Floor Statements

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, our Democratic colleagues have done something today that is unprecedented in the history of the Senate. Unfortunately, it has brought us to this point. We need to restore the norms and traditions of the Senate and get past this unprecedented partisan filibuster.

Therefore, I raise a point of order that the vote on cloture, under the precedent set on November 21, 2013, is a majority vote for all nominations.

Madam President, I appeal the ruling of the Chair.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

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, today it is my privilege to celebrate the retirement of Frey Todd, the ``Mayor for Life'' of Eubank, KY.

In the last census, Eubank was home to fewer than 400 Kentuckians, but despite their small number, the Eubank community is proud of their town and their mayor.

Since the 1960s, Todd has served his community on the town board. He spent 10 years as the chair of the board, and when Kentucky reorganized municipal governments in 1982 and the position of mayor became available, he proudly was elected its first mayor. And every 4 years since, Todd has been elected by his constituents to be their mayor.

Over his 35-year tenure as mayor, Todd has overseen major projects like the construction of the senior citizens center and the Eubank Water System.

In a small town like Eubank, the people and their government are almost as close as family. Throughout his entire career, Mayor Todd has shown his passion for his constituents, and they have returned the affection.

At the age of 82, Todd announced his retirement from public service. I would like to join with all the people of Eubank to thank him for his years of dedication and congratulate him on an impressive career.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following leader remarks on Friday, April 7, and notwithstanding rule XXII, there be 2 hours of debate equally divided in the usual form; further, that upon the use or yielding back of time, the Senate vote on the Gorsuch nomination 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., Friday, April 7; further, that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and morning business be closed; finally, that following leader remarks, the Senate resume executive session to consider the nomination of Neil Gorsuch, as under the previous order.

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 ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, this week is an important one for the American people, for the Supreme Court, and for the Senate. The Judiciary Committee just reported out Judge Neil Gorsuch's nomination-- the next step in considering the Supreme Court nominee before the full Senate. It was unfortunate to see our Democratic colleagues on the committee break with recent precedent and not support this clearly well-qualified and widely respected Supreme Court nominee.

I would remind colleagues that in addition to simply agreeing to an up-or-down vote on their nominations on the Senate floor, Republicans offered each of the last four first-term Supreme Court nominees of Democratic Presidents Clinton and Obama at least some bipartisan support in the committee votes. Judge Gorsuch is no less qualified than those four nominees of Presidents Clinton and Obama, and it is disappointing he didn't get the same bipartisan support in the committee today.

It now seems apparent that this well-qualified and widely respected judge will be subject to the first successful partisan filibuster in the history of the Senate--the first successful partisan filibuster in the history of the Senate. This is a new low but not entirely surprising given that the Democratic leader announced before the nomination was even made that it was hard for him to imagine a nominee this President would nominate whom he could support. He even went so far as to say that he would be willing to fight the nomination ``tooth and nail'' and might even ``keep the seat open'' in perpetuity. It is not too late for our Democratic colleagues to make the right choice.

This week, the Senate will continue to debate Judge Gorsuch's nomination here on the floor. This is a matter of great importance, which is why we are planning to dedicate this week's floor time almost entirely to continued robust debate of this nomination rather than double-tracking it with legislative items, as has been done in the past. Already, several Members from both sides of the aisle have come to the floor day after day to offer their viewpoints on Judge Gorsuch. I would encourage Members to take advantage of this time to continue discussing his excellent credentials, judicial background, and broad support from across the political spectrum in our country.

Let me remind colleagues the many ways in which Judge Gorsuch has shown himself to be an outstanding nominee to serve on the High Court.

Judge Gorsuch was unanimously confirmed to his current position as a Federal judge. Not a single Democrat opposed him then, including Senators Obama, Clinton, Biden, Leahy, and Schumer. He has participated in more than 2,700 cases since then. He has been in the majority 99 percent of the time. He has enjoyed the unanimous support of his fellow judges 97 percent of the time.

The American Bar Association--a group the Democratic leader called the ``gold standard'' for evaluating judicial nominations--awarded him its highest possible rating, unanimously ``well qualified.''

He has amassed a wide array of supporters, including Democrats and Republicans, current and former colleagues, the legal community, and editorial boards all across our country. They say Gorsuch is eminently well-qualified. As Judge John Kane, a Carter appointee, put it, ``I'm not sure we could expect better [than Judge Gorsuch], or that better presently exists.''

They say that Gorsuch is independent. Neal Katyal, President Obama's former Acting Solicitor General, said he has ``no doubt that if confirmed, Judge Gorsuch would help to restore confidence in the rule of law'' because Gorsuch's ``years on the bench reveal a commitment''-- a commitment--``to judicial independence.''

They say Gorsuch is fair and impartial. The Denver Post editorial board noted that ``Gorsuch is a brilliant legal mind and talented writer whom observers praise for his ability to apply the law fairly and consistently.'' They went on: ``[W]e appreciate his desire to strictly interpret the Constitution,'' the paper continued, ``based on the intent of our nation's founders, even when those rulings might contradict his personal beliefs.''

They say Gorsuch is highly revered by Democrats and Republicans. As USA TODAY noted in its editorial endorsing Gorsuch's confirmation just today, ``He has gotten an array of glowing references, including from some Democrats and liberals.'' I mentioned some this morning; there are many more.

Here is just one additional example of how praise for Judge Gorsuch has bridged the political divide: Despite their ideological differences, former Colorado Governor Bill Ritter, a Democrat, and former Colorado attorney general John Suthers, a Republican, agree that Judge Gorsuch should be confirmed. They said:

Gorsuch's temperament, personal decency and qualifications

are beyond dispute.

It is time to use this confirmation process to examine and

exalt the characteristics of a judge who demonstrates that he

or she is scholarly, compassionate, committed to the law, and

will function as part of a truly independent, apolitical

judiciary. Judge Gorsuch fits that bill.

It reminds us of what David Frederick, a board member of the left- leaning American Constitution Society and longtime Democrat, recently said: ``The Senate should confirm [Gorsuch] because there is no principled reason to vote no.''

``There is no principled reason to vote no.'' He is absolutely right. So it goes without saying that there is no principled reason to block an up-or-down vote on this supremely qualified nominee, either.

I look forward to joining my Senate colleagues in supporting Judge Gorsuch's nomination to the Supreme Court later this week.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10 a.m., Tuesday, April 4; further, that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and morning business be closed; further, that following leader remarks, the Senate resume executive session to consider the nomination of Elaine Duke, with the time until 12 noon equally divided in the usual form; further, that at 12 noon, the Senate vote on confirmation of the Duke nomination with no intervening action or debate; finally, that following the disposition of the Duke nomination, the Senate recess until 2:15 p.m.

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 would like to begin this morning by paying tribute to a fallen hero. Yesterday, Officer Nick Rodman of the Louisville Metro Police Department passed away after a crash in west Louisville on Tuesday night.

Officer Rodman had served in the department for 3 years, where he followed in a strong family tradition of law enforcement. In his life, he showed compassion and dedication, which are among the best virtues of public service.

According to LMPD Chief Steve Conrad, Officer Rodman is the second officer in the department's history to be killed in the line of duty.

Officer Rodman's tragic death reminds us of the tremendous debt of gratitude we owe to all of the courageous men and women like him who daily put themselves into harm's way to defend our communities. They deserve our utmost respect.

This morning, I ask all of my colleagues to join me in expressing our deepest sympathy to Officer Rodman's family, friends, and fellow officers. They will all be in our prayers.

Mr. President, on an entirely different matter, the Senate will soon act to prevent workers from being forced into risky government-run savings plans. Then we will turn our attention to an additional opportunity to protect the American people from Executive overreach with another resolution under the Congressional Review Act.

On its way out the door, the Obama administration issued a regulation that prohibited States from allocating certain health preventative-care funds in a way that best serves local communities. It substituted Washington's judgment for the needs of real people, controlling Americans' access to healthcare services while hurting the community health centers that so many Americans--especially women--depend upon. This regulation is an unnecessary restriction on States that know their residents' own needs a lot better than the Federal Government.

Fortunately, by sending the CRA resolution before us to the President's desk, we can once again return power back to the people, and we will do so without decreasing funding for women's healthcare by a single penny.

I would like to recognize my colleague, Senator Joni Ernst, who introduced the Senate companion to the House resolution we will vote on, for her leadership on this important issue. I look forward to supporting it later today.

Mr. President, many Members came to the floor yesterday to debate the Gorsuch nomination. We will have all of next week to continue the debate. I encourage my colleagues to continue discussing this important nomination.

Two months ago today, before Neil Gorsuch had even been nominated, I spoke on the Senate floor about the rhetoric we could expect to hear from the other side after the President's nominee was announced.

I predicted then that we would see many on the left ``[try] to paint whomever is actually nominated in apocalyptic terms.'' It ``doesn't matter who this Republican President nominates,'' I said then. It ``doesn't matter who any Republican President nominates, really,'' I continued. No matter the nominee, I said back before we had the nominee, ``we can expect to hear a lot of end-times rhetoric from the left . . . [and] [i]n fact, we already have.''

I was alluding then to the fact that, sight unseen, we had already begun hearing from those on the far left who vowed to oppose anyone-- anyone the President nominated. The Democratic leader even joined in, saying he would oppose anyone from the President's list of candidates and would ``fight it tooth-and-nail, as long as we have to'' in order to keep Justice Scalia's seat open, even for the entirety of the President's term.

Remember, that was before Judge Gorsuch was even selected, before we knew his credentials, before we had heard from the current and former colleagues of his, before we had examined his judicial record, and well before his hearing before the Judiciary Committee.

Our friends across the aisle made it clear then that their opposition to this nominee would have nothing to do with the nominee himself. In fact, I said we could expect to hear a number of convoluted excuses as to why they wouldn't support the President's yet-to-be named nominee-- excuses that would amount to little more than their dissatisfaction with the outcome of the election.

Sure enough, that is just what we have seen over the past few weeks. They are opposing this well-qualified nominee despite his impressive credentials, bipartisan support, and excellent testimony before the committee.

Judge Neil Gorsuch is such an outstanding candidate, so noncontroversial, so well-esteemed by people across the political spectrum that Democrats have been forced to talk about pretty much anything: President Trump, think tanks, you name it--anything but the nominee himself.

Yesterday's comments by the Democratic leader are a good example. He gave a lengthy speech about why he wouldn't support Judge Gorsuch, but when you boil it down, his remarks had little to do with Judge Gorsuch at all.

Essentially, he concluded that because Judge Gorsuch had earned the praise of legal groups like the Federalist Society, Democrats should not support him. By the way, all current sitting Justices have participated in events with this same organization. Let me say that again: All current sitting Supreme Court Justices have participated in Federalist Society activities. That includes Justices who were nominated by Democratic Presidents, including President Clinton and President Obama.

So, yes, Judge Gorsuch has received high praise from a number of conservatives--he certainly has--just as he has earned the support of centrists and leftists as well.

As I have pointed out on several occasions, many long-time Democrats you might not expect have even complimented Judge Gorsuch--people like President Obama's former Acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal, President Obama's legal mentor, Professor Laurence Tribe, President Carter's district court appointee, Judge John Kane, President Clinton's appointee to the Tenth Circuit and former chief judge of that court, Judge Robert Henry, and liberal Harvard Law Professor Noah Feldman, and so many more.

Judge Gorsuch has such a proven record of judicial independence and impartiality that people from the left to the right and everywhere in between have voiced their confidence in his fitness to serve on the High Court. That would explain why the American Bar Association--which, according to the Democratic leader and former Democratic Judiciary chairman, is the ``gold standard'' for evaluating judges--gave Gorsuch its highest rating possible: unanimously ``well qualified.''

So let's be clear. The support for Judge Gorsuch is anything but one- sided.

The Democratic leader also noted his concerns yesterday about the process by which we arrived at this point. As we all know, this Supreme Court nominee process has been historically transparent. Here is what I mean. Months and months ago, then-Presidential Candidate Trump took the unprecedented action of compiling a list of potential nominees he would consider nominating to the Supreme Court. These potential nominees were made public for the American people, including every Senator, to review.

Before making his selection, now-President Trump's White House consulted on a bipartisan basis with each and every Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, as well as numerous other Senators. The President followed through with his pledge, selecting from that public list Judge Neil Gorsuch of Colorado, who we can all agree is well qualified to serve on the Supreme Court and whom the Senate confirmed to his current position without a single vote in opposition.

Since being nominated, Judge Gorsuch has continued this transparent process by meeting face-to-face with nearly 80 Senators--from both parties, obviously.

So you see, this process has been as straightforward and bipartisan as possible from the very beginning--before we even knew that the President would, indeed, be making this nomination.

Only in the upside-down world of my Democratic colleagues is telling the entire world months before one is even elected President the list of people he would choose from, if he became the President, a ``secret'' process. I can't think of anything less secret than putting out that list in the middle of a hotly contested Presidential election process.

So, look, it is time to move beyond this hollow rhetoric and get back to the serious business of governing. Confirming Judge Gorsuch would mark a significant step in that direction. He has proved himself a worthy successor to the Supreme Court. He has earned high acclaim along the way from various news publications and lawyers and judges and clerks who represent all walks of life and all political ideologies.

People like David Frederick, a long-time Democrat and board member of the left-leaning American Constitution Society, may have summed it up best in a recent Washington Post op-ed. Here is what he said: ``The Senate should confirm [Gorsuch] because there is no principled reason to vote no.''

No principled reason to oppose him, none.

As this American Constitution Society member says, there is not one single principled reason to oppose Judge Gorsuch, so it makes sense that Democrats can't come up with a single substantive reason to oppose him either.

I suggest the absence of a quorum