Floor Statements

Mr. President, I have been doing a lot of thinking lately about the fascinating men and women of America's founding generation. I want to share with you one of their stories.

Jonas Phillips was a penniless Jewish immigrant to America. He was an indentured servant, a hard-working businessman, and an American patriot who served in the Philadelphia militia during the Revolutionary War. During the British occupation of New York City, he sneaked messages past the censors by writing notes in Yiddish, understanding that his adversaries wouldn't be able to understand or decipher it easily.

Years later, Phillips addressed a letter to George Washington and to other delegates at the Constitutional Convention assembled in Philadelphia. He urged the delegates not to include a religious test in the Constitution as any kind of requirement for service for the Federal Government because no man, he wrote, should be ``deprived or abridged of any civil right, as a citizen, on account of his religious sentiments.''

Jonas Phillips wrote this letter for a reason. He wrote this because Pennsylvania, the State where he lived, required officials to swear that the New Testament was inspired by God. As a faithful Jewish person, Jonas Phillips could not do that.

``By the above law,'' he wrote, ``a Jew is deprived of holding any public office or place of government.''

Thankfully, Jonas Phillips' letter--Jonas Phillips' prayer-- ultimately would be answered. The Convention had voted unanimously to ban religious tests for Federal office. The language the Framers inserted into the Constitution was unequivocal upon this point. It said that ``no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.''

When the Founding Fathers wrote the word ``ever,'' they meant it. That word means something in the Constitution, and we need to protect it.

I feel the need to stress this point because of the conduct of some of my colleagues. Yesterday a Notre Dame law professor, Amy Coney Barrett, came before the Senate Judiciary Committee on which I serve. She had been nominated as a prominent legal scholar and lawyer in this country to be nominated as a circuit judge. That is why she was before our committee.

Her nomination has been endorsed by prominent legal scholars from across the political spectrum and across the country, including Neal Katyal, President Obama's Acting Solicitor General in the previous administration. Nevertheless, at Ms. Barrett's confirmation hearing, a number of my colleagues insinuated that her Catholic faith would somehow prevent her from applying the law freely and fairly.

Here is an actual quote from that hearing: ``Dogma and law are two different things,'' remarked one of my colleagues. ``When you read your speeches, the conclusion one draws is that the dogma lives loudly within you, and that is a concern.''

Another one of my colleagues even went so far as to ask Professor Barrett to confess her faith under oath in the committee. ``What is an orthodox Catholic?'' this committee member asked. ``Do you consider yourself an orthodox Catholic?''

If these remarks had been some sort of bizarre, one-time aberration, I probably would have passed them over in silence. But I feel compelled to speak out because I wondered whether a pattern might be emerging--a pattern of hostility toward people of faith who come before this body.

Just a few months ago, another eminently qualified nominee, Russell Vought, appeared before the Budget Committee to be considered for a post in the Office of Management and Budget. One of my Senate colleagues used his time to question this nominee, not about management or about budgets but about the nominee's evangelical Christian beliefs.

``In your judgment,'' asked this Senator, ``do you think that people who are not Christians are going to be condemned?'' Mr. Vought explained to the committee that he is an evangelical Christian and that he adheres to the beliefs espoused by evangelical Christians. That apparently wasn't good enough for the questioner, who later stated that he would vote against Mr. Vought's nomination because he was not ``what this country is supposed to be about.''

This is disturbing. This is not what the country is supposed to be about--some sort of inquiry into one's religious beliefs as a condition precedent for holding public office in the U.S. Government. These strange questions have nothing to do with the nominee's competence, patriotism, or ability to serve among and for Americans of different faiths equally. In fact, they have little to do with this life at all. Instead, they have to do with the afterlife--what comes after we die in this life. To my knowledge, the OMB and the Seventh Circuit have no jurisdiction over that.

This country is divided enough. Millions of Americans feel that Washington, DC, and the dominant culture despises them, and how can they not when they see their leaders sitting here grilling patriotic citizens about their faith like inquisitors. How can they not feel that their values are not welcome in this Chamber within this government?

Religious freedom is of deep concern to me as a Mormon. Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have weathered extraordinary religious persecution. Much of it, especially initially, was sponsored by government actors.

The first Latter-day Saints were exiled from home to home. In 1838, the Governor of Missouri ordered that Mormons be driven from the land or ``exterminated.'' And yes, that is an actual quote.

Our first leader, Joseph Smith, once said: ``The civil magistrate should punish guilt but never suppress the freedom of souls.''

That, of course, was before he was martyred by a bigoted, angry mob.

Our country's ban on religious tests is a strong bulwark for religious freedom. As an original provision of the Constitution, this ban against religious tests predates even the Bill of Rights, and it applies not to just some religious adherents but to all of them equally.

The religious tests raised against Mr. Vought and Professor Barrett do not favor one sect of Christianity over another as was sadly common for much of our Nation's history. Rather, these particular inquiries tend to favor the secular, progressive creed clung to so confidently by many of our Nation's ruling elites. This creed has its own clerics, its own dogmas, its own orthodoxy, and as these nominees have discovered, it has its own heresies as well.

More and more, the adherents of this creed seek to use the power of government to steamroll favored groups, especially dissenters, from their own personal political dogmas. So they force evangelical caterers to bake cakes celebrating same-sex marriages, as is the case that is now before the Supreme Court of the United States, and they force nuns to purchase contraceptive coverage--nuns. They sue religious hospitals that will not perform abortions or sex reassignment surgeries for religious reasons. Yes, the secular progressive creed has proved that it is capable of triumphalism and intolerance, just as the creeds that have gone before it, not because its own adherents are uniquely wicked--to the contrary, because they are human.

There is a way out of this vicious cycle of religious intolerance, and it is a way that we have to find. That is for all of us to treat one another with civility and respect while jealously defending the rights of conscience for ourselves, our neighbors, and all of our fellow citizens--for Christians, Jews, Muslims, atheists, agnostics, and everyone else.

This body can do its part by supporting legislation like the First Amendment Defense Act and the Marriage and Religious Freedom Act, which would protect the people who have conscious objections to recent cultural changes and make sure they are protected against one of the most brutal forms of discrimination that can be brought to bear; that is, the type of discrimination brought about by governments against individuals.

At a minimum, this body can do its part by respecting the constitutional rights of citizens who come before it. Lest we forget, we work for them, not the other way around. I trust my colleagues-- Republicans, Democrats, and Independents--will take this to heart because religious freedom puts all Americans on the same footing. It helps men and women stand upright, honest before the law and before God.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to grant floor privileges to Blake Seitz, a member of my staff.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President, last year the Nation was shocked by undercover videos produced by investigative journalists with the Center for Medical Progress exposing Planned Parenthood's sale of fetal body parts and the callousness with which Planned Parenthood officials described their grisly work.

As we know, as Planned Parenthood and its allies in the mainstream media hoped, outrage fades with time, and attention turns--but not for long, for the abortion industry and its profiteers are never really beset by scandal. They are a scandal.

Just last month we got another reminder about the reality behind the talking points. Once again, it was the undercover journalists of the Center for Medical Progress doing the investigative journalism the mainstream media refuses to do. Once again, the video has been ignored by the pro-abortion media elite, whose principal interest is the story of the prosecution of the journalists for daring to speak this truth to their power.

The American people and their representatives in the U.S. Senate deserve to know what the new video shows. It shows the founder of Planned Parenthood's Consortium of Abortion Providers on a conference panel. She recounts a harrowing experience while performing an abortion: ``An eyeball just fell down into my lap, and that is gross.'' Her remarks were greeted with laughter from the audience.

It shows another Planned Parenthood doctor stating: ``The fetus is a tough little object, so taking it apart in the womb is very difficult.''

This comment echoes a previous undercover video in which a Planned Parenthood doctor says that the bones of a 20-week old fetus were so strong that ``I have to hit the gym for this.''

The video shows the director of abortion services for Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast saying that she sometimes uses forceps to ``pull off a leg or two'' to ensure an unborn child dies before being born--in other words, to avoid the moment when our Nation's laws might protect that child.

The video shows the medical director of Planned Parenthood in Michigan talking about surprising common ground between abortion doctors and pro-life activists.

We might actually both agree that there is violence in

here. Let's just give them all the violence, it's a person,

it's killing. Let's just give them all that.

That is not what they say in public. It certainly isn't what they tell their patients, the women who come into their clinics--just in private, at industry conferences, between networking opportunities and drinks at the open bar. Because they know--deep down, everyone knows the Center for Medical Progress videos shock, but they do not surprise. They don't teach us anything we don't already know. All they do is remind us of an inconvenient truth that demands our attention and our action.

It is certainly stirring the pro-abortion political machine into action. As expected, the Center for Medical Progress is once again the target of criminal and civil investigations designed to intimidate further questions about the abortion industry's methods and money. But the truth is out. It is there.

As we know, threats and intimidation are tactics of guilt and desperation of the losing side in every battle

that has ever been fought. If Planned Parenthood were what they have publicly declared themselves to be, they would welcome transparency. We all know why they hide because we know what they hide.

The question, as always, is not what they will do, but what we will do. And the answer is always ``as much as we can.'' We can start by enforcing existing abortion laws and by reforming others, for example, making the Mexico City policy permanent so taxpayer money is not used to promote abortions to disadvantaged people overseas or ending abortion after 20 weeks when unborn children begin to feel pain. We can confirm Federal judges who follow the Constitution rather than reverse engineer their preferred policy outcomes.

The truth about abortion is spreading because of advances in medical imaging, because of brave journalists, tireless activists, compassionate doctors, nurses, and other healthcare professionals. Statehouses are passing laws to protect American women and their children. The rising generation of young Americans is the most pro-life in decades because they know too.

Little by little, the truth is fighting free, like green shoots through the frost. One day soon, we will reaffirm our Nation's principles in their dignified fullness and avow, once again, that all men are created equal. All are entitled to life.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the Federal Communication Commission's welcome proposal to end utility-style regulation of the internet by reversing the 2015 open internet order.

Anyone who has followed the hyperbolic debate about net neutrality has likely heard that the FCC is moving to squelch competition, limit consumer choice, raise prices, and perhaps even destroy the internet. That is my favorite one. At least that is what some activists and crusading late-night comedians claim. But none of this is true--none of it.

Rather, the FCC is reviewing the light-touch regulatory environment that, from the outset, facilitated the kind of innovation that produced the internet and expanded internet access to millions of Americans over the course of many years.

In order to understand this complicated issue, we need to be honest about what led us to where we are today; that is, the FCC's 2015 open internet order. The Obama-era FCC claimed that its order implemented net neutrality, or the equal treatment of all data over the internet, but that isn't quite right. The actual change was far broader than that.

The FCC reclassified broadband internet access service as a title II telecommunication service, instead of a title I information service. That might sound like a small change, but this soundingly small--some might even say soundingly innocuous--change applied a whole host of New Deal era regulations that were meant to apply to monopolistic telephone companies, monopolistic utility companies, and they applied those to the internet.

It subjected 21st century technology to the same rules that governed rotary telephones in the 1930s. Why, then, did the FCC do this? It wasn't because a free and open internet was harming Americans. The activists and entertainers clamoring for more government control of the internet claimed that it was under attack by predatory internet service providers but, strangely enough, none of them actually provided evidence for that very serious assertion.

If you are going to make that claim, back it up, point to evidence. Instead, they speak about imaginary or hypothetical harms. The 400-page order uses words like ``may,'' ``could,'' ``might,'' or ``potentially'' not just here and there, not just a few times but several hundred times. Nor did the FCC issue the open internet order because Congress told it to.

On the contrary, nearly 20 years ago, our colleague Senator Wyden, along with then-Senator John Kerry and others, expressly argued against the drastic action that would later be taken by the FCC in 2015. After passing the bipartisan Telecommunications Act in 1996, this group of Senators affirmed

the internet's status as a free and open information service, stating that ``nothing in the 1996 Act or its legislative history suggests that Congress intended to alter the current classification of Internet and other information services or to expand traditional telephone regulation to new and advanced services.''

Finally, the FCC did not intervene because it had evidence of market failure. When the FCC issued its order, the internet was still an explosive source of growth and innovation throughout America and throughout the world--as it had been for decades--when greater and greater numbers of Americans gained access to the internet for the first time. Perhaps, because of this inconvenient fact, the FCC hardly considered the possible economic effects of its regulations. The FCC's chief economist at the time went so far as to say the rules were an ``economics-free zone.''

What the internet does need is regulatory certainty, which is why I recently introduced the Restoring Internet Freedom Act, along with several of my colleagues. This bill would fully repeal the FCC's 2015 internet takeover. More importantly, it would prevent the FCC from interfering with the internet in the future unless such actions were specifically authorized by Congress.

We shouldn't stop there. Instead of waiting for regulators and activists to find new excuses to restrict the internet, we should open it further to extend more choices to American consumers. In other words, we should ensure that Federal policy promotes competition.

As we know from experience, heavy-handed regulations like the FCC's order tend to favor large, deep-pocketed companies over startups that can't afford an army of lobbyists in Washington. Removing these regulatory barriers will allow upstart entrepreneurs to compete with incumbents for consumers' loyalty. Those consumers--ordinary Americans and their families--will benefit from the improved service and lower prices that this kind of competition inevitably creates.

Most American households currently have access to at least one internet service provider. Many have access to two or more, which might look like a competitive market exists for those households, but regulations can keep these different options from being adequate substitutes for one another.

The government restricts access to valuable resources that could be used for high-quality internet services. According to a 2012 report by the Obama administration, the Federal Government is sitting on upwards of 60 percent of the best radio spectrum, so-called ``beachfront'' spectrum, which could be put to use for commercial internet services like 5G wireless broadband.

Meanwhile, excessive permitting, licensing, and environmental impact regulations delayed broadband deployment over Federal and public lands, especially in the West.

Finally, the Office of Management and Budget found that private parties spend nearly $800 million each year to comply with FCC paperwork requirements. The bill for this ends up being paid entirely by ordinary American families.

Thankfully, my colleagues in the Senate have already identified many of these problems and have done work to address them. Senators Klobuchar and Daines have spent considerable time on policies to streamline broadband internet deployment through their ``dig-once'' proposals. Senator Heller is a champion for reducing barriers for deploying broadband throughout the West. Senators Thune and Nelson, the chairman and the ranking member of the Senate Committee on Commerce, have introduced measures in the past to free up radio spectrum held by Federal agencies and organizations.

These are just a few of the many thoughtful ideas to reduce barriers to entry and increase competition, which has the potential to improve quality and bring down prices. The bipartisan nature of these policies demonstrates a clear understanding that improvements can be made, and everyone should be able to agree that more competition is better for American consumers, especially those in rural or low-income housing.

Everyone should also be able to agree that consumers should be protected from unfair and deceptive business practices. Thankfully, the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission already enforce fair rules that protect Americans' enjoyment of a free and open internet.

The combination of competition and strong enforcement of antitrust and consumer protections provides the benefits of an innovative marketplace while avoiding problems that come from tired, anti- consumer, outdated regulations like title II and like the 2015 open internet order.

For the sake of American consumers and innovators--not for entrenched business interests--I hope to work with partners in the House, Senate, and the FCC to promote competition in the technology sector, including among internet service providers. If that means underperforming companies have to work a little harder for their customers, that is all the better, because the end result of lively competition is more investment and innovation by businesses, which translates into more choices and better service for consumers.

I encourage my colleagues, regardless of party or ideology, to work with me on this project. If they are truly interested in a better internet--not just government intrusion and control for its own sake--I am sure they can help me identify other barriers to entry to the information superhighway.

For now, a good start to ensure that American consumers and small businesses benefit from the internet is to repeal the FCC's 2015 internet takeover, enforce antitrust, unfair, and deceptive practice standards, and encourage competition among internet firms. Only then can we guarantee an internet that is free and open for everyone.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, one of the great privileges of representing my fellow Utahns in the U.S. Senate is the annual opportunity to meet the exceptional young men and women from the great State of Utah who have answered the call of service by applying to the U.S. Air Force Academy, the U.S. Military Academy, the U.S. Naval Academy, and the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy.

Under title 10 of the U.S. Code, each year, Members of Congress are authorized to nominate a number of young men and women from their district or State to attend the country's service academies. It is my distinct honor to recognize 10 of these exemplary Utahns this year.

Each of these 10 students is of sound mind and body. This will serve them well in Colorado Springs, West Point, Annapolis, and Kings Point-- but to succeed they will need more than this.

The journey on which these young men and women will soon embark requires more than mental and physical aptitude. It also demands strong moral character--leadership, courage, honesty, prudence, and self- discipline. It calls for a commitment to service and love of country.

Today I would like to recognize and congratulate each of these impressive students, all of whom embody, in their own unique way, the standards of excellence on which America's service academies are built.

Jacob Lee Angeletti will be attending the U.S. Air Force Academy. Jacob will be graduating from Bingham High School, where he was the captain of the soccer team. He also captained his championship club soccer team, was named to the Utah Olympic Development Soccer Team, and encouraged young athletes as a coach in the local soccer league. A leader among his peers, Jacob participated in the Boy Scouts and also served as a president in his church's youth organization.

Emilyanne Rose Baker, from Wasatch High School, accepted an appointment to the U.S. Military Academy at West Point after visiting multiple service academies. Active in both her school and community, Emilyanne served as president of the Japanese Club, a group leader for Youthlinc, and a mentor for Big Brothers Big Sisters. She is a member of the National Honor Society and was the scholar-athlete on the swim team.

Cody William Brophy will be attending the U.S. Air Force Academy after graduating from Corner Canyon High School. Throughout high school, Cody prepared himself to attend an academy by preparing academically, physically, and by seeking leadership opportunities.

He ran cross county and track, played competitive soccer, was a member of the National Honor Society, and participated in the Civil Air Patrol. Cody also attended Boys State and served as president of the peer leadership team council.

Andrew Jesse Dansie has accepted an appointment to the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. An Eagle Scout and active member of JROTC, Andrew will soon graduate from Snow Canyon High School. Using his skills as captain of the swim team, he served others as coach of a special needs swim team. Andrew was selected as one of five students to represent his school with the district leadership academy, where he sharpened his leadership skills through service opportunities.

Hunter Mansfield Holt, from Desert Hills High School, will be attending the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. In addition to being an Eagle Scout and member of the National Honor Society, Hunter also attended Boys State.

He served as captain of the football team and also lettered in wrestling. He has been an active member of the student council and is currently serving as the senior class vice president, all while earning high honor roll recognition.

Russell Isaac Landes will be returning to the U.S. Military Academy at West Point after spending the past 2 years serving in the Taiwan Taipei Mission for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. As an Eagle Scout and a recognized leader among his peers, Russell honed his skills as the student body president of the American Leadership Academy, where he was also captain of the wrestling team.

Kylee Paige Madsen will be attending the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy in Kings Point, NY. Kylee will soon graduate from the Northern Utah Academy for Math, Engineering and Science, NUAMES, where she was president of the student outreach and service club. As a member of the National Honor Society and with an eye for community service, Kylee served local veterans and worked to turn an abandoned home into a youth homeless shelter. Kylee was also honored to be elected governor of Girls State.

John Hawkins Romney will be returning to the U.S. Air Force Academy after 2 years of speaking Korean as a missionary for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the Korea Busan Mission. As a graduate of Lone Peak High School, John was a member of the National Honor Society. He is an Eagle Scout and worked on the Veteran's Memorial in Alpine City cemetery. John's brother will graduate from the Air Force Academy in 2017.

William Patrick Ryan, III, from Judge Memorial Catholic High School, will be attending the U.S. Naval Academy. At Judge Memorial, William distinguished himself in student government as student body president and previously as the freshman, sophomore, and junior class president. He lettered in football, track, and men's dance. William was elected a member of the peer ministry, a member of National Honor Society, and served as a volunteer for disabled youth and adults at Camp Kostopulos.

Grace Elizabeth Santella, a graduate of Davis High School and current Weber State University student, has accepted an appointment to the U.S. Naval Academy. Grace worked hard to earn this appointment and prepare for the academy. She was a member of the National Honor Society and took many AP and college classes. Grace also served as captain of both the swim team, where she was named ``Swimmer of the Year,'' and a championship competitive soccer team.

It has been an honor and inspiration to speak to and nominate each of these exemplary young men and women. Doing so has given me an unshakeable confidence in the future of this great Nation and future of our Armed Services.

To these 10 students and to all their future classmates from around the country, do not forget: this is but the beginning of your journey.

You would not have arrived at this point were it not for your hard work and sacrifice, but now what matters most is not your accomplishments of the past, it is what you have yet to achieve in the future.

Thank you.

Mr. President, I rise in support of the nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch for the Supreme Court of the United States.

Last week the Judiciary Committee, on which I serve, held a week-long series of hearings concerning Judge Gorsuch's nomination. After listening to the judge's flawless testimony, after listening to him answer questions from my colleagues for days on end, I am even more convinced than ever that he is exactly the kind of jurist we need on the Supreme Court of the United States.

I want to briefly explain my support for the judge, and then respond to some of the criticisms that have been leveled against him.

First and foremost, Judge Gorsuch understands the proper and necessarily limited role of the judiciary in our constitutional Republic.

Last week, over and over, Judge Gorsuch affirmed--even against great criticism that at times can be difficult to understand in its entirety--but responded time and again to criticisms by pointing out that it is his job as a

judge to interpret and apply the law--not to make it, not to establish policy, but to apply that policy which has already been placed into law by the legislative branch.

When you are reading law, the text matters. Our laws consist of words and each word matters. If the law leads to an uncomfortable outcome for the parties, for politicians, or for anyone else in our society, then, it is our job as a Congress--or if it is State law at issue, it is the job of a State legislature--to get the policy right, to fix the policy problem at issue. The judge's job is to go where the law leads the judge, not to correct the law.

Over and over, Judge Gorsuch affirmed the importance of precedent in our system. It is clearly a topic that he takes very seriously, having coauthored a treatise on that very subject. While precedent is not always absolute, in so far as you have a clear conflict with the text, Judge Gorsuch testified that you start with the ``heavy presumption in favor of precedent.'' He described precedent as the ``anchor of the law.''

Over and over, Judge Gorsuch explained that judges are not partisans in robes. No, they are different. They are different from politicians. They are meaningfully different than the politicians who make the laws or the politicians in the executive branch who enforce and execute the laws. They are unfailingly independent when they are doing their jobs right. They are devoted to the rule of law. They do their best to decide cases on the basis of the law and the facts, rather than on the basis of achieving whatever outcome they or others might desire.

Some of my colleagues' views of Judge Gorsuch's record are different, and I want to address some of their concerns. First, some of my colleagues have questioned the independence of Judge Gorsuch and his ability to exercise judicial independence. This is a very serious accusation. In fact, it is probably one of the worst things you could say about a judge. So my colleagues who have raised this criticism would need to back that up against something. If you are going to raise a really serious accusation against someone, as you are whenever you are calling into question a judge's independence, you have to be able to back it up.

Let's look at that. Can they back it up? I don't think so. In fact, I am quite certain they can't because they haven't. The argument boils down to the complaint that Judge Gorsuch hasn't sufficiently criticized President Trump's comments about judges. But here is what Judge Gorsuch said about this topic last week. He said this in response to questions raised by Senator Blumenthal on the Judiciary Committee. He said:

Senator, I care deeply about the independence of the

judiciary. I cannot talk about the specific cases or

controversies that might come before me, and I cannot get

involved in politics.

But, Senator, when you attack the integrity or honesty or

independence of a judge, their motives, as we sometimes hear,

Senator, I know the men and women of the Federal judiciary, a

lot of them. I know how who hard their job is, how much they

often give up to do it, the difficult circumstances in which

they do it. It is a lonely job, too. I am not asking for

crocodile tears or anything like that. I am just saying I

know these people, and I know how decent they are. And when

anyone criticizes the honesty or integrity, the motives of a

Federal judge, well, I find that disheartening, I find that

demoralizing, because I know the truth.

Senator Blumenthal asked Judge Gorsuch whether, when he said ``anyone,'' that applied to the President of the United States. Judge Gorsuch responded simply: ``Anyone is anyone.'' It is true that Judge Gorsuch didn't use the magic words: I disagree with President Trump. But he can't get involved in politics. He said here what he can say. In fact, he said all he can say in this context.

Moreover, here are some additional parts of Judge Gorsuch's testimony, which shed light on this issue.

From Tuesday:

I have no difficulty ruling against or for any party other

than based on what the law and the facts in the particular

case require, and I'm heartened by the support I have

received from people who recognize that there's no such thing

as a Republican judge or a Democratic judge. We just have

judges in this country.

On Wednesday he said:

I do not see Republican judges, and I do not see Democrat

judges. I see judges.

So I think any fairminded person looking at this would have to agree that Judge Gorsuch's feelings about judicial independence in cases before the Federal judiciary are very clear. To my colleagues who might see the issue differently, I would ask simply: What should Judge Gorsuch have said without getting involved in politics, without miring himself in a debate that is within the political branches of government and, therefore, within the political rather than the judicial interpretive arena?

Second, some of my colleagues allege that Judge Gorsuch is somehow out of the mainstream. But consider these facts. Judge Gorsuch has decided roughly 2,700 cases. His decisions have been unanimous 97 percent of the time. Keep in mind that he is an appellate judge who sits on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. Appellate judges never sit alone in that capacity. They sit in panels--normally in panels of three and sometimes in panels of a dozen or so when they sit on the bench. And 97 percent of the time, all of the judges with whom Judge Gorsuch sits in any case agree with whatever decision he reaches. He is in the majority 99 percent of the time.

He is about as likely to dissent from a Republican-appointed judge as a Democratic-appointed judge. He has been reversed twice, and in both cases he was following circuit precedent. I want to make it clear that there is nothing wrong with a judge who dissents more than this. In fact, in many instances, dissents are necessary. In many instances, a dissent can be useful, even indispensable. There are judges out there who dissent more than this, and there wouldn't be anything wrong with Judge Gorsuch if he dissented any more. My point is that of all the arguments you can make against Judge Gorsuch, this is not a fair characterization. To say that he is out of the mainstream simply runs against mathematics. It runs against the bold statistics on their very face, which contradict this characterization.

Some of my colleagues respond that only a handful of cherry-picked cases matter. If you watched the hearing last week, you might recognize the names of some of these cases. They include TransAM Trucking, Hwang, Luke P., Hobby Lobby. What I find revealing is that my colleagues never mount much of a legal argument against any of these decisions. No, you are not going to find quibbling with the statutory construction in these cases. They don't parse the statutes at issue and then explain where it is that Judge Gorsuch somehow got it wrong, somehow departed from what the law actually says. No, they are looking at outcomes. They think Judge Gorsuch should have bent the law in order to go where they think the law should go. They want judges who have the right approach in mind, the right outcome in mind, and to decide the case according to what outcome they desire.

I flatly disagree with this view of judging. It is a view, frankly, that is way out of the mainstream in American law. To say it is out of the mainstream in American law does not mean out of the Republican mainstream or the conservative mainstream or the mainstream among members of the Federalist Society. No, I am talking about rank-and-file practitioners of the law, jurists from every conceivable point along the political and ideological spectrum. This is just not something that a judge would ever want to admit to doing. Certainly, it is never anything a judge would aspire to do--to choose an outcome and say: I am going to reach that outcome, and I don't really care that the law doesn't really authorize me to do it. I am just going to do it because I think, in some abstract sense, that outcome would achieve a greater degree of fairness than what the law actually requires me to do.

Third, I am distressed by a lot of the rhetoric that we heard during the confirmation hearing last week--rhetoric that I expect to continue and even mount over the next 10 days or so. One of my colleagues last week actually went so far as to describe the Supreme Court of the United States as an ``instrument of the Republican party.''

Other colleagues have complained about the so-called dark money campaign to support Judge Gorsuch's nomination, and still other colleagues complain that President Trump or Steve

Bannon or Reince Priebus or others are enthusiastic about Judge Gorsuch's nomination, as if the fact that someone is supported by someone they don't like means that the person in question is not qualified. This is unfair to Judge Gorsuch.

Judge Gorsuch didn't decide Citizens United. He didn't decide Hobby Lobby or any other case my colleagues dislike. He made clear in no uncertain terms that no one speaks on his behalf but him.

They may dislike some of the cases in which he offered opinions, but, again, in those cases, they are not quibbling with the way that he interpreted the law. No one has attacked his interpretation of a statute, his approach to statutory construction. They are quibbling with the outcome. They are quibbling with the fact that they wish it had turned out differently on policy grounds, policy grounds that have everything to do with the policymaking arms of the government and not with the jurisprudential arm of the government.

Even worse, these types of statements are damaging to our judiciary. If you don't like a judicial decision, engage the decision on its own terms, engage in a discussion of how that decision turned out wrong or where it is that it departed from what the law requires. Make a legal argument, in other words.

The courts announce reasons for their decisions. There is plenty of material to dig into, but don't impugn the judge's motives or independence. This is especially harmful when you impugn the judge's motives without actually getting into what the judge did or what the law says and explaining how those two things diverge.

Don't accuse the Supreme Court of functioning as an instrument of the Republican Party. In fact, you might as well call someone a so-called judge in a case where you disagree with the outcome. In fact, calling someone a so-called judge is probably no worse than calling the Supreme Court of the United States an instrument of the Republican Party.

Finally, I want to talk about the filibuster. The minority leader has urged his colleagues to filibuster. The minority whip has announced he will filibuster. Only two Democrats have said they will vote yes on cloture, so here we are.

I ask my colleagues: If Neil Gorsuch can't get 60 votes for cloture, which Republican nominee can?

Some of my colleagues have argued that if a nominee can't get 60 votes, the President should find a new nominee. I ask my colleagues: Was that the standard for several of President Obama's nominees at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit?

Well, yes, it was. Under rule XXII, that was the standard. That was the standard until, in November of 2013, the Democrats in the Senate went nuclear, and they created a new precedent, taking that threshold down from 60--by precedent--to 51. Through going nuclear, this is the result they achieved.

Their analysis, in its entirety, went in this direction. Their analysis nuked the Executive filibuster. It nuked the filibuster on the Executive Calendar.

Interestingly, although some were insisting at the time and went to the floor to explain at the time that they didn't intend for this to extend to Supreme Court nominees, when everyone thought Hillary Clinton would be President--Harry Reid admitted that the Democrats would extend this same precedent through which the Democrats had nuked the Executive filibuster to Supreme Court nominees.

So, look, I work with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle on a great number of important issues, issues that are very important to me, issues like criminal justice reform, reform of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, reform of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986, which is badly in need of reform, and a number of other issues, many of which involve privacy protections. These are A- plus legislative priorities for me. Nothing else is more important, and I stand ready to reform the law whenever I see the need to do so and will continue to work with my Democratic colleagues.

As we approach this discussion, I want to be clear that unilateral disarmament doesn't work. I hope the Democrats reverse course and do not filibuster this nominee, but if they do, I am confident Judge Gorsuch will be confirmed.

Mr. President, the most solemn and serious and consequential act that the United States can undertake at any moment is to make the decision to send Americans into war. From time to time, war may be an unfortunate decision but a necessary decision--a necessary and potentially tragic function of any republic. And it might be necessitated by the need to safeguard the rights and the freedoms of the government's own citizens from foreign states--from those who would harm us. Yet we should enter into those wars and enter into any alliances that could lead to war only after utmost deliberation and strategic consideration, focusing specifically on the well-being of the American citizens--those people whom we are sworn to protect, those people whose safety is at stake whenever we go to war.

That is why, for the past several months, I have asked that the Senate have a rollcall vote on the measure to ratify Montenegro's accession to the North Atlantic Treaty, and that is why I will be casting my vote against expanding NATO later today.

Of course, treaties and alliances with other countries can be beneficial; there is no question about that. But the Founders of this country understood that their seriousness needs also to be considered-- that the seriousness of a treaty needs to be taken into account in the same way that you have to consider very carefully the seriousness of going to war, and for the very same reasons. That is why both of these powers--the power to make and ratify treaties and the power to declare and execute war--are given not to one single branch of the Federal Government, but rather they are shared by the legislative and executive branches acting together. In addition to this, treaty ratification requires not just a majority vote, but a two-thirds supermajority vote within the Senate.

The United States should enter into treaties and alliances with foreign nations that will enhance the ability of American citizens to exercise their rights and freedoms and to safeguard those same people. At the heart of the NATO alliance is the article 5 guarantee for collective defense, stating, in essence, that an attack against any one NATO ally will be perceived and responded to as an attack against all. This means that the United States is obligated by treaty to make war because of an attack on an ally, and those allies are obligated to us for the same purpose and to the same extent. This, of course, is a very significant agreement. It is one that we should never take lightly. It is never one that we should just assume into existence any time we have a decision to make.

Simply put, I don't see how the accession of Montenegro--a country with a population smaller than most congressional districts and a military smaller than the police force of the District of Columbia--is beneficial enough that we should share an agreement for collective defense. Montenegro becoming a member of NATO is certainly attractive to European countries because it makes the United States the security guarantor of yet another country in a region prone to instability and ethnic unrest, but that doesn't automatically make it of interest to the American people. It doesn't automatically mean that the benefits outweigh any risks to the American people by bringing this country into

I thank Senator Grassley. The Senator's question really cuts to the heart of the issue. It cuts to the heart of the very reasons why we have an independent judiciary and exactly why it is that our system of government that operates under the U.S. Constitution depends so critically on individuals just like Judge Gorsuch. It depends on people like Judge Gorsuch sitting on the Federal bench.

There are, I believe, two fundamental differences between the judiciary on the one hand and the two political branches on the other hand; that is, the two branches in which people serve after being elected to office, meaning the legislative branch where we work, and the executive branch headed by the President.

First, the legislative and executive powers sweep far more broadly than does the judicial power. Article I enumerates a list of lawmaking powers that are granted to Congress, and article II vests executive power in the President. By comparison, the judiciary's power is far more circumscribed. It is far more limited.

The judiciary has the power to decide only a limited and defined set of disputes--those that qualify as cases and controversies under article III of the Constitution. To be clear, in the context of deciding a particular case, the judiciary has the power to invalidate an act put in place by the elected branches of government--the power to say what the law is, as Chief Justice John Marshall explained it in the landmark case Marbury v. Madison.

But that power is limited. It is limited, among other things, by article III of the Constitution and by jurisdictional requirements like standing and mootness and ripeness as explained in greater detail by Supreme Court precedent.

The judiciary's authority to say what the law is points to the second major difference between the courts on the one hand and the political branches on the other. While the function of the judiciary is an exercise in reasoned judgment, the functions of the executive and legislative branches are exercises of power.

There are many ways in which the Constitution and the political theory underlying it limit the exercise of that power. The Constitution protects minority rights, and it conditions the exercise of legislative or executive power on winning elections, and that, in turn, means winning the trust of the American people--of the voters throughout the country.

These twin ideas--the consent of the governed and the protection of minority rights within an essentially majority-rule system--are pillars of our constitutional order. But make no mistake, coercion underlies the laws that we make in this body and their enforcement by the executive branch.

By contrast, the judicial function is ultimately an exercise in reasoned judgment. As Alexander Hamilton explained in Federalist 78: ``neither Force nor Will, but merely judgment'' are exercised by the judiciary. This is the essential difference between the judiciary and the other branches: The judiciary exercises judgment while all the rest of us exercise will.

The Framers, of course, understood this well. And as Hamilton continued in his explanation of Federalist 78:

Courts must declare the sense of the law, and if they

should be disposed to exercise Will instead of Judgment, the

consequence would equally be the substitution of their

pleasure to that of the legislative body. The observation, if

it proves anything, would prove that there ought to be no

judges distinct from that body.

Put another way, a judge who chooses to exercise will instead of judgment is no longer acting as a judge. That person is instead functioning essentially as a superlegislator.

It should be clear to all fair-minded people that Judge Gorsuch is someone--and has established himself as someone--who understands these distinctive features of the Federal judiciary. When you read his opinions, you see that his only agenda is to understand the governing law and then to apply that law to the set of facts in the case before him.

As we will see next week during his confirmation hearings, his opinions carefully analyze the statutes and applicable precedents to determine the outcome of each and every case. In some cases, that means Judge Gorsuch reaches results that Senator Gorsuch or President Gorsuch or King Gorsuch probably wouldn't choose, were he deciding cases in any of those capacities. But Judge Gorsuch understands, of course, that he is a judge and not a king and not a President, not a Senator, not a Congressman, and he understands that this means his only job is to adjudicate cases based on the law according to the facts before him. As he said the night he was nominated: ``A judge who likes every outcome he reaches is very likely a bad judge--stretching for results he prefers rather than those the law demands.''

When you examine his record, you see that one of the defining characteristics of Judge Gorsuch is his independence--his judicial independence. That is distinctively the hallmark of a good judge. You see that he decides cases based on the law, not based on the parties before him and not based on his own political or ideological preferences.

In the coming weeks, some of our colleagues may try to argue that Judge Gorsuch hasn't done enough to prove his independence since being nominated to the Supreme Court. If this criticism is raised against him, it will be a weak one. It will be one that doesn't apply here. The fact is that Judge Gorsuch has spent his entire career as a judge, and as a lawyer before that, proving his independence.

To his would-be critics, I would say, read and analyze his opinions. They speak for him. They speak for themselves. They speak for the rule of law. Study his approach to judging. Listen to what he says about judicial independence and, just as importantly, look at his actions. His actions prove his independence.

I have done these things. I have examined Judge Gorsuch's record. And on that basis, I am confident that he will not hesitate to apply the law appropriately in every case. There is absolutely no reason--no reason that I can find anywhere in his record--to prove otherwise.

I think I have only scratched the surface here today. I look forward to hearing Judge Gorsuch's testimony before the Judiciary Committee next week.

Mr. President, I am truly saddened that I must address what I fear is a growing threat to our Republic--the silencing of political debate by totalitarian mob violence on college campuses.

I was not in Burlington, VT, last Thursday to witness what happened at Middlebury College, but I would like to read from accounts that have been provided by two people who were, in fact, there and who saw these things unfold. They were the targets of the mob's violence. Their names are Allison Stanger, professor of political science at Middlebury College, and Charles Murray, the author of several groundbreaking books, including the work ``The Bell Curve'' and a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. America deserves and needs to hear their stories.

On Saturday, 2 days after the incident, Professor Stanger wrote on her Facebook page as follows:

I agreed to participate in the event with Charles Murray

because several of my students asked me to do so. They are

smart and good people--all of them--and this was their big

event of the year.

I, actually, welcomed the opportunity to be involved

because, while my students may know I am a Democrat, all of

my courses are nonpartisan, and this was a chance to

demonstrate publicly my commitment to a free and fair

exchange of views in my classroom.

As the campus uproar about his visit built, I was genuinely

surprised and troubled to learn that some of my faculty

colleagues had rendered judgment on Dr. Murray's work and

character while openly admitting that they had not read

anything he had written. With the best of intentions, they

offered their leadership to enraged students, and we all know

what the results were.

I want you to know what it feels like to look out at a sea

of students yelling obscenities at other members of my

beloved community. . . . I saw some of my faculty colleagues,

who had publicly acknowledged that they had not read anything

Dr. Murray had written, join the effort to shut down the

lecture. All of this was deeply unsettling to me.

What alarmed me most, however, was what I saw in student

eyes from up on that stage. Those who wanted the event to

take place made eye contact with me. Those intent on

disrupting it steadfastly refused to do so. It was clear to

me that they had effectively dehumanized me. They couldn't

look me in the eye because, if they had, they would have seen

another human being. There is a lot to be angry about in

America today, but nothing good ever comes from demonizing

our brothers and sisters.

When the event ended and it was time to leave the building,

I breathed a sigh of relief. We had made it. I was ready for

dinner and conversation with faculty and students in a

tranquil setting. What transpired instead felt like a scene

from [the TV show] ``Homeland'' rather than an evening at an

institution of higher learning. We confronted an angry mob as

we tried to exit the building.

Most of the hatred was focused on Dr. Murray, but when I

took his right arm both to shield him from the attack and to

make sure we stayed together so I could reach the car, too,

that's when the hatred turned on me.

One thug grabbed me by the hair, and another shoved me in a

different direction. I noticed signs with expletives and my

name on them. . . . For those of you who marched in

Washington the day after the inauguration, imagine being in a

crowd like that, only being surrounded by hatred rather than

love. I feared for my life.

The next day, on Sunday, the American Enterprise Institute's website published this account from Dr. Charles Murray.

Dr. Murray wrote:

If it hadn't been for Allison and Bill Burger [Middlebury's

Vice President for Communications] keeping hold of me and the

security guards pulling people off me, I would have been

pushed to the ground. That much is sure. What would have

happened after that I don't know, but I do recall thinking

that being on the ground was a really bad idea, and I should

try really hard to avoid that. Unlike Allison, I wasn't

actually hurt at

all. . . .

In the 23 years since ``The Bell Curve'' was published, I

have had considerable experience with campus protests. Until

last Thursday, all of the ones involving me have been as

carefully scripted as kabuki: The college administration

meets with the organizers of the protest, and ground rules

are agreed upon. The protesters have so many minutes to do

such and such. It is agreed that, after the allotted time,

they will leave or desist. These negotiated agreements have

always worked. At least a couple of dozen times, I have been

able to give my lecture to an attentive or, at least, quiet

audience despite an organized protest.

Middlebury tried to negotiate such an agreement with the

protesters, but for the first time in my experience, the

protesters would not accept any time limits. If this becomes

the new normal, the number of colleges willing to let

themselves in for an experience like Middlebury's will plunge

to near zero. Academia is already largely sequestered in an

ideological bubble, but at least it's translucent. That

bubble will become opaque.

Worse yet, the intellectual thugs will take over many

campuses. In the mid-1990s, I could count on students who had

wanted to listen to start yelling at the protesters after a

certain point, ``Sit down and shut up. We want to hear what

he has to say.'' That kind of pushback had an effect. It

reminded the protesters that they were a minority.

I am assured [he continues] by people at Middlebury that

their protesters are a minority as well, but they are a

minority that has intimidated the majority. The people in the

audience who wanted to hear me speak were completely cowed.

That cannot be allowed to stand. A campus where a majority of

students are fearful to speak openly because they know a

minority will jump on them is no longer an intellectually

free campus in any meaningful sense.

I suspect that most of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle may not necessarily be fans of Dr. Charles Murray. There is nothing wrong with that, but I am confident they at least would be honest enough and self-respecting enough not to condemn any scholar's work without ever having read it, like many of Middlebury's faculty members apparently did. More importantly, I am confident my Democratic colleagues would join me in denouncing the violence of the Middlebury campus protesters who sought to silence Dr. Murray. On countless occasions, I have heard my Democratic colleagues come to the Senate floor to condemn violence in all of its forms. Why would this time be any different?

We do not agree on everything, but I am confident that if Dr. Murray were invited to testify here on Capitol Hill--perhaps at a committee of the United States Senate--my Democratic colleagues would eagerly join in an open and respectful debate that would ensue as a result of that visit. I am confident they would reject any effort to silence or to do harm to those with whom they might disagree. In fact, I am confident that if any outburst like that happened, whoever was chairing that committee and the ranking personnel associated with that committee would immediately bring the disruption to a close so an open, honest, respectful discussion could occur within that meeting.

I know tensions are high in America today, and I know what it is like to be on the losing side of a bitterly fought Presidential election as we, as Republicans, found ourselves in just a few years ago in the wake of the 2012 election cycle and in the wake of the previous Presidential election cycle before that in 2008, but that does not and cannot give anyone the license to shout down a fellow American, let alone to physically assault him just because he holds a different opinion.

Democracy and freedom--the republican form of government--depend on open, tolerant, and civil political discourse, and sustaining our democratic freedoms is, perhaps, the sole reason the government subsidizes institutions of higher education in this country.

It is embarrassing that teachers and students at an elite college like Middlebury should need reminding, but speech is not violence, and violence is not speech. Totalitarians who fail to recognize this core fact of decency and tolerance are goose-stepping into some of the darkest corners of the human heart.

If there is anything that should unite us in these polarized times, it is that the kind of violence we saw on Middlebury's campus last week must not be tolerated. That is why I commend the 44 Middlebury College professors who have signed a ``Statement of Principles'' on ``Free Inquiry on Campus.'' I hope more Middlebury professors will join them. In any event, I hope all Americans will join them in standing up for free, open, honest, respectful debate.

Thank you, Mr. President.

I yield the floor.

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 the Foreign Relations Committee be discharged from further consideration of and the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 68.

Mr. President, I know of no further debate on the resolution.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the preamble be agreed to and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 82, 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 when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9:30 a.m. on Wednesday, March 8; 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 following leader remarks, the Senate resume consideration of H.J. Res. 58.

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.