Floor Statements

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the Customs and Border Protection Hiring and Retention Act, or CBP HiRe Act.

In recent years, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, or CBP, has had a lot of trouble recruiting, hiring, and retaining personnel to adequately staff the border and our ports of entry. Today, CBP is nearly 1,000 officers below the mandated staffing levels. The Border Patrol, whose duty it is to secure 6,000 miles of borderlands, suffers from a shortage of more than 1,800 agents. These shortages persist, despite ample backing and funding from Congress and the threat they pose to both national security and trade-reliant communities and economies, particularly in my State of Arizona. This has been frustrating for border communities across the country, but it is especially problematic for Arizona, a State that depends on both border security and a lot of cross-border trade.

For example, the Nogales port of entry in Southern Arizona is one of the busiest ports in the United States. It processes approximately $2.5 billion worth of produce each year. Arizona alone does about $15 billion in trade with Mexico alone, every year. Mexican shoppers spend about $8 million in stores in Arizona every day.

However, the port currently is suffering from a 23-percent shortage of CBP officers. Our ports cannot effectively and efficiently facilitate the flow of commerce across the border without adequate staffing.

One of the biggest challenges in both retaining and hiring new officers and agents for frontline positions has been the remoteness of CBP installations. CBP officers and border agents are often stationed in geographically remote and isolated locations. This likely contributes to the fact that, of those leaving the agency, nearly 30 percent of Border Patrol agents and over 10 percent of CBP officers are lost to other agencies.

Massive staffing shortages aside, CBP is barely able to hire fast enough to fill the jobs left by departing agents and officers. So we have great needs that are not being filled, but we also have attrition we simply can't replace. In fact, CBP hires only 1 out of every 64 applicants for officer positions, and 1 out of every 113 applicants for Border Patrol agent positions. This means that less than 2 percent of applicants manage to get through CBP's hiring process. The situation at CBP today is simply unsustainable.

Congress can't sit idly by as slow hiring rates and accelerating attrition threaten the security of our borders and the underpinnings of our economy. To that end, I am pleased to introduce my CBP HiRe Act with Senator

Heitkamp from North Dakota. This legislation would streamline the hiring process and allow the CBP to finally bring more agents and officers into frontline positions.

Importantly, this bill gives CBP new tools to recruit and retain personnel in remote and hard-to-fill locations. This includes special salary rates and recruitment, relocation, and retention incentives.

In addition, the bill will eliminate bureaucratic redtape by giving CBP the authority to use direct-hire authority and to expedite the hiring of qualified applicants. Right now, the situation is that they have to deal with other Federal agencies and get virtually every incentive and program they want to approve and need to approve to hire more officers. They have to run it up the flagpole so many times with Federal agencies that it simply takes too long.

Lastly, the bill prevents CBP from disclosing an applicant's polygraph results with another Federal agency or non-Federal employer. Challenges relating to the administering of the polygraph have resulted in approximately 65 percent of the individuals failing the test.

Think about that. People who are in another law enforcement position, even those who have taken a polygraph before just a year or two prior-- many of them fear that a false positive on a polygraph exam might impact their ability to move to another Federal agency if that is disclosed. If you have a polygraph, which can't be used in courts of law because it is not perfect or nowhere near perfect, then Federal agencies shouldn't be able to forward that to other Federal agencies. It acts as a big disincentive for people to apply for these positions because a false positive on a polygraph exam might imperil their chances to work for another Federal agency or to work in law enforcement later in their career. This also creates a disincentive, as I mentioned, for individuals to want to be hired by CBP.

In Arizona, safety and prosperity are inextricably linked to CBP's ability to secure the border and facilitate trade. The CBP HiRe Act will give CBP the tools and flexibility necessary to accomplish these missions.

I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan solution, and I look forward to seeing it move through the Senate without delay.

Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the Customs and Border Protection Hiring and Retention Act, or CBP HiRe Act.

In recent years, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, or CBP, has had a lot of trouble recruiting, hiring, and retaining personnel to adequately staff the border and our ports of entry. Today, CBP is nearly 1,000 officers below the mandated staffing levels. The Border Patrol, whose duty it is to secure 6,000 miles of borderlands, suffers from a shortage of more than 1,800 agents. These shortages persist, despite ample backing and funding from Congress and the threat they pose to both national security and trade-reliant communities and economies, particularly in my State of Arizona. This has been frustrating for border communities across the country, but it is especially problematic for Arizona, a State that depends on both border security and a lot of cross-border trade.

For example, the Nogales port of entry in Southern Arizona is one of the busiest ports in the United States. It processes approximately $2.5 billion worth of produce each year. Arizona alone does about $15 billion in trade with Mexico alone, every year. Mexican shoppers spend about $8 million in stores in Arizona every day.

However, the port currently is suffering from a 23-percent shortage of CBP officers. Our ports cannot effectively and efficiently facilitate the flow of commerce across the border without adequate staffing.

One of the biggest challenges in both retaining and hiring new officers and agents for frontline positions has been the remoteness of CBP installations. CBP officers and border agents are often stationed in geographically remote and isolated locations. This likely contributes to the fact that, of those leaving the agency, nearly 30 percent of Border Patrol agents and over 10 percent of CBP officers are lost to other agencies.

Massive staffing shortages aside, CBP is barely able to hire fast enough to fill the jobs left by departing agents and officers. So we have great needs that are not being filled, but we also have attrition we simply can't replace. In fact, CBP hires only 1 out of every 64 applicants for officer positions, and 1 out of every 113 applicants for Border Patrol agent positions. This means that less than 2 percent of applicants manage to get through CBP's hiring process. The situation at CBP today is simply unsustainable.

Congress can't sit idly by as slow hiring rates and accelerating attrition threaten the security of our borders and the underpinnings of our economy. To that end, I am pleased to introduce my CBP HiRe Act with Senator

Heitkamp from North Dakota. This legislation would streamline the hiring process and allow the CBP to finally bring more agents and officers into frontline positions.

Importantly, this bill gives CBP new tools to recruit and retain personnel in remote and hard-to-fill locations. This includes special salary rates and recruitment, relocation, and retention incentives.

In addition, the bill will eliminate bureaucratic redtape by giving CBP the authority to use direct-hire authority and to expedite the hiring of qualified applicants. Right now, the situation is that they have to deal with other Federal agencies and get virtually every incentive and program they want to approve and need to approve to hire more officers. They have to run it up the flagpole so many times with Federal agencies that it simply takes too long.

Lastly, the bill prevents CBP from disclosing an applicant's polygraph results with another Federal agency or non-Federal employer. Challenges relating to the administering of the polygraph have resulted in approximately 65 percent of the individuals failing the test.

Think about that. People who are in another law enforcement position, even those who have taken a polygraph before just a year or two prior-- many of them fear that a false positive on a polygraph exam might impact their ability to move to another Federal agency if that is disclosed. If you have a polygraph, which can't be used in courts of law because it is not perfect or nowhere near perfect, then Federal agencies shouldn't be able to forward that to other Federal agencies. It acts as a big disincentive for people to apply for these positions because a false positive on a polygraph exam might imperil their chances to work for another Federal agency or to work in law enforcement later in their career. This also creates a disincentive, as I mentioned, for individuals to want to be hired by CBP.

In Arizona, safety and prosperity are inextricably linked to CBP's ability to secure the border and facilitate trade. The CBP HiRe Act will give CBP the tools and flexibility necessary to accomplish these missions.

I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan solution, and I look forward to seeing it move through the Senate without delay.

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

Mr. President, in light of National Police Week, I rise today in support of our men and women serving in law enforcement.

Police week is a good time for reflection and remembrance. It is a time to honor those who serve and protect us. While we honor our dedicated law enforcement officers this week, I want, specifically, to recognize those fallen officers who have given the ultimate sacrifice-- their lives--for our safety.

In Arizona we lost three officers this year: Officer Leander Frank of the Navajo Nation Police Department, Officer David Van Glasser of the Phoenix

Police Department, and Officer Darrin Reed of the Show Low Police Department. Today we honor the memory of these fallen heroes and pledge to never forget their sacrifice.

While the work we do in Congress pales in comparison to the service of these brave men and women, it is my privilege to sponsor several pieces of legislation to support our law enforcement officers. I have joined with Senator Hatch to introduce the Rapid DNA Act, a bill that gives State and local law enforcement agencies a way to upload a suspect's DNA analysis to a Federal offender database for immediate identification. This immediate cross-hit within the Federal system will help officers at the local level to process criminals faster and more accurately.

I have also teamed up with Senator Feinstein to introduce the bipartisan Protecting Young Victims from Sexual Abuse Act. That legislation criminalizes the failure to report to law enforcement incidents of suspected child abuse in amateur athletics. In addition to helping prevent sexual abuse crimes, this bill will aid State and local law enforcement investigating allegations of child sexual abuse by providing them with more information faster.

I have also supported Senator Cornyn's American Law Enforcement Heroes Act. That bill affirms a well-established practice of hiring veterans at the local level to serve as new law enforcement officers. Together, these bills will enhance law enforcement investigations and encourage better hiring practices for new law enforcement jobs.

I also want to recognize the local police officers and sheriffs in Arizona, along with those on the border who are serving on the frontlines of immigration enforcement. These men and women put their lives on the line every time they go out on patrol. For them, immigration policy is not a hypothetical exercise.

Despite the critical role these entities play in assisting their Federal partners with immigration enforcement, current Federal policy leaves them exposed to the threat of costly litigation. That is because third-party groups that oppose detention have threatened local agencies that choose to comply with valid detainer requests with lawsuits. Using punitive legal action to punish law enforcement for good-faith efforts to keep people safe is wrong. That is why a group of Arizona sheriffs came to me for help, and with their guidance, we drafted a bill requiring the Department of Homeland Security to protect State and local law enforcement entities from lawsuits that uphold valid detainer requests from ICE. This solution will enable officers to fulfill their law enforcement responsibilities without second-guessing whether or not to keep potentially dangerous criminal aliens in custody. It is a recognition that local law enforcement shouldn't be left to shoulder the burden of Washington's failure to secure our borders and to implement a workable enforcement policy.

It has been my privilege to work on this effort with the Arizona Sheriffs Association, the Western States Sheriffs' Association, the Southwest Border Sheriff's Coalition, and the Texas Border Sheriff's Coalition. I want especially to thank Sheriff Mascher of Yavapai County, Sheriff Daniels of Cochise County, Sheriff Wilmot of Yuma County, and Sheriff Clark of Navajo County for their work on this bill.

To many, Police Week is an annual opportunity to recognize the service of the many selfless men and women in law enforcement, but it should also serve as a solemn reminder of the risks they take and the sacrifices they make day in and day out. It is for this that they have my support, my respect, and my thanks, and they have it year-round.

I yield back the remainder of my time.

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

Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, immigration enforcement is one of the Federal Government's most essential responsibilities. It is also one of the most debated and rightly so. Those of us in this body need to ensure that Federal immigration laws secure our borders from criminal and terrorist threats and facilitate effective interior enforcement to keep citizens safe.

At the same time, our laws must promote a system of legal immigration that encourages economic growth and opportunity, especially in border communities like those in my home State of Arizona, but while we debate these policies on the Senate floor, local police officers and sheriffs around the country are serving on the frontlines of immigration enforcement. These men and women put their lives on the line every time they go out on patrol. For them, immigration policy is not a hypothetical exercise, it is part of the day in and day out reality of serving in law enforcement. Throughout the country, local officers increasingly find themselves coming in contact with individuals who, after being apprehended for the commission of a crime, are determined to be in the country illegally. This is especially common in border States like Arizona.

Once it is determined an individual in their custody is in the country illegally, that information is relayed to Immigration and Customs Enforcement or ICE. ICE can then send a request to local officials with instructions to hold that individual for up to 48 hours so they can be transferred to Federal custody. This is called a detainer request. The partnership between law enforcement authorities at all levels of government leverages vital information and resources in order to keep dangerous criminals off the streets. The Federal Government has no better partners in this effort than State and local law enforcement agencies from Arizona.

Despite the critical role these entities play in assisting their Federal partners with immigration enforcement, current Federal policy leaves them exposed with the threat of costly litigation. That is because third-party groups that oppose detention have threatened local agencies that choose to comply with valid detainer requests. They are threatened with lawsuits. Using punitive legal action to punish law enforcement for good-faith efforts to keep people safe is simply wrong.

We can have this policy debate without jeopardizing public safety and the ability of local law enforcement officers to do their job. That is why I am introducing the Support Local Law Enforcement Detainer Indemnity Act. This bill will require the Department of Homeland Security to protect State and local law enforcement entities from lawsuits that uphold valid detainer requests from ICE. This is called indemnification. It would allow officers to fulfill their law enforcement responsibilities without second-guessing whether to keep potentially dangerous criminal aliens in custody.

Reforming our Nation's immigration policies is no easy task, let me tell you. It is slow, frustrating work in the Senate, but as we continue the debate, local law enforcement shouldn't be left to shoulder the burden as a result of Washington's failure to secure our borders and implement a workable enforcement policy.

I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense legislation that will give State and local law enforcement the certainty of knowing the Federal Government has their back.

I also thank local sheriffs across the State of Arizona who are really shouldering this burden and who came to me with this issue. They want to keep their community safe. They want to do what is right. It pains them to have to release someone they know is dangerous, but they can't expose themselves and their counties to the litigation that would come if something like this legislation is not put in place. So this is a response to a very real problem out there.

I thank those like Sheriff Dannels, Cochise County, and Sheriff Mascher, Yavapai County, Sheriff Clark of Navajo County, Sheriff Wilmot of Yuma County, and many others who have been working on this issue, work on the frontlines, and do a lot of work that we are very appreciative of in Arizona.

Mr. President, immigration enforcement is one of the Federal Government's most essential responsibilities. It is also one of the most debated and rightly so. Those of us in this body need to ensure that Federal immigration laws secure our borders from criminal and terrorist threats and facilitate effective interior enforcement to keep citizens safe.

At the same time, our laws must promote a system of legal immigration that encourages economic growth and opportunity, especially in border communities like those in my home State of Arizona, but while we debate these policies on the Senate floor, local police officers and sheriffs around the country are serving on the frontlines of immigration enforcement. These men and women put their lives on the line every time they go out on patrol. For them, immigration policy is not a hypothetical exercise, it is part of the day in and day out reality of serving in law enforcement. Throughout the country, local officers increasingly find themselves coming in contact with individuals who, after being apprehended for the commission of a crime, are determined to be in the country illegally. This is especially common in border States like Arizona.

Once it is determined an individual in their custody is in the country illegally, that information is relayed to Immigration and Customs Enforcement or ICE. ICE can then send a request to local officials with instructions to hold that individual for up to 48 hours so they can be transferred to Federal custody. This is called a detainer request. The partnership between law enforcement authorities at all levels of government leverages vital information and resources in order to keep dangerous criminals off the streets. The Federal Government has no better partners in this effort than State and local law enforcement agencies from Arizona.

Despite the critical role these entities play in assisting their Federal partners with immigration enforcement, current Federal policy leaves them exposed with the threat of costly litigation. That is because third-party groups that oppose detention have threatened local agencies that choose to comply with valid detainer requests. They are threatened with lawsuits. Using punitive legal action to punish law enforcement for good-faith efforts to keep people safe is simply wrong.

We can have this policy debate without jeopardizing public safety and the ability of local law enforcement officers to do their job. That is why I am introducing the Support Local Law Enforcement Detainer Indemnity Act. This bill will require the Department of Homeland Security to protect State and local law enforcement entities from lawsuits that uphold valid detainer requests from ICE. This is called indemnification. It would allow officers to fulfill their law enforcement responsibilities without second-guessing whether to keep potentially dangerous criminal aliens in custody.

Reforming our Nation's immigration policies is no easy task, let me tell you. It is slow, frustrating work in the Senate, but as we continue the debate, local law enforcement shouldn't be left to shoulder the burden as a result of Washington's failure to secure our borders and implement a workable enforcement policy.

I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense legislation that will give State and local law enforcement the certainty of knowing the Federal Government has their back.

I also thank local sheriffs across the State of Arizona who are really shouldering this burden and who came to me with this issue. They want to keep their community safe. They want to do what is right. It pains them to have to release someone they know is dangerous, but they can't expose themselves and their counties to the litigation that would come if something like this legislation is not put in place. So this is a response to a very real problem out there.

I thank those like Sheriff Dannels, Cochise County, and Sheriff Mascher, Yavapai County, Sheriff Clark of Navajo County, Sheriff Wilmot of Yuma County, and many others who have been working on this issue, work on the frontlines, and do a lot of work that we are very appreciative of in Arizona.

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

Mr. President, I have spoken a lot in recent years about how Arizona is quickly becoming one of our country's major tech hubs. From entrepreneurial startups to major technology companies, Arizona is supporting innovation like never before. In fact, it was just announced that Waymo, Google's self-driving car project, will be launching its first public trials of self-driving vehicles in the greater Phoenix area.

But, today, the biggest news in tech isn't coming from publicly traded Silicon Valley companies. No, today, the talk of the tech world is the students from my alma mater, Snowflake Junior High School. That is because these students from my small hometown of Snowflake, AZ, just won the Samsung Solve for Tomorrow contest.

This national contest tasks students from across the country with creating a solution to improve their local communities by using STEAM skills--Science, Technology, Engineering, Art, and Math.

The winning project from Mr. Eilertsen's students is something special. Snowflake students designed and constructed a low-cost animal detection system to prevent fatalities from vehicle collisions with wild animals. They were motivated by the fact that an estimated 200 people lose their lives each year in these collisions, which can be common around rural communities like Snowflake.

The winning design consists of a 10-inch, weather-resistant motion sensor that blinks to warn drivers when a large animal is near. These durable, affordable sensors can be placed atop existing fence posts like the thousands that line roads all over rural Arizona.

I had the opportunity to meet with these very bright students--2 of them from a class of, I believe, 23--and those 2 are in the Gallery today, along with their teacher Mr. Eilertsen. I had the opportunity to meet with them yesterday in my office and to hear all about this winning project. Let me tell my colleagues that they blew me away with their creativity, their knowledge, and, most of all, their desire to use the STEAM discipline to save lives.

Think about how remarkable this project is. Here is a device that can actually save hundreds of lives and prevent harm to wildlife and to livestock. With the grit and ingenuity of a great startup, these students at Snowflake Junior High have shown the country that big ideas come from small towns.

In recognition of their innovative project, the students won $150,000 in technology for their school and an additional $20,000 for having the most popular project on social media and with the public--not bad for some kids from Snowflake.

Before I yield the floor, I would like to thank Mr. Eilertsen for all that he has done to inspire his students to think big and for making a victory in this Samsung competition possible.

I would also like to thank all of the faculty and staff in Snowflake for their tireless work as educators.

Finally, I would like to congratulate the students of Snowflake Junior High for their victory. I am confident that your project will save lives, and by winning this competition, you have provided your school with educational resources that will help students for years to come.

To the winning students from Snowflake Junior High School: Congratulations. You make me proud to be a Lobo, and, as always, proud to come from Snowflake and proud to be an Arizonan.

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

I yield back the remainder of my time.

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 ask unanimous consent that the time during the quorum call be equally divided.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, Arizona is home to more than a half million veterans. They have served in every conflict from World War II to present-day operations in the Middle East. Nothing makes me prouder than to shake the hand of one of these veterans and to call them an Arizonan.

Fortunately, many of these veterans have the support of friends and family, as well as their fellow veterans with whom they served, but far too many who have served our country lack a support system that can help them successfully make the transition back to civilian life.

For those who have post-traumatic stress or traumatic brain injury, this could be particularly difficult. Studies have shown that veterans often do not seek out medical health treatment due to concerns about stigma, negative career prospects, lack of awareness, or logistical challenges in accessing care. For those who go without treatment, it can lead to substance abuse and, in some cases, run-ins with the law.

While there is no justification for criminal behavior, it is important to recognize when certain actions may be symptomatic of the harrowing experiences a veteran has endured during years of service. This is something the criminal justice system often fails to deal with. By not providing treatment that actually addresses a veteran's underlying service-connected issues, our criminal justice system sometimes creates a vicious cycle. It overcriminalizes service- connected mental illness, undertreats incarcerated veterans, and increases recidivism.

To address the problem, the VA created the Veterans Justice Outreach Program in 2009. The program was established to remove veterans from the regular criminal justice process and to provide specially tailored treatments to address many of these underlying issues. These veterans treatment courts have a proven record of preventing initial incarceration and reducing recidivism.

The lifeblood of the program is the veterans justice outreach specialists, VJO specialists, who link veterans to available court services. These outreach specialists identify veterans in jails and local courts, they assess their health status, and they help them develop the rehabilitation treatment program specific to each of their needs.

I recently had the opportunity to observe the veterans docket and meet with some of these dedicated specialists while visiting the Mesa Municipal Court earlier this month. Let me tell you, there is no substitute for seeing this firsthand. Even though it is a courtroom setting, there is a comradery and collaboration that you don't see in traditional courtroom proceedings. I was amazed at how many

organizations there are to help these veterans--to help them successfully transition and help them with treatment.

The collaboration I am talking about comes from having a judge and hard-working staff who have served in the military themselves. They understand the hardship of multiple deployments for servicemembers and their families. They understand the mental and physical tolls of combat. They understand that the transition back to civilian life can mark the beginning of a new battle for veterans.

The program has experienced remarkable success. The unfortunate reality is that the VA doesn't have enough outreach specialists to ensure access to already available treatment for justice-involved veterans. Demand for VJO specialists is outpacing the program's ability to serve eligible veterans. This means future veterans treatment courts can't be established, existing courts will go understaffed, and veterans will go unserved. That is not right.

That is why today I am introducing the Veterans Treatment Court Improvement Act to ensure our veterans receive swift and appropriate access to justice. This legislation will provide 50 additional VJO specialists for veterans treatment courts nationwide. By increasing the number of dedicated specialists at these facilities, Congress can ensure that more veterans have access to the treatments they have earned with their service. This is bipartisan legislation. I will work to inform my colleagues about the need for this program and additional VJOs in the coming weeks and months.

Mr. President, Arizona is home to more than a half million veterans. They have served in every conflict from World War II to present-day operations in the Middle East. Nothing makes me prouder than to shake the hand of one of these veterans and to call them an Arizonan.

Fortunately, many of these veterans have the support of friends and family, as well as their fellow veterans with whom they served, but far too many who have served our country lack a support system that can help them successfully make the transition back to civilian life.

For those who have post-traumatic stress or traumatic brain injury, this could be particularly difficult. Studies have shown that veterans often do not seek out medical health treatment due to concerns about stigma, negative career prospects, lack of awareness, or logistical challenges in accessing care. For those who go without treatment, it can lead to substance abuse and, in some cases, run-ins with the law.

While there is no justification for criminal behavior, it is important to recognize when certain actions may be symptomatic of the harrowing experiences a veteran has endured during years of service. This is something the criminal justice system often fails to deal with. By not providing treatment that actually addresses a veteran's underlying service-connected issues, our criminal justice system sometimes creates a vicious cycle. It overcriminalizes service- connected mental illness, undertreats incarcerated veterans, and increases recidivism.

To address the problem, the VA created the Veterans Justice Outreach Program in 2009. The program was established to remove veterans from the regular criminal justice process and to provide specially tailored treatments to address many of these underlying issues. These veterans treatment courts have a proven record of preventing initial incarceration and reducing recidivism.

The lifeblood of the program is the veterans justice outreach specialists, VJO specialists, who link veterans to available court services. These outreach specialists identify veterans in jails and local courts, they assess their health status, and they help them develop the rehabilitation treatment program specific to each of their needs.

I recently had the opportunity to observe the veterans docket and meet with some of these dedicated specialists while visiting the Mesa Municipal Court earlier this month. Let me tell you, there is no substitute for seeing this firsthand. Even though it is a courtroom setting, there is a comradery and collaboration that you don't see in traditional courtroom proceedings. I was amazed at how many

organizations there are to help these veterans--to help them successfully transition and help them with treatment.

The collaboration I am talking about comes from having a judge and hard-working staff who have served in the military themselves. They understand the hardship of multiple deployments for servicemembers and their families. They understand the mental and physical tolls of combat. They understand that the transition back to civilian life can mark the beginning of a new battle for veterans.

The program has experienced remarkable success. The unfortunate reality is that the VA doesn't have enough outreach specialists to ensure access to already available treatment for justice-involved veterans. Demand for VJO specialists is outpacing the program's ability to serve eligible veterans. This means future veterans treatment courts can't be established, existing courts will go understaffed, and veterans will go unserved. That is not right.

That is why today I am introducing the Veterans Treatment Court Improvement Act to ensure our veterans receive swift and appropriate access to justice. This legislation will provide 50 additional VJO specialists for veterans treatment courts nationwide. By increasing the number of dedicated specialists at these facilities, Congress can ensure that more veterans have access to the treatments they have earned with their service. This is bipartisan legislation. I will work to inform my colleagues about the need for this program and additional VJOs in the coming weeks and months.

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.

Mr. President, I have one request for a committee to meet during today's session of the Senate. It has the approval of the Majority and Minority leaders.

Pursuant to Rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committee is authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate: