Floor Statements

Mr. President, last week the Senate Judiciary Committee held hearings on Judge Neil Gorsuch's nomination to the Supreme Court. Everything we heard from this nominee confirmed what has been clear from the beginning: Judge Gorsuch is the kind of judge all of us should want on the Nation's highest Court.

Judge Gorsuch obviously has a distinguished resume. He graduated with honors from Harvard Law School and went on to receive a doctorate in legal philosophy from Oxford University, where he was a Marshall scholar.

He clerked for two Supreme Court Justices--Byron White and Anthony Kennedy--and he worked in both private practice and at the Justice Department before being nominated to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, where he has served with distinction for 10 years.

He is widely regarded as a brilliant and thoughtful jurist and a gifted writer whose opinions are known for their clarity. Most importantly, however, Judge Gorsuch understands the proper role of a judge, and that role is to interpret the law, not make the law; to judge, not legislate; to call balls and strikes, not to rewrite the rules of the game.

It is great to have strong opinions. It is great to have sympathy for causes or organizations. It is great to have plans for fixing society's problems, but none of those things has any business influencing your ruling when you sit on the bench. Your job as a judge is to apply

the law as it is written--and here is the fundamental thing--even when you disagree with it.

``A judge who likes every outcome he reaches is very likely a bad judge,'' Judge Gorsuch said 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. Equal justice under the law, equal protection under the law--these principles become meaningless when judges step outside of their role and start changing the meaning of the law to suit their feelings about a case or their personal opinions.

Judge Gorsuch's nomination has attracted support from both sides of the political spectrum. I think the main reason for that is because both liberals and conservatives know they can trust Judge Gorsuch to rule based on the plain text of the law, irrespective of his personal opinions. 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 will 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.

The Colorado Springs Gazette recently highlighted a letter signed by 96 prominent Colorado lawyers and judges and sent to the senior Senator from Colorado. Here is what those individuals had to say about Judge Gorsuch:

We hold a diverse set of political views as Republicans,

Democrats, and Independents. Many of us have been critical of

actions taken by President Trump. Nonetheless, we all agree

that Judge Gorsuch is exceptionally well qualified to join

the Supreme Court. We know Judge Gorsuch to be a person of

utmost character. He is fair, decent, and honest, both as a

judge and a person. His record shows that he believes

strongly in the independence of the judiciary.

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

Gorsuch's approach to resolving legal problems as a lawyer

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

legal system. The facts developed in a case matter to him;

the legal rules established by legislatures and through

precedent deserve deep respect; and the importance of

treating litigants, counsel and colleagues with civility is

deeply engrained in him. . . .

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 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. He believes firmly that the role

of the judge in our democracy is to apply the laws made by

the political branches--that is, to adhere to our

Constitution and statutes our elected representatives have

enacted, and not to confuse those things with a judge's own

policy preferences.

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 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.

That is the unanimous opinion of 39 of Judge Gorsuch's former law clerks, whose political views in their own words ``span the spectrum.'' Unfortunately, no amount of testimony in favor of Judge Gorsuch will ever be enough for some Senate Democrats.

The Senate minority leader took to the floor last week to announce a determination to oppose Judge Gorsuch's nomination. He also announced his determination to push for a filibuster of Judge Gorsuch's nomination. The minority leader's reasons? Well, for starters, the minority leader apparently doesn't trust that Judge Gorsuch will use the bench to implement the leader's preferred policies. He disagrees with some of Judge Gorsuch's decisions, and he apparently considers that sufficient grounds to bar Judge Gorsuch from the Supreme Court. The minority leader demonstrated little interest in whether Judge Gorsuch's legal interpretations were correct. For the minority leader, judging is about getting one's preferred outcome, irrespective of what the law actually says.

The minority leader also mentioned another reason for opposing Judge Gorsuch: He doesn't trust the judge to be independent or impartial, even though liberals and conservatives alike have praised Judge Gorsuch's independence and impartiality as two of his defining characteristics.

The minority leader also made the laughable claim that Judge Gorsuch is somehow out of the judicial mainstream. Well, let me quote what the Wall Street Journal said on this subject. In February, the Journal wrote:

Judge Gorsuch has written some 800 opinions since joining

the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals in 2006. Only 1.75 percent

(14 opinions) [out of 800] drew dissent from his colleagues.

That makes 98 percent of his opinions unanimous even on a

circuit where seven of the 12 active judges were appointed by

Democratic Presidents and five by Republicans.

Let me repeat that last line: ``That makes 98 percent of his opinions unanimous even on a circuit where seven of the 12 active judges were appointed by Democratic Presidents and five by Republicans.''

Well, I wonder if the minority leader intended to suggest that the entire Tenth Circuit is composed of extremist judges or that all of the judges on the Tenth Circuit lacked impartiality or independence, because, logically speaking, if you are going to suggest that Judge Gorsuch is an extremist, then you would have to argue that his colleagues who agreed with his opinions 98 percent of the time are extremists too.

The truth is, Democrat opposition to Judge Gorsuch has zero to do with whether Judge Gorsuch meets the qualifications of a Supreme Court Justice. It is obvious that the judge has all the qualifications one could want in a Justice. Democrats are opposing Judge Gorsuch because they are mad. They are mad that their party didn't win the Presidential election, they are mad that their party doesn't have control of Congress, and they are mad that they are having to consider a judge nominated by a Republican President. It doesn't matter how qualified Judge Gorsuch is, how impartial he is, how independent he is, some Democrats are just going to oppose him anyway.

This isn't the first time Judge Gorsuch has been before this body. Back in 2006, the Senate considered Judge Gorsuch's nomination to the Tenth Circuit. At that time, the judge's nomination sailed through the Senate. Both of his home State Senators--one a Republican and one a Democrat--supported his nomination, and he was confirmed by unanimous vote. Then-Senator Obama could have objected to the nomination, but he didn't. The current minority leader, who was serving in the Senate at that time, could have objected to the nomination, but he didn't. Senators Biden or Clinton could have objected to the nomination, but they didn't. Why? Presumably because they saw what almost everybody sees today: that Judge Gorsuch is exactly the kind of judge we want on the bench--supremely qualified, thoughtful, fair, and impartial. It is incredibly disappointing that some Democrats are now planning to oppose this eminently qualified Supreme Court nominee simply because they can't deal with losing an election.

The Senate has a 230-year tradition of approving Supreme Court nominees by a simple majority vote. There has never been a successful partisan filibuster of a Supreme Court nominee in 230 years, and the only ones who have ever attempted one are the Democrats. Well, some Democrats may follow the minority leader in opposing Judge Gorsuch. I am hopeful that others will listen to the many voices, liberal and conservative, speaking out in support of his nomination.

There is no good reason to oppose Judge Gorsuch, and there is every reason to support him. It is time to confirm the supremely qualified judge to the Supreme Court.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

(Disturbance in the Visitors' Galleries.)

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9:30 a.m., Thursday, March 23; 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; finally, that the Senate resume consideration of S.J. Res. 34.

Mr. President, the internet has grown at an unbounded rate in the years since its inception, a phenomenon no one can argue with. Much of that growth can be attributed to the light-touch regulatory approach that the government adopted in the early days of the web.

As chairman of the Commerce Committee, which has jurisdiction over the internet, I have worked hard to promote policies that encourage the private sector to invest in and grow the internet ecosystem as a whole. All of that is jeopardized, however, if government bureaucrats have the ability to overregulate the digital world. When it comes to overregulating the internet, one need look no further than the Democratic-controlled Federal Communications Commission under President Obama.

In a world that was turning away--it was literally turning away from the legacy telecommunication services and, instead, toward dynamic internet applications, the FCC found its role gradually diminishing. This is an inevitable and good byproduct, I might add, of a more competitive environment brought about by technological innovation and successful light-touch policies.

Yet the Obama FCC fought hard against this technological progress and, instead, pursued an aggressively activist and partisan agenda that put government edicts ahead of real consumer desires. Over the last 2 years, the FCC has made a stunning bureaucratic power grab. First, the FCC stripped away the Federal Trade Commission's authority to police internet providers and seized that for itself by recharacterizing such services as monopoly-era telecommunications.

Then in 2016, the FCC, which has little experience regulating internet privacy, decided to turn our country's privacy laws on their head by abandoning the time-tested enforcement approach of the FTC, the Federal Trade Commission. These actions by the FCC ignored both common sense and real world data and, instead, focused on hypothetical harms of the future.

Ignoring years of internet ecosystem precedent, where everyone was treated the same, the FCC's 2016 broadband privacy regulations would apply only to certain parts of the internet. This is a source of significant concern because at any particular time, consumers will not have reasonable certainty of what the rules are and how their privacy decisions will be applied.

Are you at home on Wi-Fi? At home on a smartphone? Using your smartphone on a friend's Wi-Fi? Using the Internet at a library? Each of these could have very different privacy implications for a consumer because of the FCC's piecemeal approach to privacy, leading to more confusion and uncertainty, not increased privacy protections, as promised.

In enacting these lopsided rules, the FCC seems to have gone out of its way to disregard established FTC practice by creating new regulations that differ significantly from the FTC's tried-and-true framework. The FTC's privacy regime is clear, easy to understand, and applies evenly throughout the marketplace. By contrast, the FCC's rules are complex, confusing, and often lead to the same data being treated inconsistently online.

The FCC's action would harm consumers in other ways as well. Even though no consumer wants to be in the dark about newer and cheaper services, the FCC's rules actually make it more difficult for customers to hear about new, innovative offerings from their broadband providers. And because the FCC imposed heavy-handed data requirements on these internet companies, they will have less ability to offer services that are tailored to their customers' needs and interests. Furthermore, the FCC unfairly distorted the marketplace when it imposed unnecessarily onerous privacy restrictions on broadband providers while leaving the rest of the internet under the strong and successful regime at the FTC.

When speaking about the economic opportunities the internet now affords us, President Obama's last FCC chairman declared that ``government is where we will work this out.''

``Government is where we will work this out.''

Well, I couldn't disagree more. I believe the marketplace should be the center of the debate over how our digital networks would function, not the FCC. I believe consumers and job creators should be the ones deciding about new technologies, not the government.

The resolution before us today is the first step toward restoring regulatory balance to the internet ecosystem. The best way for that balance to be achieved is for there to be a single, uniform set of privacy rules for the internet--the entire internet--rules that appropriately weigh the need to protect consumers with the need to foster economic growth and continued online innovation.

The FCC is simply the wrong venue for that effort. Its statutory scope is too narrow, and it lacks institutional expertise on privacy. The current chairmen of the FCC and the FTC both recognize this, having jointly called for returning jurisdiction over broadband providers' privacy and data security practices to the FTC ``so that all entities in the online space can be subject to the same rules.''

For those reasons, I support the resolution before us that would provide congressional disapproval of the Obama administration's misguided and unfair attempts to regulate the internet, and I encourage my colleagues to support the resolution as well.

To those people who have heard that this resolution somehow results in the elimination of all online protections for consumers, I can assure you those

claims are simply unfounded scaremongering. If this resolution is enacted, it will repeal only a specific rulemaking at the FCC that has yet to be implemented. What we are talking about here hasn't even been implemented yet. It will not touch the FCC's underlying statutory authority. Indeed, the FCC will still be obligated to police the privacy practices of broadband providers, as provided for in the Communications Act. The new chairman of the FCC confirmed this when he appeared before the Commerce Committee earlier this month. No matter what happens with this resolution, the FTC will continue to have its authority to police the rest of the online world.

It is my hope that once the Senate passes this resolution, the House will move quickly to take it up and send it to the President for his signature because, before our country can get back on the right track, we must first move past the damaging regulations adopted in the waning days of the Obama administration.

I thank Senator Flake for his leadership on this issue. Without his tireless efforts, we would not be here today, standing ready to move decisively toward a better future for the internet.

I urge my colleagues to support the resolution that we will vote on tomorrow at noon.

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, following the remarks of Senators Schatz and Markey.

Mr. President, irrespective of how the Presidential election came out last November, we would be having a conversation about how to fix ObamaCare. There are many reasons for that, but most importantly is that it has just skyrocketed costs for people in this country. Premiums have gone through the roof, deductibles have increased, copays have increased, and out-of-pocket costs have become so extensive for people that even if they have coverage, they can't use their plans in many cases. So when our colleagues across the aisle talk about the recently rolled out proposal coming from the House--which they will be discussing and we eventually will be discussing--to try to drive down the costs for people in this country, that is what this debate is really all about.

You can say what you want, but the fact is that this year, 2017, premium increases are 25 percent in the exchanges--25 percent. In six States, the premium increases were 50 percent in the exchanges. I don't know how anybody--any family in this country--can keep up with those kinds of skyrocketing premiums. If you are buying your insurance on the individual market, the roof is blown off.

I talk to people in my State of South Dakota all the time who share with me the excessive amount that it now costs for them to cover themselves and their families. I talked to a lady in Sioux Falls recently, and she told me they are now paying $22,000 a year for health insurance. That is not working. That is why what we had was an abysmal failure.

In terms of choices, the whole idea was that people were going to have options out there. In a third of the counties in America today-- one-third of the counties in America today--people have one option, one insurer. It is pretty hard to get a competitive rate when you only have one option. There is a virtual monopoly in a third of the counties in America today.

So we have markets collapsing, insurers pulling out, and we saw that last fall Blue Cross Blue Shield pulled out of the individual market in South Dakota and left 8,000 people wondering how they are going to continue to cover themselves with health insurance. The markets are collapsing, choices are dwindling, and costs are skyrocketing.

The Senator from Michigan was just on the floor talking about how terrible things are going to be under the proposal that is being considered and discussed in the House of Representatives, but the fact is, things are terrible today, and that is why we are having this conversation. Eight in ten Americans think ObamaCare either ought to be repealed entirely or dramatically changed, significantly changed. By any estimation, by any objective measurement or metric, it has been a failure, and that is why we are having this conversation, and that conversation would have occurred irrespective of what happened in the Presidential election last fall.

So let's be clear about why we are here and why we are having this conversation and why we are coming up with a better solution for the American people that will drive down their costs, give them more choices, create more competition in the marketplace, and give them a higher and better quality of care because it restores the doctor- patient relationship, which is so important, not having the government intervening and being in the middle of all of that.

The Economy and Regulatory Reform

Mr. President, we have a recovery that technically began almost 8 years ago, but for too many Americans, it still feels as if we are in a recession. Americans basically have not had a pay raise in 8 years. Since the recovery began in 2009, wage growth has averaged a paltry 0.25 percent a year--one quarter of 1 percent increase in pay per year since 2009. Well, imagine if you are a family and you are looking at everything that is going up in your lives, whether it is healthcare, which I just talked about, or the cost of education or the cost of energy or the cost of food, all of these things that continue to go up, and you are getting a 0.25-percent--one quarter of 1 percent--pay raise on an annual basis. It is pretty hard not to feel like you are starting to sink and your head is going to be below water before long.

Good jobs and opportunities for workers have been too few and too far between. Millions of Americans are working part time because they can't find full-time employment. Even as some economic markers have improved, our economy has stayed firmly stuck in the doldrums. Economic growth for 2016 averaged a dismal 1.6 percent, and there are few signs that things are improving.

By the way, the historical average going back to World War II is about 3.2 percent average growth in the economy. So last year we were at one-half of what the average had been going back all the way to World War II.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office is projecting average growth for the next 10 years at just 2 percent--in other words, long- term economic stagnation.

The good news, though, is that we don't have to resign ourselves to the status quo. We can get our economy going again. Republicans are committed to doing just that. To get our economy going again, we need to identify the reasons for the long-term stagnation we are experiencing.

A recent report from the Economic Innovation Group identified one important problem: a lack of what the organization 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 deaths. But that hasn't been the case in the United State lately. New business creation has significantly dropped over the past several years. Between 2009 and 2011, business death outstripped business birth.

While the numbers have since improved slightly, the recovery has been poor and far, as I mentioned before, from historical norms. The Economic Innovation Group notes that in 2012--the economy's best year for business creation since the recession--it 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 aren't 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.''

Well, American workers clearly need relief, and restoring economic dynamism is a key to providing it. We need to pave the way for new businesses and the jobs they create, and we need to ensure that current businesses, particularly small businesses, are able to thrive.

There are a number of ways we can do this. One big thing we can do is relieve the burden of excessive government regulations. Obviously some government regulations are important and necessary, but too many others are unnecessary and doing nothing but loading businesses down with compliance costs and paperwork hours. The more resources businesses spend 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 don't have the resources to hire individuals, let alone the consultants and lawyers to do the costly work of complying with the scores of government regulations.

Unfortunately, over the past 8 years, the Obama administration spent a lot of time imposing burdensome 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 fewer resources to dedicate to growing and creating jobs or that new business creation seriously dropped off during those years in the Obama administration.

Since the new Congress began in January, Republicans have been focused on repealing burdensome ObamaCare regulations using the Congressional Review Act. We have already used this law to repeal three Obama regulations, and this week we will use it to repeal at least two more, including the ``blacklisting'' rule, which imposes duplicative and unnecessary requirements for businesses bidding on Federal Government contracts, and the Bureau of Land Management methane rule, which curbs energy production on Federal lands by restricting drilling. This methane rule would cost jobs and deprive State and local governments of tax and royalty payments that they can use to address local priorities.

Another area of regulatory reform we need to address is ObamaCare, as I mentioned. Repealing the burdensome mandates and regulations this law has imposed on businesses will go a long way toward removing barriers to new businesses and spurring growth at existing businesses.

Another important thing we can do is remove unnecessary barriers that restrict access to capital. Both new and existing businesses rely on capital to help them innovate, expand, and create jobs.

In addition to removing burdensome regulations, tax reform needs to be a priority. Measures like allowing new businesses to deduct their startup costs and reducing rates for small businesses would spur new business creation and help small businesses thrive. Republicans plan to take up comprehensive tax reform later this year, and I look forward to that debate.

The American economy has always been known for being dynamic and innovative, and we need to make sure it stays that way. We need to free up the innovators and the job creators so that the next big idea isn't buried by government regulations before it has a chance to see the light of day.

Sluggish economic growth doesn't have to be the new normal. By removing burdensome government regulations and reforming our Tax Code, we can spur business creation and innovation. We can increase wages and opportunities for American workers, and we can put our economy on the path to long-term health, where that growth rate gets back to that more historic level that allows for better paying jobs and higher wages for American families.

I look forward to working with my colleagues in both Houses of Congress to achieve these goals, and I am anxious for us to start passing bills that will put policies in place that are favorable to higher economic growth, better jobs, and better wages for the American people and their families.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I rise to voice my strong support for the nomination of Wilbur Ross to be Secretary of Commerce. We held a hearing on his nomination on January 18, 2017. Mr. Ross has also completed the required paperwork and responded to all of the committee questions for the record. Five weeks ago, on January 24, the Commerce Committee acted by voice vote to favorably report his nomination to the floor. We invoked cloture on Mr. Ross's nomination by a vote margin of 66 to 31 on February 17, with 15 Democratic Senators voting to invoke cloture.

I am glad the Senate will finally confirm his nomination today after a long and unnecessary delay. When he is confirmed, Mr. Ross will bring decades of business, entrepreneurial, and civic experience to this important position.

Mr. Ross is perhaps best known for his expertise in revitalizing distressed businesses, such as those in the U.S. steel industry. At a time when most investors had abandoned the industry, he organized the International Steel Group in 2002, and through acquisitions, he made it the largest integrated steel company in North America. Later, it merged with Mittal Steel to form the largest steel company in the world. It is for this reason that all of the major steel-industry labor unions also support his confirmation.

I ask unanimous consent that the letter of support for the confirmation of Wilbur Ross from the United Steelworkers, dated January 9, 2017, be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. Ross's nomination is also supported by a bipartisan group of former Secretaries of Commerce, including Secretary William M. Daley, who served as Commerce Secretary under President Clinton, and later as Chief of Staff to President Barack Obama.

Mr. Ross's strong record of achievement in business led Bloomberg Businessweek to name him one of the ``50 Most Influential People in Global Finance'' in 2011. It is also why he is the only person elected to both the Turnaround Management Hall of Fame and the Private Equity Hall of Fame.

Mr. Ross's nomination comes at an important time in our Nation's economic recovery. I believe his extensive management experience in the private sector and his understanding of the challenges faced by workers and businesses alike will equip him well for the job of leading the Department of Commerce.

This large Department, which has 12 different bureaus and nearly 47,000 employees located in all 50 States and around the world, oversees a diverse array of issues, from trade to fishery management and from weather forecasting to the Census Bureau. Mr. Ross's experience turning around businesses should help them anticipate and mitigate the risk of major programs like FirstNet, the independent authority charged with creating a nationwide broadband network for first responders and the acquisition of critical weather satellites by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

I would also like to underscore that the collaboration between the public and private sectors is one of the hallmarks of the Department's work, as exemplified by the ongoing development of cyber security best practices and standards, which the Commerce Committee has strongly endorsed. I look forward to Mr. Ross continuing his collaboration and strengthening it where necessary.

I believe Mr. Ross's business know-how and intelligence make him an excellent candidate to serve as the next Secretary of Commerce. I strongly support his nomination. I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will support his nomination as well. It is high time we got this position filled and got this experienced person--someone who has a wide range of know-how all across the business sector and our economy-- into a position where he can make a difference in helping to create jobs and grow this economy for our country.

I see that my colleague from Florida, Senator Nelson, the ranking Democrat on the Commerce Committee, is here as well. I would love to yield the floor to him and hear what he has to say about this nomination.

Madam President, 2 weeks ago, major health insurer Humana announced its decision to completely withdraw from ObamaCare exchanges for 2018. The company decision was not particularly surprising. Humana had already sharply reduced its participation in the exchanges for 2017, but the decision did confirm yet again that President Obama's healthcare law is on its last legs.

Choices on the exchanges declined sharply for 2017 as insurer after insurer cut back on participation. Nearly one-third of U.S. counties have just one choice of insurer on their exchange for 2017. Meanwhile premiums on the exchanges are soaring. Exchange premiums increased a staggering 25 percent on average for 2017. That is a 25-percent premium increase for just 1 year. How many working families can afford a 25- percent increase in their healthcare premiums for 1 year?

Things are even worse in some States. Seven States saw an average premium increase of more than 50 percent for 1 year. It is no surprise that many people who have ObamaCare insurance have found they can't afford to actually use their plan. Well, Democrats can talk about coverage all they want, but coverage doesn't mean much if you can't afford to actually take advantage of it.

It is time to give the American people some relief. Over the next few weeks, Congress will continue with the process of repealing and replacing ObamaCare. Our priority is replacing ObamaCare with personalized, patient-centered healthcare that is affordable for every American. ObamaCare was supposed to lower healthcare costs for Americans, but it has spectacularly failed to do so. Our reform efforts will focus on keeping healthcare affordable, including increasing competition, expanding innovation, and increasing flexibility.

ObamaCare has defaulted to a one-size-fits-all solution when it comes to healthcare. That means that many Americans have found themselves paying for healthcare that they don't need or want.

We need much more flexibility in insurance plans. A thriving healthcare system would offer a wide variety of choices that would allow Americans to pick a plan that is tailored to their needs. We also need to give Americans the tools to better manage their healthcare and to control costs. Along with keeping healthcare affordable, we are going to focus on restoring decisionmaking power to the American people.

ObamaCare has put Washington bureaucrats in charge of healthcare decisions that should be made by individuals in consultation with their doctor. We are going to move control away from Washington and give it back to individuals. We are also going to ensure that States have the power to innovate and embrace healthcare solutions that work for individuals and employers in their States.

Our healthcare system wasn't perfect before ObamaCare--nobody is denying that--but ObamaCare has just made things worse. The American people are ready for healthcare reform that actually works, and that is exactly what Republicans are going to give them.

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

Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, today I wish to recognize the hard work of my Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee intern Rose Iles Fealy. Rose hails from Perth, Western Australia, where she studies political science at the Australian National University.

While interning on the Commerce Committee, Rose has assisted the Consumer Protection, Product Safety, Insurance, and Data Security Subcommittee. Following her internship, Rose intends to pursue law school. I extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Rose Iles Fealy for all of the fine work she has done for the committee and wish her continued success in the years to come.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be able to complete my remarks before the Senate recesses.

Mr. President, yesterday we began yet another week of considering Cabinet nominations in the Senate--our fourth week, to be precise--and we still have a long way to go. If anyone is wondering whether this is a normal confirmation process, the answer is no, it is not. Historically, Senate practice has been to quickly confirm a President's Cabinet nominees. President Obama had six nominees confirmed on his first day as President and nearly all the rest within the first 2 weeks. This tradition of speedy confirmation goes back a long way. By the point in every Presidency since President Eisenhower's, most, if not all, of the President's Cabinet nominees had been confirmed by now. Between 1881 and 1933, every incoming President had all of his Cabinet nominees confirmed on day one.

What is the reason for this? Historically, Senators of both parties have recognized that Cabinet officials play an essential part in getting an administration up and running, doing the business of the American people. Once the American people elect a President, the thinking historically has gone that it is only right that the President be given the advisers he needs to do the job he was elected to do--that is, until now.

This year, Democrats decided that they have had enough of timely Cabinet confirmations, that they have had enough of bipartisanship. Since President Trump was inaugurated, Democrats have done everything they can to drag out his Cabinet nominations. We don't have to take my word for it; here is what Politico had to say:

Senate Democrats . . . are slow-walking the installation of

Trump's Cabinet to a historic degree. . . . They are voting

against Trump's Cabinet picks in unprecedented numbers.

Two weeks ago, the Washington Post published a piece titled ``Trump's confirmations really are taking longer than his predecessors.''

``Democrats,'' the Post noted, ``have tried to slow the process, invoking arcane parliamentary procedure to force delays, and boycotting committee meetings to prevent votes.''

For a party that has spent a lot of time complaining about obstruction, Democrats really are taking it to new heights. Thanks to Democrats' obstruction, the Senate has had to spend so much time confirming nominees that we have had very little time for actual legislative business. We still have a long way to go to finish confirming the President's Cabinet, unless the Democrats decide to stop their obstruction. Democrats aren't even really accomplishing anything with their delays.

Thanks to the rules change that they put in place in 2013--that was something that was engineered in 2013 where they literally broke the rules to change the rules--they can't actually prevent President Trump's nominees from being confirmed. The only thing they can do is to tie up the business of the Senate and delay work on legislation to address the challenges that are facing American families.

Democrats may not like President Trump, but it is high time they get used to the fact that he is our President. Democrats are not helping anyone by preventing the President from having a fully functioning administration. It is time for Democrats to abandon the obstruction, confirm the President's nominees, and allow the Senate to move forward with the business of the American people.

Nomination of Neil Gorsuch

Mr. President, in addition to Cabinet nominees, the Senate will be considering another key nomination in the coming weeks, and that is Judge Neil Gorsuch's nomination to the Supreme Court.

I met with Judge Gorsuch last week, and our meeting confirmed my opinion that President Trump could not have made a better pick for the Court. By now, I think Judge Gorsuch's qualifications are well known: his exceptional intelligence, his gift for the written word, his outstanding resume, and, most of all, his clear understanding of the proper role of a judge.

In his remarks at the White House after accepting the nomination, Judge Gorsuch spoke of judges' obligation to follow the law ``as they find it and without respect to their personal political beliefs.''

``A judge who likes every outcome he reaches is very likely a bad judge.'' Judge Gorsuch has said those words 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. The job of a judge is to interpret the law, not write it--to call the balls and strikes, not to rewrite the rules of the game. Everyone's rights are put in jeopardy when judges step outside of their role and start changing the meaning of the law to suit their personal opinions.

Judge Gorsuch doesn't just understand judges' responsibility; he lives it. He has won respect from liberals and conservatives alike for his deep commitment to following the law wherever

it leads, even when he doesn't like the results.

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

I have seen him up close and in action, both in court and

on the Federal Appellate Rules Committee (where both of us

serve); he brings a sense of fairness and decency to the job,

and a temperament that suits the nation's highest court. . .

. I, for one, wish it were a Democrat choosing the next

justice.

But since that is not to be, one basic criteria should be

paramount: Is the nominee someone who will stand up for the

rule of law and say no to a president or Congress that strays

beyond the Constitution and laws?

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.

Again, those are not the words of a Republican. That is what Neal Katyal, formerly an Acting Solicitor General for President Obama, had to say about Judge Gorsuch. It is pretty high praise coming from a Democrat.

One of the Democrats' favorite tactics is to accuse Republican nominees of being extremists, no matter how mainstream they actually are. No matter how hard they try, I don't think they are going to have much success with that tactic against Judge Gorsuch.

When liberal after liberal attests to his fairness and impartiality, it is pretty hard to pretend he is anything but an excellent pick for the Supreme Court.

Then there are the stats from his time on the Tenth Circuit. Last week, the Wall Street Journal reported:

Judge Gorsuch has written some 800 opinions since joining

the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals in 2006.

Only 1.75 percent (14 opinions) drew dissents from his

colleagues.

That makes 98 percent of his opinions unanimous, even on a

circuit where seven of the 12 active judges were appointed by

Democratic Presidents and five by Republicans.

So it is a very divided circuit court in terms of the composition. Let me repeat that last line.

That makes 98 percent of his opinions unanimous even on a

circuit where seven of the 12 active judges were appointed by

Democratic Presidents and five by Republicans.

When 98 percent of your opinions are unanimous, it is pretty much impossible to argue that you are somehow outside of the judicial mainstream. Very few of Judge Gorsuch's decisions have gone to the Supreme Court. When they have, they have been almost universally upheld--often, unanimously. I wish Democrats luck in portraying Judge Gorsuch as an extremist. I think they are going to have a very uphill climb.

Both liberals and conservatives recognize that Judge Gorsuch is a supremely qualified jurist who would make a terrific addition to the Supreme Court. I hope that Senate Democrats will listen to the consensus in favor of his nomination and abandon their threats of obstruction. Democrats spend a lot of time talking about the importance of confirming a ninth Justice to the Court. Now they are going to have a chance to confirm an outstanding nominee. I hope they take it.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I withhold my suggestion.

Mr. President, I have four requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority leaders.

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

Mr. President, we continue to just sort of--at a glacial pace--work our way through the nominations. We have in front of us the nomination for Attorney General of Senator Jeff Sessions, a colleague of ours. I am very excited to be able to support his nomination to be the next Attorney General of the United States.

But unfortunately it is taking an extraordinarily long time for us to plow through this because Democrats continue to use procedural roadblocks to keep the administration from being able to get their team in place. I say that, having concluded today, based on the research that we have been able to assemble, that this is the slowest pace for Cabinet approval since George Washington.

Now, that sounds a little melodramatic, but I think it is accurate. In fact, if you go back to the Eisenhower administration and roll forward to today, every President, going back to Eisenhower, has had their Cabinet completely or mostly in place by today. In fact, going back to the 1880s and up through the 1930s, the entire Cabinet for those administrations was approved on day one--day one of the Presidency.

Here we are, as we again continue to run into dilatory tactics by the Democrats here in the Senate. There have been now, I think, seven of the Cabinet-level nominees of President Trump who have been confirmed. At this point in President Obama's first term in office, there were 21 confirmed. So this idea that somehow some purpose is achieved or some goal accomplished by dragging this process on, I think, does a great disservice to the American people who, when they voted last fall, voted with an expectation that when they put a new President in office, that President would be able to assemble his team and get them about the important work of governing this country.

So it is regrettable that we are where we are. It is unprecedented and historic, the levels to which the Democrats here in this Chamber have taken their attempts to slow this process down. I hope that will change. I hope we can get back on track here, get this team put in place, and then let's get on with the important work we have to do.

There is a lot of stuff that needs to be done to make this country stronger, more competitive, safer for Americans today, to get the economy growing at a faster rate, to create better-paying jobs, and increase wages. There is just a lot of stuff that this body needs to be working on. Right now, what we are doing is simply human resources business. We are trying to confirm people to positions, but it could go so much smoother, so much easier, so much more quickly, and so much more efficiently if we would just get a little cooperation from the Democrats in the Senate. I hope that will happen because this is unprecedented, as I said, in the level of degree to which the Democrats are stooping.

Mr. President, I will just point out to the Senator from New Hampshire--perhaps she knows it, perhaps she doesn't, but her leader has suggested a 60-vote threshold for this nominee.

I am delighted to hear her say that they are going to provide a hearing for consideration. I hope that she, like all of our colleagues, will provide this judge an opportunity to be heard, to respond to questions because I think they will find, as most of us who have looked at his record, that this is an exceptionally well-qualified judge. He is a very bright legal mind and somebody who I think understands what the role of a judge is in our constitutional democracy.

With respect to the nominees we are considering, we are here right now, and the Senator from New Hampshire and some of her colleagues were here overnight last night stalling, if you will, to allow for votes on nominees that have been put forward by this administration.

I don't think you can dispute the record. At this time 8 years ago, President Obama had 21 of his nominees in place. This President has seven. What I mentioned earlier, you have to go back to the time of Dwight Eisenhower, roll back to today, and every President from that point forward has had, on this day, all or most of their nominees in place and confirmed by the Senate. So there is no question. There is no question what is going on here.

I am not calling anybody names. I am just pointing out what I see every single day; that is, foot-dragging and delays and obstruction trying to prevent a President--whom they, understandably, didn't like getting elected--from being able to get his team in place.

All I am simply saying is I think the American people expect more of us, I think they expect better of us, and I think we have to answer the call to duty to allow that team to be put in place so this President and his team can go about the important business of governing this country.

But you cannot dispute the facts with respect to the number of nominees who have been confirmed to date with this President and Presidents going back in history, and I said earlier, you have to go back to George Washington. I think that is accurate. I think you have to go back a long way in the annals of history to find any time where you see what is happening today happen in the Senate with any President historically of either party.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Madam President, last night President Trump announced the nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. He will fill the spot left vacant by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia.

Justice Scalia left a profound mark on our judicial history. He had a brilliant mind, a ready wit, and a vivid and colorful writing style that made reading his decisions not only illuminating but enjoyable. But most importantly, Antonin Scalia had a profound respect for the rule of law and the Constitution. He knew that he was a judge, not a legislator, and his job was not to make the law but to interpret the law. That is exactly what he did.

For 30 years, Justice Scalia ruled on the plain meaning of the laws and the Constitution. His politics, his personal opinions, his own feelings about a case--none of those was allowed to play a role in his decision. He asked what the law said, what the Constitution said, and he ruled accordingly, even when he didn't like the result. Justice Scalia once said:

If you are going to be a good and faithful judge, you have

to resign yourself to the fact that you're not always going

to like the conclusions you reach. If you like them all the

time, you are probably doing something wrong.

Needless to say, Justice Scalia left some big shoes to fill. But after learning a little about Judge Gorsuch, I have to say that if anyone can come to fill them, I think Judge Gorsuch can. Like Justice Scalia, Judge Gorsuch has a brilliant mind. He shares Justice Scalia's gift for the written word. The Washington Post noted the many people ``who have praised Gorsuch's lucid and occasionally lyrical writing style.'' Slate called Judge Gorsuch's writing ``superb, incisive, witty, and accessible.''

But most importantly, like Justice Scalia, Judge Gorsuch understands the role of a Supreme Court Justice. He knows that a Justice's job is to interpret the law, not write it. In a speech last year, Judge Gorsuch said the following: ``Perhaps the greatest project of Justice Scalia's career was to remind us of the differences between judges and legislators.''

Understanding those differences is indispensable. Brilliance, eloquence, learning, compassion--none of those things matter if you don't understand the proper role of the Supreme Court. That role is to interpret the law, not make the law--to judge, not legislate; to call balls and strikes, not to try and rewrite the rules of the game.

It is great to have strong opinions. It is great to have sympathy for causes or organizations. It is great to have plans for fixing society's problems. But none of those things has any business influencing your ruling when you sit on the Supreme Court. Judge Gorsuch understands this. That is why I trust him to sit on the Supreme Court.

When Judge Gorsuch was nominated to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals 10 years ago, he was confirmed by a unanimous vote here in the Senate. You can't really get a more bipartisan confirmation than that. At the time, then-Senator Ken Salazar, a Colorado Democrat who later became Interior Secretary under Obama, noted that Judge Gorsuch ``has a sense of fairness and impartiality that is a keystone of being a judge.''

Given the wide respect in which Judge Gorsuch is held, his outstanding record, and his previous overwhelmingly bipartisan confirmation, I am hopeful that his nomination will move quickly through the Senate. Senate Democrats have spoken a lot about the need to fill the ninth seat on the Supreme Court. Now is the chance.

I congratulate Judge Gorsuch on his nomination, and I look forward to seeing him confirmed to the Supreme Court.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I have sought recognition to speak in support of Secretary Elaine Chao to be the Secretary of Transportation.

It would be hard to come up with a more qualified nominee than Secretary Chao for this important role. In addition to serving for 8 years as the U.S. Secretary of Labor, Secretary Chao has also served as the Deputy Secretary of the Department that she has now been tapped to lead. Her extensive experience also includes the United Way of America, the Peace Corps, and the Federal Maritime Commission.

The Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, which I am honored to chair, held a hearing on Secretary Chao's nomination on January 11 of this year. To no one's surprise, she demonstrated her experience, her thoughtfulness, and her commitment to working collaboratively with Congress on the challenges facing our transportation system.

Last week, the Commerce Committee acted by voice vote to report her nomination favorably to the floor, and I am hopeful that the Senate will confirm her overwhelmingly today.

The agency Secretary Chao has been nominated to lead plays a vital role in facilitating and promoting the safe and efficient movement of goods and people throughout the country and around the world.

Our economy is truly dependent upon a thriving transportation sector. Without a robust and efficient transportation sector, rural States like mine would be unable to get their goods to the market.

Increasing the capacity and the efficiency of our Nation's highways, rail lines, pipelines, and ports is crucial and will have to be a top priority for the next Secretary of Transportation.

A continued focus on safety must also be a top priority for the next Secretary. While our Nation's pipelines, railroads, airways, and highways have a strong record of safety, improvements can and should be made. Many of the strong safety improvements the Commerce Committee advanced as part of the FAST Act and the PIPES Act last Congress are yet to be implemented, and we will expect our next Secretary of Transportation to work with us to ensure speedy implementation.

We will also have the opportunity to collaborate on safety improvements when we revisit the authorization of the Federal Aviation Administration later this year. The next Secretary of Transportation will also have a unique opportunity to show Federal leadership in the advancement of transportation innovation. V2V technology, autonomous vehicles, and unmanned aircraft systems, to name a few, have great promise to promote safety, improve efficiency, and spur economic growth in this country.

Secretary Chao will have a momentous opportunity to transform America's transportation network by promoting safety and innovation, growing our Nation's freight network, advancing needed improvements to our infrastructure, and ensuring that all users--both rural and urban-- benefit equally.

Secretary Chao has consistently proved her willingness to roll up her sleeves and address the challenges facing our Nation. That is why I look forward to her confirmation as the next Secretary of Transportation, and I urge my colleagues to support her nomination.

I see my colleague from Florida, the distinguished ranking member on our committee, Senator Nelson, is here. He also participated, as did members on both sides. Frankly, I think every member of our committee, both Republicans and Democrats, had an opportunity to ask questions of Secretary Chao when she was in front of our committee.

As I said before, she has been carefully vetted, thoroughly vetted through so many different positions that she has held throughout previous administrations.

I certainly welcome the opportunity to work with her, as I know my colleague from Florida does, in meeting the transportation challenges that our Nation has as we move into the future.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, with respect to the pending Chao nomination, we yield back the remainder of our time so that we can proceed to the vote.