Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 145, submitted earlier today.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to consideration of S. Res. 146, 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 4 p.m., Monday, April 8, 2019, and 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 the Senate be in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

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

Mr. President, I understand there is a bill at the desk due a second reading.

In order to place the bill on the Calendar under the provisions of rule XIV, I object to further proceedings.

Mr. President, first I want to take a moment to thank NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg for his remarks at this morning's joint session of Congress. I am proud that the Secretary General could be here with us in Washington as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization celebrates its 70th anniversary this week.

It is no exaggeration to say that over these seven decades, with steady American leadership, NATO shaped world history for the better. The proud history of alliance and solidarity has paid huge dividends to NATO's member states and to the world.

NATO, with American leadership, kept the peace and created the conditions for an unprecedented period of prosperity for the United States, as well as its allies. It has deterred major Soviet and Russian aggression and prevented a third world war.

When communism's Iron Curtain fell over much of the world, we stood together for democracy. When the post-Cold War transformation could have roiled Eastern and Central Europe, we stood together for stability. When brutal killers trampled human rights in the Balkans, we stood together for innocent lives. And when terrorist fanatics killed thousands of Americans on September 11, we stood together for freedom. NATO allies remain with our troops in Afghanistan to this very day.

It is essential that we keep the alliance healthy and strong. The threats we face are numerous, and not least among them, in a kind of throwback to the alliance's founding, is an assertive Russia that has barely even pretended to honor international commitments, brazenly violated arms control agreements, invaded and occupied Ukraine and Georgia, and conducted cyber operations and so-called active measures against NATO allies. As President Trump has made it clear, keeping NATO strong means that all allies must commit to NATO's collective security.

For our own part, after years of President Obama's defense cuts, the United States has turned the corner on defense spending, investing more in readiness and modernization. We need to sustain that progress, but, of course, NATO allies must live up to their promises to invest in their own defense. This isn't about meeting an arbitrary budget number but about building real capabilities that are needed to meet real requirements identified by the alliance's military commanders. As the Secretary General has pointed out, our allies are starting to follow our lead. They are on track to contribute an additional $100 billion in defense spending.

There are also other ways NATO must adapt to meet the threats of the 21st century. It is essential that the alliance follow through on the reforms championed by former Secretary Mattis. NATO must modernize its capabilities to address interoperability challenges, enhance military mobility across the continent, and improve the speed at which it makes decisions.

For today, I just want to thank the Secretary General for his address this morning. Every American should be

proud of what his presence in this Capitol Building represents about our Nation's vital role in NATO and NATO's vital role in the world.

Mr. President, now on an entirely different matter, the comprehensive campaign by Senate Democrats to delay Senate consideration of Presidential nominations is now more than 2 years old. As I have explained in recent days, it is time for this sorry chapter to end. It is time to return this body to a more normal and reasonable process for fulfilling its constitutional responsibilities, no matter which party controls the White House.

The Senate had to hold 128 cloture votes on nominations during President Trump's first 2 years. That is 128, more than 5 times as many as the equivalent period for the previous 6 Presidents combined.

Now, 42 of those 128 were for positions that had never, in the past, required cloture votes, like the Assistant Secretary of Health and Human Services, the General Counsel at the Department of Agriculture, or the Ambassador to Luxembourg. It is not a thoughtful investigation of a few highly controversial nominees and not a principled opposition in some rare circumstances. These are part and parcel of Senate tradition.

But grinding, across-the-board systematic obstruction, under threat of filibuster, sparing not even individuals whom literally zero Senators opposed in the end--this is new. This is new, and it needs to stop.

Well-qualified civil servants, academic and business experts, and exemplary jurists with broad bipartisan support are all subjected to weeks, if not months and months, of pointless delays, and then pointless cloture votes tying up floor time, not because a real debate was happening, not because there is real due diligence requiring months of delay but just because our colleagues across the aisle have chosen to endlessly relitigate the 2016 election rather than actually participate in governing, just because they wish our President were not our President.

The Department of the Interior has waited 631 days since President Trump first nominated an Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management and Budget. That is 631 days. Her nomination was voice-voted out of committee. After months of inaction, it had to be sent back at the end of Congress last year.

The Millennium Challenge Corporation has waited 450 days since its CEO was nominated, and it has been more than a year since the President nominated a chair for the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. None of these are front-page news, just normal positions the President has been trying to fill. In each case and in hundreds of others, Democrats have made sure those chairs stayed emptied for far too long.

This systematic obstruction is unfair to our duly elected President, and, more importantly, it is disrespectful--disrespectful to the American people who deserve the government they elected. The American people deserve the government they elected.

This problem goes deeper than today. We are talking about the future of this very institution and the future functioning of our constitutional government. This practice is laying the foundation for a dangerous new norm. We cannot set this new precedent that the Senate minorities will systematically keep an administration understaffed, down to the least controversial nominees, anytime they wish somebody else had won the election.

We need to act. We need to act. We need to act so that in its third year, the current administration can finally get more of its team in place. We need to act to repair the institutional legacy we are leaving and restore a functional nominations process for future administrations of both parties.

For most of the storied history of this institution, the traditions that govern the Senate have combined two distinct things--on legislation, an ironclad commitment to robust minority rights, including extensive debate and the filibuster, and on nominations, a reasonable process for considering the individuals the President sends us.

So let me be absolutely clear. The legislative filibuster is central to the nature of the Senate. It always has been and must always be the distinctive quality of this institution. In the U.S. Senate, dissenting voices retain considerable power to shape the debate on legislation. Pivotal moments have hinged on the strong convictions of a minority that has urged caution or insisted on an amendment.

I know many of our colleagues on both sides share my view that this part of the Senate's DNA must never be put in jeopardy or sacrificed to serve either side's momentary partisan whims. In fact, during the last Congress, 61 of our colleagues from both sides of the aisle signed an open letter making their commitment to the legislative filibuster abundantly clear.

I know many of us were disturbed to read this week in the Washington Post that far-left activists are pushing ``an abolish-the-filibuster litmus test on the presidential campaign trail, and quite a few of the 2020 aspirants have at least signaled a willingness to consider it.'' I am glad that many of my Democratic colleagues are on the record opposing such a shortsighted disaster championed by the far left. The commitment of both sides to preserving the legislative filibuster is not just a historical matter. It is also very practical. Neither party is particularly keen to see the other side enact its entire, full-bore legislative wish list the next time they obtain 51 votes.

Republicans don't want Democrats to enact an entire leftwing agenda with 51 votes, and Democrats certainly don't want Republicans to enact every last part of our conservative agenda with a mere 51 votes. What they are not thinking about is when the shoe is on the other foot. When the shoe is on the other foot, and Republicans have a simple majority of 51, and there is no legislative filibuster, what would happen? They are only thinking about how it might enable them, but not thinking ahead to the next time the shoe is on the other foot. In fact, I remember that in 2013 I said, when our colleagues on the other side insisted on going to a simple 51 votes on the executive calendar: You might not like what happens when the shoe is on the other fellow's foot.

I would keep in mind--I would say to my friends on the far left: Think about what might happen the next time the people who are not for it have 51 votes. We all know that both parties will possess future 51- vote majorities somewhere down the line. It will happen.

The Senate's long traditions on legislation therefore need to remain in place. But what we are discussing this week is restoring the different traditions concerning nominations. The tradition here is entirely different. There is no long tradition--none--of what amount to mass filibusters of personnel for administrations. There is no tradition of systematic, grinding delays under threats of filibuster that extend even to nominees whom nobody opposes. All of this is new. Until my Democratic colleagues started us down this road in 2003--this began in the first administration of George W. Bush--routine systematic filibusters of nominations were a foreign thing. It just wasn't done.

So we need to recover Senate tradition. The effort we will make later today is about getting us back to what the tradition in the Senate was for a couple of hundred years, down to the Bush 43 first term.

Yesterday, we had a chance to do just that, working across the aisle and through the same process that we overwhelmingly agreed to with President Obama. But--stop me if you have heard this one before--Senate Democrats chose obstruction instead.

Never mind that in 2013, a bipartisan majority, including many Republicans, passed a similar measure that immediately benefited the Obama administration. In other words, to help President Obama, a significant number of Republicans joined with all of the Democrats in 2013 to do something almost exactly like what we will be proposing later today. He had just gotten reelected. Do you think we were happy about that? We weren't. But we thought the Executive Calendar should be expedited for these kinds of nominations that we are discussing today.

Never mind that the same Democrats who opposed this measure yesterday have whispered in the ear to many of us, including the occupant of the Chair, that they would be more than happy to support this, provided it didn't take effect until 2021. They are more than

happy to support it, provided it doesn't take effect until 2021. Well, that certainly concedes the reasonableness of what we are going to achieve later today.

Because bringing the Senate nomination process permanently back to Earth right now would help the Republican administration, they weren't interested in doing the right thing--what they did in 2013, what they are whispering in our ears now: Oh, no, we cannot do it now because we don't like who is in the White House.

Republicans remain committed to reform. Look at the nomination currently before us--a textbook case study on the shameful state of the current process. Jeffrey Kessler of Virginia was first nominated as Assistant Secretary of Commerce in November of 2017. It took 7 months before Democrats on the Finance Committee allowed his nomination to be considered. When it was, he was reported out on a unanimous vote. Nobody opposed him in the Finance Committee.

The familiar story continues--another 6 months of inaction. The nomination was sent back to the White House at the end of the last Congress. So the process started all over again. This time he got a voice vote out of the Finance Committee. Everybody just said aye. Yet here on the floor, inexplicably, it still required a cloture motion to break through the obstruction and give this nominee, whom no one voted against, a vote.

Later today, it appears that at long last we will be able to take action to finally advance Mr. Kessler's nomination, to do the responsible thing, to begin to unwind this partisan paralysis for the good of the Senate and for the future of the constitutional order each of us has pledged to protect.

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

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

I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum call be waived.

One of the advantages of having been around the ``advice and consent'' process for as long as I have is that I know a little history. I was actually here as a young staffer on the Judiciary Committee when Richard Nixon appointed two Supreme Court Justices who were defeated. During most of those years, our Democratic friends were in the majority here in the Senate. They could have done whatever they wanted to on the executive calendar to slow down, obstruct, and prevent Republican Presidents from having nominations confirmed.

I can remember during the Clinton years the urging of both Senator Daschle and Senator Lott--when my party was in the majority--to invoke cloture on circuit court nominees whom I opposed in order to keep the Senate from developing a process of filibustering the executive calendar, which had never been done before.

The clearest example of why it was never done before is the Clarence Thomas nomination--the most controversial nomination for the Supreme Court in history, with the possible exception of Brett Kavanaugh. He came out of committee with a dead-even vote. They could have killed him in committee. He went to the floor and was confirmed 52 to 48. We all know it only takes one Senator, just one, to make us get 60 votes on something.

Joe Biden and Ted Kennedy were hard over against Clarence Thomas, but nobody--not one of the 100 Senators--said you have to get 60 votes. Clarence Thomas was confirmed 52 to 48 and has been on the Supreme Court for 30 years. He would never have been there if a single Senator--just one--had said you had to get 60 votes. My friends, I call that a pretty firm tradition that you don't filibuster the executive calendar. Was it possible? Yes, it was possible. It just wasn't done.

When did all of this start? Well, the junior Senator from New York got elected in 1998. George W. Bush gets elected in 2000. The alarms go off. They are going to appoint a bunch of crazy rightwingers to the circuit courts.

So my good friend the Democratic leader, at a seminar or a meeting, invited a couple of people named Laurence Tribe and Cass Sunstein--two rather famous liberal law professors--and they had a discussion about what to do about these awful rightwing judges who are going to be sent up.

The conclusion was to open the toolbox, take out whatever tool would work, and save America from these kinds of people. And so they did. The poster child for that was Miguel Estrada, who they said openly they were afraid was going to give President Bush the opportunity to make the first

Hispanic appointment to the Supreme Court. We had all-night filibusters. We actually stayed up all night trying to make a point.

It didn't make a difference. Ultimately, we thought maybe we should employ the so-called nuclear option. We ended up not doing it after there was a gang of 14 that developed and worked out an agreement, and some of the nominees were confirmed and some weren't. Yet what had been clearly established was that now the norm in the Senate was that you filibuster anybody that you want to on the executive calendar. That had then been established as a matter of practice, and that continued through the Bush years. There was actually an effort to keep Justice Alito from being on the Supreme Court by requiring a filibuster for the purpose of defeating Justice Alito, but it was not successful. A number of circuit judges were stopped.

When we fast-forward to the Obama years, our side used the filibuster twice to defeat two circuit judges over a period of 5\1/2\ years. Majority Leader Harry Reid decided, in his zeal, to pack the DC Circuit--that this had gone on long enough. So, in November 2013, I believe it was, the nuclear option was employed. The threshold was lowered to 51 for everybody on the Executive Calendar except for the Supreme Court. The DC Circuit court judges were confirmed. At the time, I said I didn't like the way it was done. I thought maybe those on the other side would rue the day they did it.

Amazingly enough, about a year and a half later, I was the majority leader. Funny how these things change, isn't it?

A number of my Members came up and said: Why don't we change it back.

I said: Look, I don't think we like the way they did it, but this is the way the Executive Calendar was handled for 200 years until Senator Schumer and his allies Laurence Tribe and a cast unseen said: Well, why don't we use any tool in the toolbox to stop judicial appointments?

I discouraged our going back to 60 because I had actually seen that both sides had respected their using a simple majority on the Executive Calendar down to 2003, so we didn't.

Now, look, with regard to these continued complaints about Merrick Garland, that is not what this proposal is about. This proposal is about sub-Cabinet appointments and district judges. For those of you who were not here in 2013, it is almost identical to what almost every one of you voted for in 2013--a standing order that lasted 2 years and a good number of us giving President Obama the opportunity to advance these sub-Cabinet appointments and district judges more quickly.

Let's talk about district judges for a minute. Chairman Grassley and Chairman Graham honored the blue slip for district judges. There are 47 of you guys. There is not a single district judge who comes out here on the calendar who doesn't have two blue slips returned from whomever the Senators are from the home State. What that means is that you guys are not irrelevant on district judge appointments. You are not irrelevant. For example, I tried to get my good friend the Democratic leader to approve a list of 30 district judges last fall, and 14 of them were from blue States. Oh, no. He was not going to do any district judges on a voice vote even if he were for them.

So, look, all this proposal does that we are talking about today is reduce the postcloture time for sub-Cabinet appointments--just like we helped you all do in 2013--and for district judges, none of whom will even be on the calendar until both blue slips are returned positively. It is not exactly a radical change.

Back to Merrick Garland for a minute. Look, I made the decision--and my colleagues on the Republican side joined me in making that decision--because I knew for sure, for absolute certainty, that if the roles were reversed and there were a Republican President and a Democratic Senate, you wouldn't have filled the vacancy. How did I know that? You have to go back to the 1880s to find the last time a vacancy on the Supreme Court occurred in the middle of a Presidential election year and was confirmed by a Senate of a different party from the President's--1880.

Oh, but that was not enough. In 1992, our friend Joe Biden, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, with a Republican in the White House, a Democratic Senate, and no vacancy on the Supreme Court, helpfully opined that if a vacancy occurred, he wouldn't fill it.

Oh, but guess what. Eighteen months before the end of the Bush 43 term, the majority leader of the Senate, Harry Reid, and a fellow named Chuck Schumer said that if a vacancy occurred, they wouldn't fill it. That was 18 months before the end of the Bush term.

On the business of filibustering the Executive Calendar, there is one thing I left out, and I want to catch up here. Back in 2003, when my good friend the Democratic leader started all of this that we have been wrestling with since then, he said: I am the leader of the filibuster movement, and I am proud of it. The Buffalo News, May 27, 2003. I am the leader of the filibuster movement, and I am proud of it. The Buffalo News. Charles E. Schumer recommended using an extreme tactic--a filibuster--to block some of the Bush administration's nominees for Federal judgeships. Talk about being proud of something. He started this whole thing that we have been wrestling with since 2003. He cooked it up and convinced his colleagues to do it, and once it started, it continued until 2013 when it was turned off.

So, look, where are we? The Executive Calendar is very close to being returned to the way it was treated by both parties down to 2000--not the legislative calendar but the Executive Calendar. There is nothing radical about this. He is acting like it is a sad day for the Senate. If you want to pick a sad day for the Senate, go back to 2003 when we started filibustering the Executive Calendar. He started it. That was a sad day. This is a glad day. We are trying to end the dysfunction on the Executive Calendar.

Let's talk about dysfunction. There were 128 cloture votes in the last Congress, many of them on nominees for whom there were no objections at all--128. Goodness gracious. In the first 2 years of each of the last six Presidents, cumulatively, the majority leader of whichever party had to do that 24 times in order to try to advance a nomination.

So don't hand me any of this ``sad day in the Senate'' stuff. What has been going on here is completely and totally unacceptable. Do you know why I know that? It is because many of your Members, Mr. Leader, have told me privately that they would be happy to do this provided it would take effect in January 2021. Oh, what might happen in January 2021? I can't imagine. Well, it might be a Democratic President and a Democratic Senate. I can understand--but, oh, not now.

Look, we know you don't like Donald Trump, but there was an election. He is at least entitled to set up the administration and make it function. With regard to the judiciary and circuit judges, every President of both parties feels it is his prerogative.

Senator Alexander has pointed out the history of the blue slip. There has been a little confusion about that. He has noted that blue slips were not used as an absolute veto over judicial nominees until--listen to this--the 1950s, when former Judiciary Committee Chairman James Eastland of Mississippi afforded them the status because he did not want Federal judges who had been appointed by President Eisenhower to interfere with segregationist policies in the Jim Crow South. When he became the Judiciary Committee chairman, our former colleague Ted Kennedy restored blue slips to their historical purpose of ensuring consultation as opposed to serving as a one-Member veto of a qualified judicial nominee.

All we have done is restore blue slips for circuit court nominees to the consultative function they have played for most of their history.

I have been under Presidents of both parties. They do not defer to us on circuit court judges. We don't get to pick them. We almost do get to pick them when they are district court judges and when we are of the same party as the White House. We have a lot of clout because the chairmen honor the blue slips for district court judges. They are entirely contained within our States, and none of them get out here on the floor unless the Senators approve

them. There are 47 of these guys over here who are not toothless when it comes to district judges.

So this is not a bad day for the Senate; this is a day we end this completely outrageous level of interference and obstruction with this administration. I don't think anybody ought to be seized with guilt over any institutional damage being done to the Senate.

Mr. President, I appeal the ruling of the Chair and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I raise a point of order that the postcloture time under rule XXII for all judicial nominations, other than circuit courts or Supreme Court of the United States, is 2 hours.

I appeal the ruling of the Chair and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding rule XXII, the confirmation vote on the Altman nomination occur at 11:45 a.m. on Thursday, April 4.

Mr. President, today it is my privilege to pay tribute to a Louisville, KY, legend, who is simply known as the Handstand Man. Like so many other University of Louisville Cardinals fans, I have vivid memories of cheering on our men's basketball team at Freedom Hall. During high-profile games, when the tension reached its peak, the eyes of every Cardinal would look upward gazing upon the gymnastic feats of Sedat Acton.

When the team and the crowd most needed his particular form of inspiration, Sedat would leave his seat and head toward a railing on the second level. As the officials blew their whistles for a timeout, Sedat would lift his body off the ground into an impressive handstand, dozens of feet above the arena's floor. Then, as the fans cheered, he would stretch out his legs under his torso into an L.

For so many Cardinals fans, Sedat's iconic handstand became an essential part of the basketball game experience, but for this fan in particular, his story holds even greater significance.

Like me, Sedat contracted polio at an early age. As a child in Turkey, he endured bullying because of the disease's lasting effects. Sedat would walk the beaches and watch groups of acrobats. He was inspired by their skills and became determined to use gymnastics to gain his own strength, fend off bullies, and prove he had defeated the terrible disease.

Under the caring and watchful eye of my mother, I was able to eventually get back on my feet. By practicing the gymnastics exercises he saw on the beach, Sedat overcame the disease as well. Then, as a teenager, he joined a professional acrobatics club in Switzerland. Sedat performed around Europe for years and showcased his tremendous strength.

In his early 20s, Sedat came to Louisville to live with his sister. Joining a local gymnastics squad at the YMCA on 3rd and Broadway, they performed with the cheerleaders at halftime during UofL men's basketball games. Over the years, Sedat could be found performing during several Cardinals' basketball and football games and even for the Kentucky Colonels.

Around 1980, he began a new type of act. This time, he was in the stands, where he earned the title of Handstand Man. His daring stunt provoked shocks and cheers from those below as he renewed the crowd's enthusiasm and inspired the players.

Over the next 30 years, Sedat's handstands became a regular part of Cardinals' basketball. I remember attending many of those games, and right when we needed it most, we would look to the rafters to see Sedat. He provided a much-needed thrill, helping cheer on the Cards during important games, and eventually to win conference tournaments and even the NCAA national championship.

Sedat's last performance at a UofL game was in 2009, but his legendary status among the people of Louisville remains. A local celebrity, Sedat is frequently recognized for his years of passion for the Cardinals. Now at the age of 74, he remains as dedicated a fan as ever.

Last year, Sedat and his family celebrated the 50th anniversary of his arrival in the United States. He speaks with such pride for the blessings of this great country and for the opportunities he has received here. One of Sedat's prized possessions is a decades-old American flag. Throughout the years, he turned down many opportunities to leave Kentucky because he loves the city of Louisville, its people, and is so proud to call it home.

It wasn't that long ago that polio represented a real crisis. Through the concentrated efforts of many, the number of polio cases worldwide has plummeted dramatically. Thankfully, we are close to eliminating this disease for good.

I am grateful for the chance to honor Sedat's remarkable life today, With his wife of 40 years, Teresa, their three children, and their growing family, Sedat is fulfilling the American dream. As the Louisville Cardinals look forward to the beginning of the next basketball season, I know my Senate colleagues will join me in congratulating Sedat Acton on his lifetime of accomplishments.