Floor Statements

Madam President, I rise in support of the Countering Russian Aggression and Cyber Attacks Act, an amendment to the Iran sanctions bill currently under consideration.

In just the last 3 years under Vladimir Putin, Russia has invaded Ukraine, annexed Crimea, threatened NATO allies, and intervened militarily in Syria, leaving a trail of death, destruction, and broken promises in his wake. And of course, last year, Russia attacked the foundations of American democracy with a cyber and information campaign to interfere in America's 2016 election.

It has been 8 months now since the U.S. intelligence community publicly concluded that the Russian Government had attempted to interfere in our last Presidential election. Since then, the intelligence community has concluded that it is confident that the Russian Government directed a campaign to compromise emails, American individuals, and political organizations; that Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign to undermine public faith in the democratic process; and that Moscow will apply lessons learned from this campaign to future influence efforts worldwide, including against U.S. allies and their election processes.

Months of congressional hearings, testimony, and investigative work have reinforced these conclusions that Russia deliberately interfered in our recent election with cyber attacks and a disinformation campaign designed to weaken America and undermine faith in our democracy and our values. Vladimir Putin's brazen attack on our democracy is a flagrant demonstration of his disdain and disrespect for our Nation. This should not just outrage every American; it should, at long last, compel us to action.

In the last 8 months, what price has Russia paid for attacking American democracy? Hardly any at all: Modest sanctions against a few Russian individuals and entities, some Russian diplomats and spies sent home to Russia,

two spy compounds closed, at least for now--and all of this is reversible at the discretion of the President.

We must take our own side in this fight, not as Republicans, not as Democrats, but as Americans. It is time to respond to Russia's attack on American democracy with strength, with resolve, with common purpose and with action. So I am proud to support this amendment, which would begin to do just that.

This legislation incorporates some of the best ideas from different pieces of legislation already introduced in the Senate, ideas that have broad bipartisan support. The amendment would impose mandatory sanctions on transactions with the Russian defense or intelligence sectors, including the FSB and the GRU, the Russian military intelligence agency that was primarily responsible for Russia's attack on our election.

The amendment would impose mandatory visa bans and asset freezes on any individual who undermines the cyber security of public or private infrastructure and democratic institutions, and it would impose mandatory sanctions on those who assist or support such activities.

The amendment would codify existing sanctions on Russia by placing into law Executive orders signed by President Obama in response to both Russian interference in the 2016 election and its illegal actions in Ukraine, and it would take new steps to tighten those sanctions.

The amendment would target the Russian energy sector, which is controlled by Vladimir Putin's cronies, with sanctions on investments in Russian petroleum and natural gas development, as well as Russian energy pipelines.

We also need to put additional pressure on the ability of Putin and his cronies to move money they have looted from the Russian state. So this amendment would mandate that the Secretary of the Treasury establish a high-level task force within the Department's financial crimes and enforcement network that would focus on tracing, mapping, and prosecuting illicit financial flows linked to Russia, if such flows interact with the U.S. financial system. The task force would also work with liaison officers in key U.S. embassies, especially in Europe, to work with local authorities to uncover and prosecute the networks responsible for the illicit Russian financial flows.

Finally, recognizing that Russia seeks to undermine not just American democracy but Western democracy altogether, this amendment would provide support to the State Department, Global Engagement Center, and USAID to help build the resilience of democratic institutions in Europe against Russian aggression exerted through corruption, propaganda, and other forms of political interference.

Importantly, the legislation also mandates congressional oversight of any decision to provide any relief from these sanctions. Administrations cannot waive or lift these sanctions without certifying that Russia is making concrete steps toward changing its behavior on the international stage. In particular, Russia needs to begin adhering to the Minsk Protocol, roll back its occupation of Crimea and destabilizing efforts in Ukraine, and cease its cyber operations aimed at undermining democracy in the United States and Europe.

We need a strong Russia sanctions amendment, we need it now, and we need it on this piece of legislation. We need this amendment because we have no time to waste. The United States of America needs to send a strong message to Vladimir Putin and any other aggressor that we will not tolerate attacks on our democracy. There is no greater threat to our freedoms than attacks on our ability to choose our own leaders, free from foreign interference, and so we must act accordingly and we must act now.

I would like to thank my friend and colleague on the other side of the aisle--one of the really great remaining members of the Communist Party--who has allowed me to speak and give this statement.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to speak in opposition to the resolution before us.

It has obviously been tried before, and I think there is no doubt that if it were to pass, this could pose a very dangerous threat to our relationship with Saudi Arabia at a time when the Iranians have now achieved a peninsula all the way across from Tehran all the way to Baghdad, and there is no doubt that the Iranians have continued their aggressive behavior.

If we vote down this arms sale to Saudi Arabia, it would have a devastating effect on our standing in the Middle East and a long-term impact on our ability to counter what is clearly Iranian aggressive behavior. So I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against this resolution.

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

Mr. President, I rise in support of Countering Iran's Destabilizing Activities Act of 2017. For too long, a myopic focus on the Iran deal blinded the United States to Iran's persistent campaign to destabilize the Middle East and undermine America's national security interests. Iran has been given a free pass to detain U.S. sailors in clear violation of international law, conduct ballistic missile tests in violation of the United Nations resolutions, support terrorist groups across the region, and prop up the murderous Assad regime in Syria.

It is long past time for the United States and the international community to hold Iran accountable, not just for its commitments under the nuclear deal but for its destabilizing behavior across the Middle East. This legislation begins to do just that by imposing new sanctions on Iran's ballistic missile program, applying terrorism sanctions to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, imposing sanctions on Iranians engaged in human rights abuses, and tightening enforcement on arms embargoes on the Iranian regime.

I thank the chairman and ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senators Corker and Cardin, for ringing this bill to the floor. They recognize that the United States must not stand idly by when hostile regimes undermine and attack our interests and that of our allies. They recognize that regimes that aid and abet crimes against humanity must be held accountable. They recognize that weakness in the face of aggression is provocative.

These are the reasons we must pass this legislation, but these are also the very same reasons this legislation must be amended to strengthen and expand sanctions against Vladimir Putin's Russia.

In just the last 3 years under Vladimir Putin, Russia has invaded Ukraine, annexed Crimea, threatened NATO allies, and intervened militarily in Syria,

leaving a trail of death, destruction, and broken promises in its wake.

Last year, Russia attacked the foundations of American democracy with a cyber and information campaign to interfere in America's 2016 election. It has been 8 months now since the U.S. intelligence community publicly concluded that the Russian Government had attempted to interfere in our last Presidential election.

On October 7, 2016, the Department of Homeland Security and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence stated that the ``U.S. intelligence community is confident that the Russian government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from U.S. persons and institutions, including from U.S. political organizations.'' The statement concluded that ``only Russia's senior-most officials could have authorized these activities.''

On January 6, 2017, the U.S. intelligence community went even further, concluding:

Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence

campaign in 2016 aimed at the United States presidential

election. Russia's goals were to undermine public faith in

the United States democratic process, denigrate Secretary

Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency.

The intelligence community ``did not make an assessment of the impact that Russian activities had on the outcome of the 2016 election,'' but they did warn that ``Moscow will apply lessons learned from its Putin- ordered campaign aimed at the U.S. Presidential election to future influence efforts worldwide, including against U.S. allies and their election processes.''

Since January, months of congressional hearings, testimony, and investigative work have reinforced these conclusions: that Russia deliberately interfered in our recent election with cyber attacks and a disinformation campaign designed to weaken America and undermine faith in our democracy and our values.

Vladimir Putin's brazen attack on our democracy is a flagrant demonstration of his disdain and disrespect for our Nation. This should not just outrage every American, it should compel us to action. But in the last 8 months, what price has Russia paid for attacking American democracy? Hardly any at all: modest sanctions against a few Russian individuals and entities, some Russian diplomats and spies sent home to Russia, two spy compounds have closed, at least for now--and all of this reversible and at the discretion of the President.

What has Russia's reaction been to America's tepid response and reaction to its aggressive behavior? More of the same. More aggression, more meddling. Russia attempted to overthrow the democratically elected Government of Montenegro and murder its Prime Minister. Russia attempted to interfere in France's election. We have already seen attempts to influence German public opinion ahead of the elections in September, and there is every expectation that Russia will do the same thing in the Czech Republic, Italy, and elsewhere in future elections.

Sooner or later, my friends, there will be another American election that captures Russian attention and interest. The victim may be a Republican or a Democrat. To Putin, it won't matter because his targets are not Republicans or Democrats but Americans and all that we stand for as a people. He seeks to sow dissent amongst us and divide us from one another, to erode our resolve to resist his dark and dangerous view of the world, and to undermine our confidence in ourselves and our belief in our own values.

We must take our own side in this fight--not as Republicans, not as Democrats, but as Americans. It is time to respond to Russia's attack on American democracy with strength and resolve, with common purpose, and with action. Together with Senator Graham and a number of other Senators, I am prepared to offer an amendment to this legislation that will begin to do just that. It incorporates some of the best ideas from different pieces of legislation already introduced in the Senate, ideas that have broad bipartisan support.

The amendment we are talking about would impose mandatory sanctions on transactions with the Russian defense or intelligence sectors, including the FSB and the GRU, the Russian military intelligence agency that was primarily responsible for Russia's attack on our election.

The amendment would impose mandatory visa bans and asset freezes on any individual who undermines the cyber security of public or private infrastructure and democratic institutions. It would impose mandatory sanctions on those who assist or support such activities.

The amendment would codify existing sanctions on Russia by placing into law five Executive orders signed by President Obama in response to both Russian interference in the 2016 election and its illegal actions in Ukraine, and it would take new steps to tighten those sanctions. For example, Russia's ability to issue new sovereign debt essentially allows Russia to borrow money from global capital markets to offset pressure from existing U.S. and European sanctions. So this amendment would impose mandatory sanctions on U.S. and third-party investment in sales of Russian sovereign debt as well as in the privatization of Russian state-owned assets.

The amendment would target the Russian energy sector, which is controlled by Vladimir Putin's cronies, with sanctions on investments in Russian petroleum and natural gas development as well as Russian energy pipelines.

We also need to put additional pressure on the ability of Putin and his cronies to move money they have looted from the Russian state. So this amendment would mandate that the Secretary of the Treasury establish a high-level task force within the Department's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network that would focus on tracing, mapping, and prosecuting illicit financial flows linked to Russia if such flows interact with the U.S. financial system. The task force would also work with liaison officers in key U.S. Embassies, especially in Europe, to work with local authorities to uncover and prosecute the networks responsible for the illicit Russian financial flows.

Finally, recognizing that Russia seeks to undermine not just American democracy but Western democracy altogether, this amendment would provide support to the State Department, the Global Engagement Center, and USAID to help build the resilience of democratic institutions in Europe against Russian aggression exerted through corruption, propaganda, and other forms of political interference.

We need a strong Russia sanctions amendment. We need it now. We need it on this piece of legislation. We need this amendment because we have no time to waste. The United States of America needs to send a strong message to Vladimir Putin and any other aggressor that we will not tolerate attacks on our democracy. There is no greater threat to our freedoms than attacks on our ability to choose our own leaders free from foreign interference. So we must act accordingly, and we must act now.

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

Madam President, it is with deep sadness that I come to the floor to pay tribute to my friend and great supporter, Jerry Perenchio. Along with my wife, Cindy, I offer my sincerest condolences to Margie and Jerry's three children, five grandchildren, and three great-grandchildren as they mourn the loss of a man whose brilliant talent and business success were only surpassed by his humility and generosity.

Jerry's incredible life and career epitomize the American dream. The grandson of Italian immigrants, Jerry spent time at military school before graduating from UCLA and joining the U.S. Air Force as a fighter pilot. Jerry pursued his goal of working in show business by taking a job in the mailroom at a talent agency. Before long, he was promoted to talent agent and later launched his own agency, representing Hollywood stars including Marlon Brando, Andy Williams, and Ronald Reagan. He would go on to partner with Norman Lear and Bud Yorkin and produce some of the most iconic television shows in history, including ``All in the Family,'' ``Good Times'' and ``The Jeffersons,'' and financed celebrated films such as ``Driving Miss Daisy,'' which won the Oscar for best picture in 1989.

Jerry also played a major role in promoting some of history's most iconic sports matchups. In 1971, Jerry agreed to promote the heavyweight world championship ``fight of the century'' between Muhammed Ali and Joe Frazier at New York's Madison Square Garden. Jerry sold the broadcast rights to the fight, which was shown on closed- circuit TV. He guaranteed a $5 million purse for the matchup, built a crowd of celebrities including Frank Sinatra and Burt Lancaster, and generated $2 million in profits. He would go on to promote the legendary ``Battle of the Sexes'' tennis match between Billie Jean King and Bobby Riggs at the Houston Astrodome that attracted a crowd of nearly 30,000 people, as well as an additional 30 million viewers who watched the match on TV.

Jerry is perhaps best known for building Univision into the media powerhouse it is today. He bought the then-struggling network in 1992 and, in just 4 years, led Univision to an initial public offering. Under his leadership, Univision cultivated a loyal audience among Hispanic Americans who had been previously underrepresented in the mainstream media. Colleagues of Jerry at Univision have spoken of his deep respect and compassion for the Hispanic community in the United States and his visionary foresight into the important role they play in culture and politics.

While Jerry had much personal success to celebrate, he carried himself with humility, generosity, and integrity. Despite working in show business, Jerry preferred a more reclusive life and encouraged his subordinates to work hard and avoid the press. ``Stay out of the spotlight,'' Jerry would say. ``It fades your suit.'' He gave to countless causes and charities, many anonymously, including the Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center and Walt Disney Concert Hall.

I was privileged to work closely with Jerry in 2008 when he served as national finance cochair of my Presidential campaign. I will always appreciate Jerry and Margie's generosity and support during that effort and value the strong friendship we forged in the years since.

Jerry Perenchio will be missed by his family and friends, but his remarkable impact on the entertainment industry and his immense patriotism and generosity will be long remembered by his country. I am honored to have known him and to call him my friend.

Thank you.

Mr. President, for the Committee on Armed Services I report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in the Records on the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Madam President, today I wish to recognize the military career of COL Patrick Kerr, who is retiring from Active Duty on June 1, 2017 after serving more than 26 years in the U.S. Army.

Colonel Kerr was commissioned into the Army as a second lieutenant through the ROTC program at James Madison University in 1990. Over the course of his long career, Colonel Kerr served at every leadership level in the Army from platoon leader in the 63rd Signal Battalion to brigade commander of the Army Information Systems Engineering Command at Fort Huachuca. During his brigade command, Colonel Kerr's unit defended Army networks against daily attacks and conducted cyber space and network operations in support of the warfighter.

Throughout his time in the Army, Colonel Kerr has been a leader in the incredibly important battlefield of cyber security and network communications. It is difficult to imagine aspects of the military that have changed more in the last quarter century than military communications, information technology, and cyber security. Colonel Kerr provided extraordinary leadership for the Army to navigate through the many challenges of building, operating, and protecting Army and Defense Department communications networks.

Prior to his current assignment in Arizona, Colonel Kerr was the deputy operations officer for recently created Army Cyber Command. He also commanded the 53rd Signal Battalion, which operates the Department of Defense's constellation of military command and control satellites, providing secure and protected communications around the globe. Colonel Kerr also served as executive officer of the 44th Signal Battalion for its deployment to Afghanistan during the first parliamentary elections for the new government in 2005. As a young officer, Colonel Kerr also deployed to Somalia for Operation Continue Hope; to Kosovo as part of the NATO stabilization force operations; and to Central Command for Operation Provide Comfort.

Colonel Kerr has received numerous awards, including the Legion of Merit, with oakleaf cluster, Bronze Star, Defense Meritorious Service Medal, with two oakleaf clusters, and the Meritorious Service Medal, with two oakleaf clusters). He has earned the U.S. Air Force Space Badge and is a recipient of the Signal Corps Regiment Silver Order of Mercury.

Finally, Colonel Kerr provided mentorship to countless soldiers throughout his career. He is known for going the extra mile in professionally developing his subordinates and truly preparing them for their next leadership role. In fact, Colonel Kerr's advice and counsel is regularly sought by all who work with him to include his peers and superiors.

Colonel Kerr is retiring in Vail, AZ, with his family. He has been married to his wife, Wendy, for over 25 years, and they have two children, Noelle and Peter. For a career soldier, the support of family is vital, and I sincerely thank Wendy, Noelle, and Peter for their sacrifice and support during their numerous deployments and moves.

For a career of exceptional service to the Army and to the Nation, I congratulate COL Patrick Kerr on his retirement and I wish him and his family well in their future endeavors.

Madam President, today I come to the floor in opposition to the nomination of Robert Lighthizer to be United States Trade Representative, USTR. After close examination of the confirmation process for Mr. Lighthizer, I have come to the conclusion that Mr. Lighthizer does not adequately understand the positive economic benefits the North American Free Trade Agreement, NAFTA, has had and will continue to have on Arizona and our Nation. His advocacy for protectionist shifts in America's trade policies, including his support for the withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership, TPP, and the Trump administration's incoherent and inconsistent trade posture, have only solidified my opposition to his nomination to be USTR.

As I wrote in a February piece in the Arizona Republic, coauthored by my colleague Senator Flake and Arizona chamber president Glenn Hammer, NAFTA has delivered enormous economic benefits to the United States since its inception in 1994, especially for the citizens of Arizona. In just two decades, Arizona's exports to Canada and Mexico have increased by $5.7 billion, or 236 percent. Mexico stands as Arizona's No. 1 trading partner, with bilateral trade accounting for 40 percent of our State's exports to foreign markets in 2015 and totaling $9.2 billion. Arizona's trade relationship with Mexico also directly supports more than 100,000 Arizona jobs.

While I understand NAFTA could be strengthened and modernized, any efforts by this administration to withdraw from NAFTA or impose new restrictions or barriers on our ability to trade with Mexico and Canada will have serious consequences for Arizona, including massive job losses for workers and dramatically higher costs for consumers. Furthermore, I am troubled by the need for and the process by which Congress recently granted Mr. Lighthizer a waiver to serve as USTR given that he previously represented a Brazilian and Chinese client in trade litigation matters. As part of the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995, Congress adopted my amendment to prohibit an individual from serving as U.S. Trade Representative or Deputy U.S. Trade Representative if that person has ``directly represented, aided, or advised a foreign entity'' in ``any trade negotiation, or trade dispute, with the United States.'' Ultimately, the waiver was tucked in the must-pass omnibus spending bill, with no chance to debate or vote on such an important trade related policy.

As Senator Sasse and I recently wrote in a letter opposing Mr. Lighthizer, the administration's incoherent and protectionist message on trade ``is especially troubling because confirming a USTR grants the Administration additional legal authority to negotiate trade deals that Congress must consider under `fast track' procedures. Given these circumstances, granting the Trump Administration additional legal powers through your confirmation without understanding how you or the Administration intend to use those powers would be irresponsible.''

I plan to vote against the nomination of Mr. Lighthizer, and I urge colleagues to join me.

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

Mr. President, what is the parliamentary situation?

What is the time of the vote?

Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the nomination of Heather Wilson to be the next Secretary of the U.S. Air Force.

Dr. Wilson is a proven leader and a dedicated public servant. She is a distinguished graduate of the U.S. Air Force Academy and Oxford University, where she earned master's and doctorate degrees as a Rhodes Scholar. If confirmed, Dr. Wilson will be the first Air Force Academy graduate in history to serve as Secretary of the Air Force.

Dr. Wilson served 7 years as an Air Force officer. During the Cold War, she served in the United Kingdom and at the U.S. Mission to NATO in Brussels. As the Cold War came to an end, she served on the National Security Council staff under President George H.W. Bush, working on issues concerning NATO and arms control.

Dr. Wilson later moved west to marry her husband, Jay, who is also an Air Force veteran. After a few years in the private sector, Dr. Wilson once again answered the call to service, first as the head of the New Mexico Child Welfare Department and later as a Member of the U.S. House of Representatives.

In Congress, Dr. Wilson was the leading voice on national security. She took on the tough issues, from surveillance programs to sexual assault at the Air Force Academy, and she earned the deepest respect of her colleagues on Capitol Hill, including mine.

For the last 4 years, Dr. Wilson has been the president of the South Dakota School of Mines, enhancing its reputation as a premier engineering, science, and research institution.

Now America's Air Force needs her leadership.

The next Secretary will lead America's Air Force in confronting the most diverse and complex array of global crises since the end of World War II. The world is on fire, and now more than ever our Nation is counting on the global vigilance, global reach, and global power that are the hallmarks of the U.S. Air Force capabilities.

The next Secretary will also inherit the oldest, smallest, and least ready Air Force in its history. Twenty-five years of continuous deployments, troubled acquisition programs, and frequent aircraft divestments have aged and shrunk the Air Force's inventory. The combination of relentless operational tempo and the self-inflicted wounds of the Budget Control Act and sequestration have depleted readiness. Meanwhile, potential adversaries are rapidly shrinking America's technological advantage and holding our aircraft at greater risk over greater distances.

In short, we have asked a lot of our Air Force over the last 25 years, and the demands placed on the service continue to grow. Congress has only added to the problems with the Budget Control Act and sequestration. We are placing an unnecessary and dangerous burden on the backs of our airmen, and we cannot change course soon enough.

We owe our airmen the resources, equipment, and training they need to succeed. We also owe them proven leadership. That is why the Senate should confirm Dr. Wilson to be the next Secretary of the Air Force. From the Air Force Academy to the Air Force, to the National Security Council, to the House of Representatives, Dr. Wilson has proven herself as a leader. She understands the missions of the Air Force and the capabilities it brings to the defense of our Nation. I am confident she will uphold the Air Force's core values: integrity first, service before self, and excellence in all the Air Force does.

Heather Wilson is the right person to lead the Air Force to a stronger future, and I urge my colleagues to support her nomination.

Mr. President, I yield back all time.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I come to the floor once again to discuss the threats facing our country, the challenges confronting the brave men and women of our Armed Forces. I feel compelled to remind my colleagues about what is at stake because of our failure right here to provide them the resources and equipment they need and deserve, placing their lives at greater risk. That is not my opinion; it is the opinion of the uniformed leaders of our country who have stated time after time that because of our sequestration and our mindless meat ax, we are putting the lives of the men and women who are serving our Nation in uniform at greater risk.

Don't we have an obligation to try to stop that? Obviously, there is not a majority here in the Senate who believes we should, to our everlasting shame. Unless we change course, we will only continue that failure.

We are about to vote on yet another Omnibus appropriations bill. It is well over 1,000 pages. Look here; this is what we are about to vote on without a single amendment--without a single amendment. Is there any Member of the U.S. Senate who has read this? Is there any Member who has read this bill of over $1 trillion that we are about to vote on? Many of us are going to be compelled to vote for it because we don't want to shut down the government again. The American people don't want the government to shut down, no matter what some colleagues of mine say. But here it is.

I challenge any of my colleagues to come to the floor and tell me they have read this bill.

Is it any wonder that the American people are fed up with this way of doing business? There are 1,000 pages--1,000 pages. That is what we are going to vote on in a relatively short period of time--haven't read it--no amendments.

I am sure there may be some provisions in this 1,000-page document that Members would like to modify, like to add to. But what business are we doing? What is the world's greatest deliberative body doing here in a couple hours? We are going to vote yes or no on a 1,000-page document. Shame on us. Shame on us.

Not a single appropriations bill--we have an Appropriations Committee. They have their subcommittees. My friend and colleague from Vermont is here and wants to talk about it. They churn out individual bills. I believe there are 13 of them, one of them being Defense, by the way. But all of that is without amendment, without debate on the floor of the world's greatest deliberative body. Yet we are going to go ahead and vote yes or no.

Many of us are going to vote yes because we don't want to shut down the U.S. Government. We don't want to deprive our citizens of the goods, services, and provisions that a government is supposed to provide people. I don't want to shut down the Grand Canyon again, my friends. I don't want to deprive people from all over the world the ability to see the Grand Canyon. So what do we do? CRAs.

I am all in favor of repealing regulations that are onerous and bad for America and small businesses and large. Is that a rationale for what we are about to do?

I say to my friends on the other side of the aisle: You blocked many of these bills that we wanted to bring to the

floor. You blocked them. Why? For what purpose? Of course, on this side of the aisle, we have agreed to do something like that.

So I just say to my colleagues: You should not be curious when you see the approval ratings of the Congress of the United States in the teens.

Again, as I said, we will be blamed for putting our men and women in uniform at greater risk. That is not John McCain's view; that happens to be the opinion of our uniformed service Chiefs who are telling us that when we are not funding the military, we are putting the lives of the men and women serving at risk.

We passed the Budget Control Act 6 years ago as an attempt to address our spending problem. This legislation led to a $443 billion cut to defense. What has also happened? Deficits came down for a while, and we are on track to return to $1 trillion deficits again in a matter of years. The national debt is set at $20 trillion and has grown and will continue to grow.

We slashed our military, friends. We slashed it. Yeah, great job, we slashed the spending on the military. In fact, if you look, you will see the only portion where there has been a reduction in spending is where? Defense.

When you look at the past several years since sequestration, do you think the world has gotten safer? Do you think the men and women who are serving are better protected, better equipped?

We have 60 percent of our F-18s not flying. Why? No parts. We have two submarines tied up at the pier for a year because they cannot leave the pier. The Air Force is 1,000 pilots short.

What have we done? We have cut defense spending by 4 percent. Meanwhile, the interest on the debt has increased by 7 percent; nondefense, 19 percent; and the elephant in the room, the third rail that none of us want to touch is mandatory spending; that is Social Security and Medicare, primarily.

What have we done? We have shortchanged the men and women who are serving in the military, trying to defend this Nation while nondefense spending has gone up by 19 percent.

So the next time I hear one of my colleagues say: Well, we should continue to cut defense spending because of the debt, we have already done that. We have already shortchanged the men and women who are defending this Nation.

Over the past 10 years, as I mentioned, mandatory spending has grown by 56 percent, and defense has been cut by 4 percent.

The death spiral is occurring. We are in budget cuts with a high operational tempo, and the military is now in a vicious cycle. The death spiral works like this. This is the death spiral, OK? Constant and frequent deployments increase costs. To send our men and women overseas into harm's way increases costs. The more you fly the plane, the more it costs to maintain the plane. The more you deploy a soldier, the more you have to pay him or her to stay in the military.

When budget top lines are determined by politics and not requirements, the Department of Defense has to make tradeoffs. For example, the military may forgo buying military equipment to keep up with wartime costs, but this exacerbates the problem. Our equipment gets older as it is used more and the cost of maintaining aging equipment skyrockets. Here is the death spiral, why the state of our military is what it is today.

Three--count them--three of our Army brigades are at the highest level of readiness. Four of 64 Air Force squadrons are ready to fight tonight; that is four out of 64. Less than half of the Marine and Navy planes are ready for combat. The Air Force has a pilot shortfall of 1,500--1,000 of which are fighter pilots. The Navy has a maintenance backlog of 5.3 million days. The ship maintenance backlogs are so bad that some ships are like the submarine USS Boise, which is tied up in port and isn't qualified to dive and recently missed a deployment.

Look at this graphic. These are the aircraft--all of them that are fully mission capable. These are the Army units that are ready to fight tonight. This is the U.S. Air Force, and these depict the airplanes ready to fight; Marine Corps aircraft, the same way.

So here we are with this situation, and what are we doing? We aren't really addressing the issue because we are going to be faced in the next year or so with the same budget problem of sequestration.

While this is happening, our enemies aren't sitting still. Our adversaries are not waiting for this body to wake up to do its job and act. While we have forced our military to make tradeoffs between supporting immediate operational requirements and future modernization, China, Russia, and other adversaries have been singularly focused on developing military capabilities to target U.S. forces and take away our unique military advantages.

Our military has multiple missions. Our adversaries have one mission, and that is to undermine U.S. military superiority. I regret to inform my colleagues that they are succeeding much more than we anticipated.

The fact is, the U.S. military advantage is eroding. National Security Adviser GEN H.R. McMaster summed it up best when he testified that the U.S. Army is outgunned and outranged. The reality is not much different across the military services.

The President understands it. Rebuilding the military has been a major priority for this administration, but we have to face the simple fact that the military buildup proposed by this President is illegal because the Budget Control Act forbids it. Over the next 4 years, the Budget Control Act's caps on defense spending would leave President Trump $216 billion short. Even President Obama's budget was $113 billion above the BCA caps, and that budget barely slowed the deterioration of military readiness and capabilities.

I regret to say, Chairman Thornberry, the distinguished chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, and I fare even worse against the BCA. We believe that rebuilding our military will require a defense budget of $640 billion in fiscal year 2018. Sustaining that level of funding over the remaining years with the Budget Control Act would require an additional $433 billion.

Give our men and women in uniform a budget that will allow them to rise to meet the challenges of the 21st century. Congress must change the Budget Control Act, and the only way to do that is with a bipartisan budget agreement. As we stand here, there is no serious conversation that I am aware of in this body or anywhere else in Washington about what the agreement would look like or what it would achieve.

The next 4 years can't be like the last 4 years. We must find a way to provide the military with the resources they need and deserve to perform the missions we assign them. We must provide them with the timely authorization of appropriations bills. We must provide them with something they have not had for years--certainty--so they can properly plan and efficiently use taxpayers' dollars to defend the Nation.

What are we looking at right now?

We are going to pass this thing. It will pass. Then, in September-- how many months is that now? It is about 5 months from now--we are going to be bumping up against the same ceiling and the threat of shutting down the government. Are we going to wait until the beginning of September before we start to address this or not? Is that the kind of fiscal cowardice we are going to perform? We are going to see this movie again and again and again and again unless we repeal the Budget Control Act and start providing for the men and women who are serving this Nation and the challenges we are facing, which any military expert will tell you are the greatest they have been in 70 years. We have to stop this.

We will paper over our failures with continuing resolutions. We will cut piecemeal deals in the midnight hour that fail to fix the serious challenges this country faces. We will accept these outcomes because they are better than yearlong continuing resolutions or shutdowns. We will clear the pitifully low bar of success we have set for ourselves, and all the while, challenges we will have been charged to address will only get worse. We have to break this cycle.

After several years of political gridlock, we know a bipartisan budget deal will be necessary to pass appropriations bills. Let's try a novel idea. Why don't we work on the deal now? Why

don't we sit down together, with all of us recognizing the challenges to our national security, and fix this problem instead of kicking the can down the road? My friends, if we do not, I guarantee you we will be doing this same thing again in September. What is that? We will be looking at another 1,000-page bill--1,000 pages that none of us has read. Oh, I take it back. There may be four or five Senators who know what is in it. Maybe 4, maybe 5, maybe as many as 8 out of 100 will know about it. If we do not stop this, this is exactly the movie we are going to see come September--not acceptable.

Don't we owe the men and women who are serving in uniform in harm's way today--several of whom have just been killed in the last few days-- more than what we are giving them? Don't we owe them the best equipment and the best training we can possibly provide them with rather than their being dictated to by a meat-ax called sequestration? Don't we?

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I come to the floor today deeply saddened by the passing of my dear friend and fellow POW, Lt. Col. Leo Thorsness. One of the greatest honors of my life was serving with Leo, a man whose service exemplified selfless duty and devotion to others. Leo earned the Medal of Honor for his heroism in a daring combat mission in North Vietnam in 1967 when he flew directly into hostile territory on dangerously low fuel in an attempt to rescue his comrades who had been downed in an attack. Just 2 weeks after that courageous mission, Leo's aircraft was shot down, and he was taken captive by North Vietnamese soldiers. Leo would spend the next 6 years imprisoned, including a full year in solitary confinement, and endure unspeakable pain and suffering because of his steadfast adherence to our code of conduct. However, Leo never let this experience break his spirit and inspired the rest of us with his patriotism, perseverance, and hope that we would someday be free.

After returning home, Leo continued to live a selfless life of service, as a volunteer, State senator, and public speaker, with a simple message: ``Do what's right--help others.'' I am forever grateful for Leo's generosity, friendship, and example and, along with Cindy, send my heartfelt condolences to Leo's wife, Gaylee, and their entire family as we bid farewell to a genuine American hero.

Mr. President, for the Committee on Armed Services I report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in the Records on the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

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

Madam President, I rise today in support of the nomination and the confirmation of Judge Neil Gorsuch to the U.S. Supreme Court. I do so with mixed emotions because I believe that the actions taken in order to achieve this position will have lasting effects that are unfortunate on this body as far as comity is concerned, but also the confirmation of future judges of the Supreme Court by 51 votes. Rather than go back through the history of what former Majority Leader Reid did in regard to judges and what we are doing now, I am very concerned about the future which will then, with only a 51-vote majority required, lead to polarization of the nominees as far as their philosophies are concerned when the majority does not have to consider the concerns and the votes of the minority.

With my focus on Democrats' unprecedented filibuster of Judge Gorsuch's nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court and the Senate's regrettable action yesterday to invoke the nuclear option on Supreme Court nominees, I have been remiss in not taking the time to describe for the American people why I support strongly and without qualification confirming Judge Gorsuch to serve as an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Why I do so is very simple. Rarely has this body seen a nominee to the Supreme Court so well qualified, so skilled, with such command of constitutional jurisprudence, with such an established record of independence and such judicial temperament as Judge Gorsuch. It is, in fact, exactly for these very reasons that this very body unanimously voted in 2006 to confirm this very judge--this same judge--to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. Yet, now, the other side would have the American people believe that this very same judge lies firmly outside the mainstream and is, therefore, otherwise unacceptable to serve in the Nation's highest Court. Even by the standards of this body, this sophistry is breathtaking.

Let me take a moment to join the chorus of support of my colleagues and recount why Judge Gorsuch is so deserving of this body's support for confirmation to the Supreme Court.

First and foremost, Judge Gorsuch is a world-class judge. On the U.S. Appellate Court for the Tenth Circuit, Judge Gorsuch has maintained the lowest rating of other judges dissenting from his opinion. Indeed, according to the Congressional Research Service, only 1.5 percent of Judge Gorsuch's majority opinions were accompanied by a dissent--the lowest of any judge in that study. Notably, the U.S. Supreme Court has never overruled any of Judge Gorsuch's opinions--not a single one. Furthermore, in the more than 2,700 cases Judge Gorsuch participated in, 97 percent of them were decided unanimously, and Judge Gorsuch was in the majority 99 percent of the time. These are facts. In addition, the U.S. Supreme Court overruled an opinion where Judge Gorsuch sat on a panel only one time.

While serving on that court, Judge Gorsuch built an exceptional reputation for his fair-minded, articulate, and sharp intellect. Stanford Professor Michael McConnell, who served with Judge Gorsuch on the Tenth Circuit, characterized Judge Gorsuch as ``an independent thinker, never a party liner'' and ``one of the best writers in the judiciary today. . . . [H]e sets forth all positions fairly and gives real reasons--not just conclusions--for siding with one and rejecting the other.''

Second, Judge Gorsuch has one of the most impressive professional and academic backgrounds this body has ever seen. He graduated from Columbia cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa and cum laude from Harvard Law School. He also obtained a doctorate degree in philosophy from Oxford University and served as a Truman and Marshall Scholar. Additionally, he served for U.S. Circuit Court Judge David Sentelle, Supreme Court Justices Byron White and Anthony Kennedy. Judge Gorsuch also served as Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General at the Department of Justice before serving as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

For all of these achievements, Judge Gorsuch has earned the highest possible rating from a group Minority Leader Schumer calls the ``gold standard'' for evaluating judicial nominations.

Finally, Judge Gorsuch has established himself as an exceptional nominee. Indeed, Judge Gorsuch's appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee was extraordinary. In the course of the three rounds of questioning by that committee, each Member had the opportunity to quiz Judge Gorsuch for over an hour each on just about every aspect of constitutional law. In answering about 1,200 questions from the panel, he demonstrated almost peerless mastery over that field.

Furthermore, Judge Gorsuch's nomination, with the help of my friend and former member of this body Kelly Ayotte, was exemplary in its transparency. Before his hearing, and in response to the Judiciary Committee's requests, Judge Gorsuch provided over 70 pages of written answers about his personal record and over 75,000 pages of documents, including speeches, case briefs, and opinions--which, by the way, makes you wonder why he wanted the job. Anyway, White House archives and the Department of Justice similarly produced over 180,000 pages of documents related to Judge Gorsuch's time at the DOJ. The Department of Justice, moreover, provided access to reams of documents that would ordinarily be subject to claims of privilege. However, in the spirit of cooperation and in the hope of truly bipartisan consideration, the Department of Justice provided my friends on the other side access to these records anyway.

Additionally, in response to almost 300 separate questions posed by Democrats on the committee, Judge Gorsuch provided another 70 pages of written responses, and did so within a week of receiving them, to give my friends sufficient time to review the answers before the committee voted for consideration of his nomination.

Despite all of that I just said--despite everything that I just said, my friends on the other side would have the American people believe that Judge Gorsuch lies firmly out of the mainstream and hopelessly obfuscated his judicial philosophy.

My friends, when you do that with an individual that qualified, you lose credibility.

For all of the reasons I just went through, that is simply untrue. Moreover, when many of my friends on the other side had the opportunity to question Judge Gorsuch over the 20 hours they had with him during his confirmation hearing, they contented themselves with asking Judge Gorsuch for his personal opinions on issues that could come before him if he is confirmed to the Court. In addition, they passed hypotheticals they knew he, for ethical and prudential reasons, could not possibly be expected to answer.

Here is some straight talk. The real reason most of my friends on the other side opposed Judge Gorsuch's confirmation is that President Trump nominated him--because their base of support and related special interests on the far left have been upset about President Trump's election in November. The fact is that if most of my friends on the other side of the aisle are opposed to this nominee, they will oppose any nominee put forward by this President, or any Republican President, for that matter.

The record is clear. Judge Gorsuch's qualifications, knowledge, skill, judicial temperament, and record of independence are truly exceptional. For these reasons, he has earned my strong and unqualified support for his confirmation to the Nation's highest Court.

Could I just make one additional comment, and I know my friend from Utah is waiting. When President Obama and Presidents before him were elected from both parties, it was pretty much the standard procedure here in the U.S. Senate to give the incoming President the benefit of the doubt. In other words, the American people, by electing a President of the United States, had also basically endorsed his responsibility and his right to nominate judges to the courts. That is just

sort of a given, because the American people spoke in their selection of the President of the United States, taking into consideration those responsibilities the President would have. So, therefore, for those reasons, I voted for most of President Obama's nominees, as I did most of President Clinton's nominees. Now we are in a position where we are so polarized that even a man of the qualifications of Judge Gorsuch is now opposed by our friends on the other side of the aisle.

I say to my friends on the other side of the aisle, and I say to my friends on this side of the aisle: That is not the way the Senate was designed to work. The Senate was designed for us to communicate, for us to work together, for us to understand the results and repercussions of a free and fair election. It is about time we sat down together and tried to do some things for the American people in a bipartisan fashion. This near-hysterical opposition that I see from my friends on the other side of the aisle does not bode well for what we know we need to do.

Madam President, I recognize the presence of the distinguished Senator from Utah, and I say ``distinguished'' because both he and I are of advanced age.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, before I get into my remarks about the impending action of the Senate with regard to the so-called nuclear option, I would just point out that the attacks yesterday on innocent men, women, and children should not have come as a surprise. It was in 2013 that the then-Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, and the head of the CIA recommended to the President that we arm the Free Syrian Army and bring Bashar Assad's barbarity to a halt. The President of the United States rejected that. Bashar Assad used chemical weapons, and the President called me and Senator Graham over to the White House and said: If they cross the redline, I am going to act. We are going to degrade Bashar Assad and upgrade the Free Syrian Army and have regime change.

Then, of course, he backed down. You know, there is one thing worse than doing nothing: It is saying you are going to do something and then not doing it. That sent a signal everywhere in the world, not just Syria. The fact is, we knew it would happen again. So we have seen this movie before. Unless we act, we are going to see it again.

I am encouraged, frankly, that General Mattis, General McMaster, and the President of the United States have said that this act of incredible barbarity and cruelty will not go unresponded to. But I can assure my colleagues this: If we don't respond to this, then there will be more use of these chemical weapons and weapons of mass destruction, and there will be more innocent people who will die.

Eight years of Obama's failure is what led to the events that just took place that horrified all of us. That requires us to stand up to this barbarity, help the Free Syrian Army, establish safe zones, and make sure that Bashar Assad, propped up by the Russians and the Iranians and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard and Hezbollah, is no longer able to perpetrate these war crimes on innocent men, women, and children.

Mr. President, it is also with some sorrow that I regret having to come to

the floor to speak once again on the issue of eliminating the 60-vote threshold on judicial nominations, specifically a nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court. It is particularly troubling to do so because the nominee in question, Judge Neil Gorsuch, has impeccable legal credentials and a strong reputation as a fair- and sharp-minded lawyer and jurist. The American Bar Association and many others of all political stripes agree that his distinguished career as a lawyer and a jurist makes him well qualified for the position of Associate Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Regrettably, very regrettably, my colleagues in the minority have decided to filibuster the nomination of this good, decent, highly qualified man.

Numerous times over the years, the Senate has come to a standstill over nominees, whether they were judicial or executive branch. That gridlock has inevitably led to threats from the majority--whichever party was in the majority--to use the ``nuclear option,'' basically changing the rules of the Senate of 200 years to strip the minority party of their right to filibuster certain nominees.

I have been privileged several times to be a part of a group of Senators who were able to come together and negotiate agreements to end the gridlock surrounding nominees, avert the nuclear option, and allow the Senate to move forward with our work on behalf of the American people. My work in these groups--often referred to as gangs--has won me both praise and condemnation and has often put me at odds with some in my own party.

In 2005, I joined 13 of my colleagues in an agreement that allowed for votes on three of President Bush's judicial nominees who were being filibustered by the Democrats, who were in the minority at the time. Part of that agreement addressed future nominees. It stated:

Signatories will exercise their responsibilities under the

Advice and Consent Clause of the United States Constitution

in good faith. Nominees should only be filibustered under

extraordinary circumstances, and each signatory must use his

or her own discretion and judgment in determining whether

such circumstances exist.

In other words, if that nominee is so far out of the mainstream that it is extraordinary, only then would they seek to block the nomination and filibuster.

I have had conversations with colleagues on both sides of the aisle in an attempt to once again come up with a way forward and avoid both a filibuster of Judge Gorsuch and the nuclear option. Sadly, I learned on Monday that those efforts had failed and that the Democrats had secured the necessary votes to successfully filibuster the highly qualified Supreme Court nominee for the first time in our history. In response, the majority leader has indicated that he will move to change the Senate rules and eliminate the ability of the minority to do so.

We are in a terrible place. My colleagues should understand that this is a historic moment if we move forward with it.

In 2013, then-Majority Leader Harry Reid changed the Senate rules to eliminate the 60-vote threshold on most judicial and executive branch nominees. Those in my party, including me, were enraged--rightly so. We warned that the Democrats would not be in control of the Senate or the White House forever and that they would come to regret their actions. We were right.

Their actions came back to haunt them. I believe our actions will haunt us as well.

In an op-ed on November 27, 2012, Senator McConnell, knowing of the Democrats' plans to change the Senate rules in their favor, wrote this:

A serious threat has been quietly gathering against one of

the most cherished safeguards of liberty in our government--

the right of a political minority to have a voice. Until now,

this has always been the defining characteristic of the

Senate. That's why all Senators have traditionally defended

the Senate as an institution, because they knew that the

Senate was the last legislative check for political

minorities and small states against the kind of raw exercise

of power large states and majority parties have always been

tempted to wield.

The threat I'm referring to is the effort by some

Democrats, most of whom have never served a day in the

minority, to force a change in the Senate rules.

How soon we forget.

In fact, Chairman Grassley exactly predicted what is about to happen. In November 2013, he said:

Not too many years ago, my colleagues on the other side

described their fight to preserve the filibuster with great

pride. Today the other side is willing to forever change the

Senate because the Republicans have the audacity to hold

them, the majority party of today, to their own standard.

The silver lining is that there will come a day when roles

are reversed. When that happens, our side will likely

nominate and confirm lower court and Supreme Court nominees

with 51 votes regardless of whether the Democrats actually

buy into this fanciful notion that they can demolish the

filibuster on lower court nominees and still preserve it for

the Supreme Court.

Senator Alexander, on November 21, 2013, when threatened with the nuclear option by the Democrats, said:

This action today creates a perpetual opportunity for the

tyranny of the majority because it permits a majority in this

body to do whatever it wants to do any time it wants to do

it.

Senator Alexander went on to say:

In my view, this is the most important and most dangerous

restructuring of Senate rules since Thomas Jefferson wrote

them at the beginning of our country.

On November 21, 2013, Senator Shelby said:

Democrats won't be in power in perpetuity. This is a

mistake--a big one for the long run. Maybe not for the short

run. Short-term gains, but I think it changes the Senate

tremendously in a bad way.

The same day, on the same issue, Senator Thune said:

I think Democrats are playing with fire. This is very

dangerous in terms of what it means for the Senate. What goes

around comes around. And someday, they're going to be in the

minority.

Senator Burr said on that same day:

The American people know what they get when the minority

party is stripped of its filibuster rights: they get

unchecked power by the executive branch.

He went on to say:

If sweeping legislation and lifetime appointments cannot

muster 60 votes in the United States Senate, then it probably

is not a good idea to force either on the American people.

My own colleagues on this side of the aisle need to remember our own words and heed our own warnings. We will not control this body forever. We will not hold the White House in perpetuity. What we are poised to do at the end of this week will have tremendous consequences, and I fear that someday, we will regret what we are about to do. In fact, I am confident we will.

Having said that, it is hard for me to keep a straight face when I hear the current righteous indignation coming from the other side. After reading the comments some of my Democrat friends made in 2013, it is difficult to have much sympathy for where they find themselves today.

Senator Merkley, who was perhaps the biggest proponent of changing the rules at that time, said this:

Without the nuclear option, Republicans are going to

disable the executive branch.

Ending the abusive filibuster on nominations is a big step

toward restoring the functionality of the Senate, and that

matters for all of us.

This is a terrific vote for the U.S. Senate.

Senator Udall said:

I'm just so encouraged now that we're going to be able to--

without filibusters--put people on the courts in an orderly

way.

Senator Warren said on November 13, 2013:

We need to call out these filibusters for what they are:

Naked attempts to nullify the results of the last election.

If Republicans continue to filibuster these highly

qualified nominees for no reason other than to nullify the

President's constitutional authority, then Senators not only

have the right to change the filibuster, Senators have a duty

to change the filibuster rules. We cannot turn our backs on

the Constitution. We cannot abdicate our oath of office.

Senator Sanders on May 14, 2013, said:

If we bring this nomination to the floor and there is a

request for 60 votes, which we're not going to get, I think

it is time for the Democratic leadership to do what the

American people want, and that is to have a majority rule in

the United States Senate.

I did not make up those last quotes. Those are actual quotes. This isn't fake news.

Elections have consequences, my friends. Elections have consequences.

I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle keep this in mind: Now that we are entering into an era where a simple majority decides all judicial nominations, we will see more and more nominees from the extremes of

both the left and the right. I do not see how that will ensure a fair and impartial judiciary. In fact, I think the opposite will be true, and Americans will no longer be confident of equal protection under the law.

When then-Majority Leader Reid changed the Senate rules in 2013, there was no one more critical of his actions than the Senator who stands before you now. I fought hard to convince my colleagues of the damage those changes would do to this body. I did so because I love the Senate. I revere this institution and the place it holds in our system of government. It is imperative that we have a functioning Senate where the rights of the minority are protected, regardless of which party is in power at the time.

While what happened in 2013 was infuriating to our side, it was also heartbreaking. It was heartbreaking because it seemed to me that the uniqueness of the Senate had been irreparably damaged and, along with it, any hope of restoring meaningful bipartisanship.

The unprecedented nature of the Democrats' filibuster of a Supreme Court nominee has left me in the difficult position of having to decide whether to support finishing what Harry Reid and the Democrats started in 2013 and eliminate the 60-vote threshold on Supreme Court nominations. I find myself torn between protecting the traditions and practices of the Senate and the importance of having a full complement of Justices on the U.S. Supreme Court.

I am left with no choice. I will vote to change the rules and allow Judge Gorsuch to be confirmed by a simple majority. I will do so with great reluctance, not because I have any doubts that Judge Gorsuch will be an excellent Justice but because of the further--and perhaps irreparable--damage that it will do to the Senate.

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

Madam President, I want to thank the Senator from Kansas for all the hard work he has done, and the Senator from Montana. On the rare occasion I come to praise him, I would like to give him my deep and heartfelt appreciation for his work in a bipartisan fashion on this issue. I mean that with all sincerity. I also thank our distinguished chairman, Senator Isakson. I also think I share with my colleagues an appreciation for Dr. Shulkin, the new Secretary of the Veterans' Administration, who has been an active and helpful participant in this effort.

Most everything has been said except that I would like to remind my colleagues that we now have--since the enactment in 2014, over 7 million appointments have been made using the Choice Program. Now, over 30,000 appointments are successfully made each week under the Choice Program.

The programs are set to expire in a few months, and, as pointed out by my colleagues, the VA has already begun to limit care for pregnant mothers, as well as cancer patients, because their treatment would extend beyond August. Soon all veterans will be kicked off the Choice Program.

I would just like to point out to my colleagues, if I could, that this crisis started in Phoenix, AZ, where 15,000 veterans were put on a wait list and over 40 veterans died while awaiting care. That is not acceptable in this Nation.

I believe the Choice Program is a major step forward. The truth is, the VA has a lot more to do to provide for the care we have obligated this Nation to on behalf of those who have fought and sacrificed for our Nation. The Choice Card has made a major step forward. I hope we can consider removing any geographic or other limitations associated with it. But what the Senators from Kansas and Montana have done today is to make sure this program continues and why it is important to pass it today--not one dollar Congress authorized to care for veterans under the Choice Program should go unused.

Let me mention what we have done. There are 7 million additional appointments for veterans in their communities, and over 1.5 million veterans have benefited from using the Choice Card that they would not have had otherwise. Some 350,000 more doctors, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants are available to treat veterans. There are 235,000 appointments per month through Veterans Choice--more than 10,000 per workday. The Veterans Choice Program more than doubles the number of medical providers nationwide that treat veterans. In Arizona, 11,700 medical providers in veterans communities have treated over 100,000 disabled veterans.

The Veterans Choice Card is being used at 700 hospitals and nearly 10,000 clinics nationwide. The Western Region is paying more than 90 percent of Veterans Choice doctors in less than 30 days and answering 900,000 phone calls per month, with an average time to answer of under 25 seconds. Over 3,000 veterans received hepatitis C treatments due to Veterans Choice funding.

There are still kinks in the operation. There are still bottlenecks. There are still times when veterans' payments, particularly, have not been done in a timely fashion, as the Senator from Kansas mentioned. Hopefully, that will change now. As with any program, it had its difficulties in its beginning. But I want to tell my colleagues that we should make the Choice Card available for any veteran, no matter where they happen to reside. It should be, I believe, the basis of our next effort. But in the meantime, I want to thank again the Senator from Kansas for his hard work.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.