Floor Statements

Mr. President, today I wish to recognize the distinguished career, service, and leadership of Augustana University president Rob Oliver.

His 11 years of leadership as the 23rd president of Augustana University in Sioux Falls, SD, have highlighted his servant's heart, visionary attitude, and passion for higher education. As he prepares for this next chapter in life, I would like to honor Rob's dedication and efforts to not only continue the university's rich history of providing students with a quality, liberal arts education, but also for his commitment to ensuring future students are given the opportunity to advance their studies and given the foundation to live a life of purpose at Augustana University.

President Oliver joined the university after being incredibly involved in the Sioux Falls financial, business, and philanthropic community. For many years, Rob pursued efforts to improve the economic vitality of the region and was also active as a board member and devoted volunteer for many organizations, including the board of trustees of then-Augustana College.

Rob's presidential tenure occurred during a time of uncertainty for many colleges and universities across the country. With the rising costs of higher education, enrollment challenges, nationwide economic troubles, and a growing discourse regarding the value of a college degree, many traditional institutions were struggling to chart a sustainable path forward.

However, through President Oliver's ability to inspire others, offer a strategic vision, and execute a thorough plan of action, he has responded to those difficulties and strengthened Augustana's mission to deliver a quality, well-rounded experience for students, faculty, and staff.

Under Rob's direction, Augustana has attained a number of accomplishments. Many will point to the critical investments in the Froiland Science Complex and Mikkelsen Library and others will point to record-setting monetary support and vastly increased endowment and scholarship programs as remarkable accomplishments; yet it is also worthwhile to note the university's advancement of the Civitas honors program, new academic majors and curriculum, expanded undergraduate research, and an expansion of online offerings for undergraduate, graduate, and adult students. Additionally, the Center for Innovation and Entrepreneurship and the Student Success Center were created to provide important strategic partnerships and vocational engagement.

Knowing the university's ability to attract students also depends on factors and opportunities outside the scholastic realm. President Oliver's era of leadership also included growth in the performing and visual arts, study abroad programs, and the construction and renovation of first-class, athletic facilities such as Kirkeby-Over Stadium, Ronken Field, and other projects through unprecedented, charitable gifts.

The university has already seen the fruits of Rob's diligent work. With enrollment at a 26-year high, scholarships and financial aid for 100 percent of its fulltime students, two NCAA national championships, a well-respected place among the Nation's top educational institutions, and additional projects already staged for the future, there is little doubt his 25 years as part of Augustana University, whether as a trustee, member of the faculty, or finally as president, President Oliver's outstanding legacy will leave an impact for many years to come.

I wish Rob, his wife, Angela, and the entire family the very best as we celebrate his service to Augustana University and the people of South Dakota.

Mr. President, today I recognize the hard work of my Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee intern Alec DiFruscia. Alec hails from Tewksbury, MA, and is a senior at George Washington University.

During his internship, Alec assisted the committee's press office. He is a dedicated worker who has been committed to getting the most out of his internship. I extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Alec for all of the fine work he did for the committee and wish him continued success in the years to come.

Mr. President, today I recognize the hard work of my Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee intern Jack Kill. Jack hails from Houston, TX, and is a rising senior at Notre Dame University.

While interning on the Commerce Committee, Jack assisted the Consumer Protection, Product Safety, Insurance, and Data Security Subcommittee. He is a dedicated worker who was committed to getting the most out of his internship. I extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Jack for all of the fine work he did for the committee and wish him continued success in the years to come.

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

Mr. President, it is no surprise that the economy continues to be one of the top issues on the minds of Americans. The 8 years of the Obama administration were characterized by weak economic growth, a dearth of jobs and opportunities, and almost nonexistent wage growth. The Obama administration ushered in long-term economic stagnation.

The Congressional Budget Office predicts that the economy will grow at a rate of just 1.9 percent over the next 30 years--a full percentage point lower than the average growth rate over the past 50 years. We cannot resign ourselves to that. Resigning ourselves to long-term growth of 1.9 percent would mean resigning ourselves to decades of fewer jobs and opportunities, low wage growth, and a reduced standard of living. Fortunately, there are a lot of things we can do to get our economy thriving again and to spur economic growth.

A recent report from the Economic Innovation Group identified one important problem with our economy today, and that is a lack of what the EIG calls economic dynamism. Economic dynamism, as the Economic Innovation Group defines it, refers to the rate at which new businesses are born and die.

In a dynamic economy, the rate of new business creation is high and significantly outstrips the rate of business death, but that has not been the case in the United States lately. New business creation has significantly dropped over the past several years. Between 2009 and 2011, business death outstripped business birth, and while the numbers have since improved slightly, the recovery has been poor and far from historical norms.

The Economic Innovation Group notes that in 2012--which, by the way, was the economy's best year for business creation since the recession-- it still ``fell far short of its worst year prior to 2008.'' This is deeply concerning because new businesses have historically been responsible for a substantial part of the job creation in this country, not to mention a key source of innovation. When new businesses are not being created at a strong rate, workers face a whole host of problems. ``A less dynamic economy,'' the Economic Innovation Group notes, ``is one likely to feature fewer jobs, lower labor force participation, slack wage growth, and rising inequality--exactly what we see today.''

Restoring economic dynamism would go a long way toward boosting economic growth and providing new jobs and opportunities for American workers. One big thing we can do to achieve this is to relieve the burden of excessive government regulations. Obviously, some government regulations are important and necessary, but too many others are unnecessary and do nothing but load businesses with compliance costs and paperwork hours. The more resources businesses spend on complying with regulations, the less they have available for growth and innovation. Excessive regulations also prevent many new businesses from ever getting off the ground. Small startups simply do not have the resources to hire individuals--let alone consultants and lawyers--to do the costly work of complying with scores of government regulations.

Unfortunately, over the past 8 years, the Obama administration spent a lot of time on imposing burdensome and unnecessary regulations on American businesses. According to the American Action Forum, the Obama administration was responsible for implementing more than 675 major regulations that cost the economy more than $800 billion. Given those numbers, it is no surprise that the Obama economy left businesses with few resources to dedicate to growing and creating jobs or that new business creation seriously dropped off during the Obama administration.

Since the new Congress began in January, Republicans in Congress and the President have been focused on repealing burdensome Obama-era regulations. So far, we have saved individuals and businesses approximately $67 billion and freed them from 56 million hours of paperwork. Eliminating burdensome regulations will continue to be a priority for both Republicans in Congress and for the White House.

In addition to removing burdensome regulations, we need to focus on reforming our Tax Code. Our current Tax Code is strangling businesses, both large and small. Some corporations escape with paying very little in taxes, but others end up paying the highest corporate tax rate in the developed world. Meanwhile, small businesses and family farms face high tax rates, at times exceeding those paid by large corporations.

Tax reform needs to address these obstacles to growth. We need to trim our excessive corporate tax rate to make U.S. businesses competitive in the global economy, and we need to reduce taxes for small businesses so that we do not choke off these sources of growth and innovation. Measures like allowing new businesses to deduct their startup costs and expense more of their investments in machinery and equipment would spur new business creation and help small businesses thrive.

Our goal is to take up tax reform this year, and I am looking forward to that debate. Reforming our Tax Code will go a long way toward restoring dynamism to our economy and encouraging growth, job creation, and better wages.

There are other growth-boosting measures we can take as well, like removing unnecessary barriers that restrict access to capital. Both new and existing businesses rely on capital to help them innovate and expand.

The last 8 years were discouraging years for American workers, but the stagnation of the Obama years does not have to be the new normal. American workers and job creators are as dynamic and creative as ever; we just need to clear the obstacles from their paths. I look forward to working with my colleagues this year as we make putting our economy on the path to long-term health and vitality a top priority for the U.S. Senate.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate be in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that applicable committees be discharged from further consideration of and the Senate now proceed to the immediate consideration of the following resolutions en bloc: S. Res. 105, S. Res. 122, S. Res. 128, S. Res. 129, S. Res. 130, S. Res. 131, and S. Res. 133.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolutions be agreed to, the preambles, where applicable, be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, all en bloc.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 140, submitted earlier today.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 141, submitted earlier today.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 142, submitted earlier today.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9:30 a.m., Wednesday, April 26; further, that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and morning business be closed; further, that following leader remarks, the Senate proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the Acosta nomination, with the time until 11:30 a.m. equally divided in the usual form; finally, that notwithstanding the provisions of rule XXII, the cloture vote on the Acosta nomination occur at 11:30 a.m. tomorrow.

Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it stand adjourned under the previous order.

Mr. President, 2 months ago, the President nominated Judge Neil Gorsuch, a judge on the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, to the Supreme Court. This week, we will be voting on his confirmation.

I want to say that I am grateful to my colleague, the senior Senator from Iowa, for his leadership during this process and for getting this nomination to the floor. We are fortunate to have him as chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

We have before us a supremely qualified candidate for the Supreme Court. Judge Gorsuch has a distinguished resume. He is widely regarded as a brilliant and thoughtful jurist. Most importantly, however, he is known for his impartiality and his absolute commitment to the rule of law. Judge Gorsuch understands that the job of a judge is to apply the law as it is written--and here is the fundamental thing--even when he disagrees with it.

``A judge who likes every outcome he reaches is very likely a bad judge.'' Judge Gorsuch has said that more than once. Why? Because a judge who likes every outcome he reaches is likely making decisions based on something other than the law. That is a problem because there is no such thing as equal protection or equal justice when judges make decisions based on their personal feelings about a case instead of based upon the law. A judge's job is to apply the law as it is written, whether he likes the result or not. Judge Gorsuch understands this.

A lot of people from across the political spectrum have spoken up in favor of Judge Gorsuch's nomination, and one thread that runs through their comments is their confidence that they can trust Judge Gorsuch to apply the law as it is written.

Here is what Neal Katyal, an Acting Solicitor General for President Obama, had to say about Judge Gorsuch:

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

to restore confidence in the rule of law. His years on the

bench reveal a commitment to judicial independence--a record

that should give the American people confidence that he will

not compromise principle to favor the president who appointed

him.

A former law partner and a friend of Judge Gorsuch's--a friend who describes himself as ``a longtime supporter of Democratic candidates and progressive causes''--had this to say about Judge Gorsuch:

Gorsuch's approach to resolving legal problems as a lawyer

and a judge embodies a reverence for our country's values and

legal system. . . . I have no doubt that I will disagree with

some decisions that Gorsuch might render as a Supreme Court

justice. Yet, my hope is to have justices on the bench such

as Gorsuch . . . who approach cases with fairness and

intellectual rigor and who care about precedent and the

limits of their roles as judges.''

Again, that is from a self-described ``longtime supporter of Democratic candidates and progressive causes.''

During his years on the bench, Judge Gorsuch has had a number of law clerks. On February 14, every one of Judge Gorsuch's former clerks, except for two who are currently clerking at the Supreme Court, sent a letter on his nomination to the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Here is what they had to say:

Our political views span the spectrum . . . but we are

united in our view that Judge Gorsuch is an extraordinary

judge. . . . Throughout his career, Judge Gorsuch has devoted

himself to the rule of law. . . . As law clerks who have

worked at his side, we know that Judge Gorsuch never resolves

a case by the light of his personal view of what the law

should be. Nor does he ever bend the law to reach a

particular result that he desires.

For Judge Gorsuch, a judge's task is not to usurp the

legislature's role; it is to find and apply the law as

written. That conviction, rooted in his respect for the

separation of powers, makes him an exemplary candidate to

serve on the nation's highest court.

Again, that is the unanimous opinion of 39 of Judge Gorsuch's former law clerks whose political views, in their own words, ``span the spectrum.''

E. Donald Elliott, an adjunct professor at Yale Law School, had this to say about Judge Gorsuch:

Judge Gorsuch's judicial philosophy isn't mine . . . but

among judicial conservatives, Judge Gorsuch is as good as it

possibly gets. . . . Judge Gorsuch tries very hard to get the

law right. He is not an ideologue, not the kind to always

rule in favor of businesses or against the government.

Instead, he follows the law as best he can wherever it might

lead.

I could go on. The voices raised in support of Judge Gorsuch are numerous.

Unfortunately, no amount of testimony in favor of Judge Gorsuch seems to be enough for Democrats. Senate Democrats are apparently determined to oppose Judge Gorsuch despite the fact that they are struggling to find any good reason to justify their opposition.

The Senate minority leader came down to the floor on March 23 to announce his determination to vote against Judge Gorsuch, and he urged his colleagues to do the same. Why? Well, apparently the Senate minority leader is not convinced that Judge Gorsuch ``would be a mainstream justice who could rule free from the biases of politics and ideology.'' That is right. Despite the fact that everyone--liberal and conservative--seems to describe fairness as one of Judge Gorsuch's distinguishing characteristics, the Senate minority leader is not convinced the judge will be able to rule without bias. He is worried that Judge Gorsuch won't be a mainstream judge.

Well, over the course of 2,700 cases on the Tenth Circuit, Judge Gorsuch has been in the majority 99 percent of the time--99 percent. In 97 percent of those 2,700 cases, those opinions were unanimous. I would like the minority leader to explain how exactly a judge who is in the majority 99 percent of the time is out of the judicial mainstream. Is the minority leader trying to suggest that all of the judges on the Tenth Circuit, including the ones appointed by Democrats--which, I might add, is a majority on the circuit--are extremists?

The fact is, Democrat opposition to Judge Gorsuch has nothing to do with his qualifications. Let's just get it out there. I doubt that any of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle really think that Judge Gorsuch is out of the mainstream or that he lacks the qualifications of a Supreme Court Justice. No, the truth is that Democrats are opposing Judge Gorsuch because they are mad that it is not a Democratic President making the nomination. They can't accept that they lost the election, so they are going to oppose any nominee, no matter how qualified.

It is extremely disappointing that Democrats plan to upend a nearly 230-year tradition of approving Supreme Court nominees by a simple majority vote simply because they can't accept the results of an election.

Democrats have no plausible reason to offer for opposing this supremely qualified nominee. I hope that a sufficient number of Senate Democrats will think better of their opposition and vote--when we have that opportunity later this week--to confirm Judge Gorsuch to the Supreme Court.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today we are one step closer to a vote to confirm Judge Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. I look forward to the vote tomorrow. We will be confirming a Justice to the Supreme Court who is supremely qualified, who is a mainstream judge, who respects the rule of law and the Constitution, and who will rule impartially from the bench--someone who will call balls and strikes. That is what I believe the American people look for when they look for a Supreme Court Justice.

While it was always clear that some Democrats would oppose any Supreme Court candidate the President nominated, I had hoped that partisanship would be at least somewhat limited. I had hoped the Democrats would want to preserve the Senate's nearly 230-year tradition in confirming Supreme Court Justices by a simple-majority vote. And I had hoped that more than a handful of Democrats would join us to confirm one of the most, as I said, supremely qualified judges in my memory. That is not what happened. Despite Judge Gorsuch's qualifications, despite the support for his nomination from both liberals and conservatives, the vast majority of Senate Democrats were determined to block this confirmation.

Of course, it wasn't really ever about Judge Gorsuch. It is not that Democrats were determined to block his confirmation; it is that they were determined to block any confirmation.

Democrats tried to offer reasons to oppose Judge Gorsuch, but they struggled to come up with anything plausible. The Senate minority leader actually came to the floor and tried to argue that he was worried that Judge Gorsuch would not be ``a mainstream justice.''

Over the course of 2,700 cases on the Tenth Circuit, Judge Gorsuch has been in the majority 99 percent of the time--99 percent. In 97 percent of those 2,700 cases, the opinions were unanimous. So I would love to hear an explanation for how exactly a judge who has been in the majority 99 percent of the time is out of the judicial mainstream. Was the minority leader attempting to argue that all of the judges on the Tenth Circuit, including those appointed by Democratic Presidents, are out of the mainstream?

The fact is that Democratic opposition to Judge Gorsuch had nothing to do with his qualifications. I doubt that any of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle really think that Judge Gorsuch is out of the mainstream or that he lacks the qualifications of a Supreme Court Justice, but they opposed him anyway.

If they opposed a judge with a distinguished resume and a reputation as a brilliant jurist; if they opposed a judge who is known for his fairness and impartiality; if they opposed a judge whose nomination has been repeatedly supported by liberals, as well as conservatives; if they opposed a judge who unanimously received the highest possible rating from the American Bar Association--a rating, I might add, that the minority leader once called the ``gold standard'' for judicial nominees; if they opposed a judge a number of them supported 10 years ago, then it is abundantly clear that their opposition wasn't about this judge but about any judge this President nominates. Thus, Republicans were left with no real alternative but to act to preserve the Senate's tradition of giving Supreme Court nominees an up-or-down vote. This wasn't my preference. I preferred to leave room for a minority to block a judge who is truly not fit for office. But it was the only alternative we were left with if we wanted to confirm anyone to the Supreme Court.

Historically, confirming judges was not a partisan process. During the George W. Bush administration, however, Democrats decided they were going to change that. They were mad back then too--mad that a Republican President was in charge. Apparently, modern-day Democrats are not reconciled to the fact that in our system of government, it is not always the Democrats who win.

Anyway, the Democrats were mad, and they decided that the historically bipartisan process of confirming judicial nominees was going to change. Their 2003 filibuster of Miguel Estrada, who had been nominated to a seat on the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, was the first time a judicial nominee who enjoyed clear majority support was not confirmed because of a filibuster.

Democrats ultimately successfully filibustered no fewer than 10 Bush nominees to appellate courts. That was a massive reversal in Senate history. Suddenly the normally smooth process of confirming a President's judicial nominee had been turned into an exercise in partisanship.

Ten years later, Democrats struck again when they employed the nuclear option to ensure that they could pack the DC Circuit--despite the fact that at the time, when the current minority leader announced that Democrats would ``fill up the D.C. Circuit one way or the other,'' Republicans had blocked just two of President Obama's circuit nominees and had confirmed 99 percent of his judges. So 215 were confirmed out of 217 under President Obama up to that point.

And now here we are today. Democrats are again mad that they lost an election, that they can't control the nomination process, and they once again turned to ``no-holds-barred'' partisanship. They made it clear that no Republican nominee would ever make it to the Supreme Court; thus, we had to act to ensure that Supreme Court nominees can receive an up-or-down vote going forward.

In the Senate's nearly 230 years, the filibuster has been used to block a Supreme Court nominee exactly once--one time. Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas's nomination to be Chief Justice of the Supreme Court was blocked by a bipartisan coalition, in part over ethical concerns. That is how strong the Senate's bipartisan tradition of an up-or-down vote on Supreme Court nominees has been--230 years, one time, and it was bipartisan. I am deeply sorry that the Democrats were determined to end that tradition.

Judge Gorsuch should never have faced the threat of a filibuster. There was no reason--no reason other than the most flagrant partisan politics--to block this supremely qualified nominee from the Supreme Court.

As I said, I look forward to tomorrow and to this final vote where we will have an opportunity to confirm to the Supreme Court this well- qualified, mainstream nominee who fundamentally respects the rule of law and the Constitution of the United States and will act impartially as a Justice for the American people.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.