what happens when we work hard and let ourselves be guided by goodness.

It happened in Lincoln, our State capital, which was renamed after President Lincoln was assassinated. It happens in our Nebraska Panhandle towns and in our cities along the broad and braided Platte River, all along our I-80 corridor, and in so many rural small towns across our State. Nebraskans are a people who are engaged in manufacturing, technology, ag business, education, and the arts. We are strong people, and we build strong communities.

I have to say another word about doing the right thing. In 1879, Nebraska was the site of the first time that American Indians had their day in court, when Standing Bear made his famous statement: ``I am a Man.'' The U.S. district court eventually ruled what we all know to be absolute truth--that a person is a person. Here again, Nebraska gave America the opportunity to be better. There are many other moments.

Nebraska was the first State in which women were the two major party candidates for Governor, when Kay Orr, a Republican, defeated Helen Boosalis, a Democrat, in 1986.

I am on the Senate floor honoring the State I love on its 150th anniversary. I encourage you to come and see what the good life is about. See our cities--their industry, their creativity, their culture--where our innovators work new wonders, so much so that we are now called Silicon Prairie. Feel the thrill of Memorial Stadium, which becomes our third largest city on a game day. Shout ``Go Big Red'' and cheer on the Huskers. Delight in our opera and ballet. Breathe in our small towns. Stop in at a family-run bakery. Have lunch at a local cafe. Enjoy some of the national food sensations that began in Nebraska: Kool-Aid, our Reuben sandwich, and, of course, runzas.

Enjoy local favorites, like kolache, kuchen, fried tacos, and pork chili. Enjoy a Nebraska rodeo. Ride out to our rural areas, where, as Poet Laureate Ted Kooser says, the ``pickup kicks its fenders off and settles back to read the clouds.'' Be awed by the vastness of Nebraska, which gives us perspective on things great and small. Learn from Chimney Rock, our western buttes, and the Pine Ridge, how to stand tall no matter the weather or the season of life. Be soothed by the Sandhills--the largest grass-covered sand dunes in the world and God's own cattle country. Find peace in the song of the Sandhills cranes. Take in the Central Flyway, where millions of migratory birds fly, including our State bird--the western meadowlark. See our gently rolling eastern hills. Canoe our

rivers, fish our trout streams, and relax on our lakes. Follow the trails that tell the story of our history and the roads that lead to a bright future. See Nebraska at night, under a sky filled with stars. Know why people travel from all across the world simply to stargaze.

Pulitzer Prize-winning novelist Willa Cather, who grew up in Nebraska, wrote of the West: ``Elsewhere, the sky is the roof of the world; but here the Earth was the floor of the sky.''

We are a people of the Great Plains, the prairie, the Sandhills. We remember our enduring sources of strength--faith in God, reliance on family, and a habit of hard work. These things give us a sure footing.

For America for 150 years, Nebraska has been a place to look up and begin again, a land of vast possibility, of opportunity, a place to dream and to realize dreams--a model for America and the envy of the world.

Congratulations to the people of the great State of Nebraska as we celebrate our rich history, the exciting present that we are building, and the brighter future we will have in our next 150 years.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed as in legislative session.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to address the nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch to serve on the Supreme Court of the United States.

I will address Mr. Gorsuch's qualifications and his extensive legal experience in a moment, but first, I invite my Senate colleagues to consider: What do we seek in a nominee to our Nation's highest court?

Maybe it is easier to say what we don't want. We do not want a lawmaker. Washington has plenty of those, 100 Senators and 435 Members of Congress. We do not want a crusader for a cause. Most of all, we do not want a trailblazer.

What we want is a follower of the Constitution. We want a Supreme Court Justice who will follow the laws, as written, and uphold the rule of law. This demands discipline; it requires the rarest of virtues: humility. There is no room for hubris on the Supreme Court.

We do not want a Justice who believes he knows better than our Founders. That is not his job. A Supreme Court Justice should neutrally apply the laws as written by Congress and as understood by the Framers of our Constitution. They must not impose their personal preferences upon the law or upon the American people. I want to say again that we want someone who will follow the law and uphold the rule of law.

We also seek a keen legal mind. A nominee must possess the sharpest intellect and only the most rigorous academic qualifications. This person may be one of nine human beings who will resolve questions affecting the freedoms and the rights of millions. Therefore, in addition to ironclad commitment to the rule of law and brilliant intellect, this person must be a known quantity. There must be a reliable record for us to carefully assess.

In exercising our constitutional power of advice and consent, we don't make guesses here in the U.S. Senate. We hold hearings; we ask probing questions. This is how we will determine if Mr. Gorsuch is the legal disciple, brilliant mind, and known quantity the American people need and the person the American people deserve. The evidence so far suggests that he is.

As a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, Mr. Gorsuch has served 10 years in extraordinary fashion. He was confirmed by a voice vote here in the U.S. Senate. His opinions reflect a history of upholding the rule of law. His conduct on the bench demonstrates an exemplary judicial temperament. He is enormously well qualified. His educational background is impressive: an undergraduate degree from Columbia, a law degree from Harvard, and a Ph.D. from Oxford University. Judge Gorsuch clerked for the Supreme Court. Further, he is well within the mainstream.

Among his many impressive academic distinctions, he is a Truman Scholar. This sizeable financial award is given by the Harry S. Truman Scholarship Foundation to young people pursuing a career in public service. I note that my colleague from Delaware, Senator Coons, is a Truman Scholar. Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright serves as president of the Truman Foundation. Senator McCaskill of Missouri is a board member. All are highly respected Democrats. It should be telling that the organization, now headed by Secretary Albright and Senator McCaskill, helped Mr. Gorsuch fund his graduate studies.

Jeffrey Rosen of the nonpartisan National Constitution Center had this to say about the judge: ``He sometimes reaches results that favor liberals when he thinks the history or the text of the Constitution or the law require it, especially in areas like criminal law or the rights of religious minorities.''

Norm Eisen, Special Counsel for Ethics and Government Reform in the White House for President Barack Obama, attended law school with Mr. Gorsuch. He called him, simply, ``a great guy.''

There is much more that can and will be said about the nominee in the days to come. Much of it will contribute to a vigorous confirmation process. Sadly, I suspect much of it will not. Many, including some in this Chamber, have said they will oppose any nominee, no matter how qualified.

Americans deserve better than this bitter feud in the U.S. Senate. The Presidential campaign is over. As the Washington Post recently editorialized, ``A Supreme Court nomination isn't a forum to refight a presidential election.'' The newspaper's editors urged against ``a scorched-earth'' response.

Senate Republicans gave President Bill Clinton an up-or-down vote on his first two Supreme Court nominees. Senate Republicans gave President Obama an up-or-down vote on his two first Supreme Court nominees. This is a chance for my colleagues in the U.S. Senate to show how high- minded they can be. They can permit a similar up-or-down vote on this President's first Supreme Court nominee.

I invite them to engage with me in a respectful, civil dialogue as we carry out our duty of advice and consent. We need a vigorous confirmation process, and I will work for that vigorous, open, respectful, and transparent process. I

hope all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will join me in that.

Mr. President, I yield back the remaining proponent debate time.

Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 184.

Mr. President, this amendment would strengthen community health centers across this country. In Nebraska we have 7 federally qualified health centers and 40 clinic sites that have served over 75,000 people. These centers provide quality personalized health care that women need and deserve.

Last year I had the opportunity to visit one of these in Omaha, the Charles Drew Medical Clinic. I saw firsthand the comprehensive, compassionate care that they provide to Nebraskans. Many times, women are the ones who make health care decisions for their families, but with higher costs and fewer choices, ObamaCare has hurt, not helped, women in this country.

They have seen their premiums go up, they have had a hard time finding the doctors that they trust, and they have had to sign up for plans that they don't like. With this amendment, we can alleviate this frustration. We can help ensure that they receive quality care in their communities surrounded by a support system. It would strengthen women's health. It would help take care of our families, our neighbors, and our friends.

Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and the waiver provisions of applicable budget resolutions, I move to waive all applicable sections of that act and applicable budget resolutions for purposes of my amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

Madam President, I rise today to offer my warmest wishes to my legislative director, Stephen Higgins, as he begins the next chapter of his truly remarkable professional career. It is a career that is characterized by unshakable dedication to the common good and supreme attention to detail. These qualities make Stephen Higgins a true professional. His service is a labor of love for our country and this institution in particular.

Stephen has worked in the Senate longer than all but nine of its current Members, serving this Chamber for 23 years. Stephen still remembers his first day on payroll: March 21, 1994. He began with Senator William Cohen of Maine as a counsel on the Juvenile Justice Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee. There he began what would become a decades-long mission: to advance crime victims' rights.

A year later, Stephen joined the office of Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona, where he would distinguish himself as a committed, talented lawyer over the next 18 years, serving as chief counsel in Senator Kyl's personal office and for 14 years as chief counsel on his Judiciary Committee staff. During that time, Stephen played the lead role, supporting efforts to pass a bipartisan crime victims' rights constitutional amendment. The end result: After 8 years of hard work, a landmark statute was passed by a vote of 96 to 1. This is one of Stephen's proudest accomplishments. ``We did something significant to help crime victims,'' he said. ``We enshrined into law the rights of crime victims to be informed, present, and heard.''

To put it simply, Stephen Higgins helped humanize America's criminal justice system. This work reflects his sincere beliefs about that system. ``The criminal justice system is about seeking the truth,'' he said. ``The truth matters.''

For Stephen Higgins, the truth has always mattered. He is a man of high character and great personal integrity. These attributes made him exceptionally well-suited for work in another critical realm of the Senate: judicial nominations. ``Judges hold people's lives in their hands,'' Stephen said. ``Their decisions have life-altering consequences.''

Most recently, Stephen played a key role in the nomination of Omaha attorney Bob Rossiter to serve as U.S. district court judge for the District of Nebraska, and last year, the Senate confirmed Judge Rossiter unanimously. This was a beautiful capstone to Stephen's Senate career.

He leaves the Senate now for a new position: managing director of the

Human Ecology Institute at the Catholic University of America. This is an interdisciplinary research institute that will apply the rich intellectual tradition of the Catholic Church to contemporary problems in our society. As Stephen said, ``I love the Senate. The only institution I love more is the Catholic Church.'' Sounds like a match made in Heaven. As he takes his new post, I know Stephen will work like it all depends upon him and pray like it all depends upon God.

I thank Stephen's wife of 18 years, Lauren, and their two children, James and Elizabeth, for loaning him to us here in the Senate, because it is a sacrifice. I know they are proud of you, Stephen, as are your parents, Joe and Shelley, and your brother, David.

So, Stephen, thank you so much for all you have done for my office, for the Senate, and for the people of this country. Good luck. God bless.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, this afternoon the Senate voted to approve Dr. Carter's nomination as the next Secretary of Defense. I supported his nomination and appreciated the candor he displayed during both his confirmation hearing and in our private meeting.

I believe the many challenges facing our Nation require a fresh perspective and a strong analytical mind. I am confident Dr. Carter possesses both. Despite the fact the international landscape has changed dramatically over the past few years, the Obama administration has failed to modify its policies to meet the new challenges facing our Nation. In fact, top administration officials have emphasized in recent interviews their approach is not changing and instead offer Americans a laundry list of things they will continue to do. This is unacceptable.

I am very concerned this administration actually believes the correct course of action is to continue what we have been doing. In the Senate, the Armed Services Committee has held a number of hearings to examine the effectiveness of the current U.S. national security strategy.

Witnesses from across the political spectrum have merged on one point. In several key areas, U.S. national security strategy and our regional goals are either ambiguous or divorced from events on the ground. What is needed is a reevaluation, not a continuation.

In Syria, for example, President Obama called on Bashar al-Assad to step down 3 years ago. However, the President has failed to lay out a strategy to accomplish his stated goal. After hundreds of thousands of Syrians have died, terrorist groups have seized control of about half of that country. Further, thanks to assistance provided by Iran and Russia, Assad has fortified his control over much of western Syria.

In response to all of this, President Obama has continued to call for a negotiated transfer of power without any articulation of how this would be accomplished. The President's goal was probably unlikely when it was first conceived, but now it is thoroughly unimaginable.

The Obama administration has also stated the United States intends to degrade and destroy ISIL. While I support this goal, I am concerned we have yet again failed to lay out a strategy to accomplish it.

Yesterday President Obama sent to Congress his authorization of military force. The decision to send young men and women to war is the most serious decision that elected officials will make. This deserves a serious, open, transparent debate that is worthy of the American people. I look forward to a robust committee process on this issue.

I am also eager to hear more from the President about the exact contours of his strategy, particularly when it comes to achieving very clear goals. What exactly do we hope to achieve? Simply stating our objective is to destroy ISIL doesn't reflect the complexities of actually realizing this goal.

The President has waged a campaign of airstrikes against this barbaric terrorist group, but we know airpower alone will not be sufficient to destroy ISIL. While the White House has proposed arming and training Syrian opposition fighters, this effort will take years to produce a force that is strong enough to dislodge ISIL from its strongholds in eastern Syria. What is more, it is unclear how the Syrian fighters--any of whom view Assad as the primary target--will be convinced to first fight ISIL. Questions about the extent to which the United States will provide opposition forces direct air support if they are attacked by ISIL or Assad--those questions remain unanswered. For these reasons, the President has been rightly criticized for not having a clear and effective strategy.

Again, I support the goal of destroying ISIL. But this is a multilayered problem. In Iraq, the administration seems to embrace a growing Iranian role, even though this puts our goal of maintaining a unified Iraq in even greater jeopardy.

With respect to Iran itself, the administration unequivocally states it will not allow that nation to develop a nuclear capability, but we hear reports repeatedly that are suggesting the U.S. negotiators are crafting an agreement that would accept its enrichment program and leave Iran as a threshold nuclear power 1 year away from a bomb, at most.

In Ukraine, the United States imposed sanctions on Russia in March for its intervention. Since that time, Russia has continued to pour heavy weapons and fighters into that conflict. Clearly our policy is not working. We must acknowledge that as Putin continues to build momentum on the battlefield, the incentive for him to honor his diplomatic commitments and end the conflict diminishes.

Additional measures--including defensive weapons for the Ukrainians-- are necessary, and they must be implemented. The international community and most Americans are understandably confused by the stark contrast between what they see and what they hear from the White House. They hear vague assertions, but they see no strategy. They hear a goal, but they see no discussion on how to achieve it. This damages our global credibility.

In a world where we rely heavily on partner nations to be our boots on the ground, we cannot afford to have our international allies wondering if we mean what we say.

Dr. Carter will have a lot on his plate in his new role. I hope his appointment will help encourage the strategic reevaluation that is so desperately needed.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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