Floor Statements

Mr. President, I move to proceed to H.J. Res. 83.

Mr. President, I move that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider Calendar No. 20, David Friedman to be Ambassador to Israel.

Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum call with respect to the nomination be waived.

Mr. President, I move to proceed to legislative session.

Mr. President, I move to proceed to S.J. Res. 34.

Mr. President, last night in my home State of Kentucky, the President called for an end to ObamaCare as Congress continues working to repeal this disastrous law and replace it with patient-centered solutions.

In Kentucky, just like across the country, costs are spiking, choices are dwindling, and insurance markets are edging closer and closer to collapse. Listen to this wife and small business owner who lives in Shelby County. She wrote to my office about her problems with ObamaCare. Here is what she said:

I have seen little or no success where ObamaCare is

concerned. [T]he current insurance available is causing

working class Americans to choose between paying their bills

and getting needed medical care. . . . We need help.

Kentuckians deserve better than ObamaCare. The American people deserve relief from ObamaCare. The law is failing right in front of us. It will continue to get worse unless we act. So we have to act. This week the House will continue working to advance ObamaCare repeal-and- replace legislation. The House has already done some great work on the bill, and I look forward to taking it up in the Senate soon. We will have an amendment process here in the Senate. At the end of that process, we will send a bill to the one person who can sign it into law, and that is the President of the United States.

But the legislation before the House isn't our only tool to help stabilize the healthcare marketplace. It is one prong of a three-part strategy.

The second prong is the administration continuing to use its broad authority to bring relief. Officials like the Secretary of Health and Human Services, Tom Price, and the Administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Seema Verma, are already working to bring relief to stabilize health markets that ObamaCare has rattled.

The third prong is further legislation to reform the healthcare market and make it more competitive for consumers. Taken together, these three prongs aim to restore power to the States and move more healthcare decisions out of Washington and back to the States. They also represent the best way to bring relief to Americans who continue to suffer under ObamaCare. The American people deserve better than this failing law. We promised we would repeal and replace it for four straight elections. We are working to fulfill that commitment right now.

On another matter, Mr. President, yesterday Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch came before the Judiciary Committee for the first day of his confirmation hearing. In his opening statement, Judge Gorsuch showed why so many lawyers and judges strongly support his nomination as a thoughtful and fairminded judge who understands the particular role of the Federal courts in our Republic and who has discharged his judicial office accordingly.

Last week, two of his former colleagues on the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals added their voices to this growing chorus. The endorsement of him was published in the Washington Post. Judge Gorsuch's hearing continues today with Senators on the committee asking him questions. As they

do, we should keep in mind the counsel of his former Tenth Circuit colleagues--both as to their experience with Judge Gorsuch on the bench and their view of our role in questioning him now that he is before the Senate. Judges Deanell Reece Tacha and Robert Henry both served with Judge Gorsuch on the Tenth Circuit. Both were chief judges of that court, in fact, and both have gone on to careers in academia: Judge Tacha as dean of the Pepperdine University School of Law and Judge Henry as president and chief executive of Oklahoma City University. Judge Tacha was appointed to the circuit court by President Reagan while Judge Henry was appointed to the circuit court by President Clinton. They describe themselves as a lifelong Republican and Democrat, respectively.

They write that ``predictions abound as to how Judge Neil Gorsuch--if confirmed--would lean or even vote on this or that case. . . . But these essentially political discussions tend to distort the role of judges in our government.'' They remind us that the `` `independence of the judges' is a most sacred tradition in U.S. constitutional law, requiring all judges to have no obligations to those who nominated or confirmed them.'' Let me repeat that. They note that the principle of judicial independence requires judges not to have obligations to those who nominate them or those who confirm them.

In that regard, Judges Tacha and Henry remind us that ``[d]etailed discussions during the confirmation process on issues that might come before a judge are not proper; in fact, they would in all likelihood require recusals from the cases discussed.'' They point out how the judicial process is different from the confirmation process. They observe that ``controversies that go before the court often bring unique and complicated facts that could completely change a judge's sincerely espoused view.'' Legal research is ``[a]nother critically important input into judicial decisions.'' Legal research might reveal precedent that overrides a judge's ``previously held views or even logical interpretations of legal text.'' They emphasize that the judicial process is the collection of ``[t]hese factors--tradition, independence, precedent and unique facts,'' and that these factors ``often combine to lead judicial nominees to change their views when confronted with specific cases.''

By contrast, these factors are not present in the confirmation process. So it is not realistic or fair to expect a judicial nominee to state or imply under oath how he or she might rule as a judge. That is why Justice Ginsburg could not give any hints, forecasts, or previews of her possible rulings during her Supreme Court nomination hearing.

But we don't have to guess how Judge Gorsuch would conduct himself as a Justice. We have a 10-year record of his judicial decisions, and we have the professional experience of those who practiced before him and those who have served with him. As for the latter, Judges Tacha and Henry give him the highest marks.

Judge Gorsuch was, they say, ``like most good judges, assiduously attentive to the facts and the law in each case.'' If he were confirmed to the Supreme Court, they say that ``other important traits of Gorsuch that are not likely to change'' are things like ``his fair consideration of opposing views, his remarkable intelligence, his wonderful judicial temperament expressed to litigants and his collegiality toward colleagues.''

They conclude by saying that ``[i]f we seek to confirm to the Supreme Court a noted intellect, a collegial colleague, and a gifted and eloquent writer--as well as a person of exhibited judicial temperament--Gorsuch fits that bill. He represents the best of the judicial tradition in our country.''

Their endorsement tracks with so many others we have heard, and I am confident Judge Gorsuch will show the country today and tomorrow why so many people are so proud to support him to be our next Supreme Court Justice.

As to another well-qualified judge whose nomination is currently being considered by the Senate, today, we will consider the nomination of U.S. District Court Judge Danny Reeves to serve on the U.S. Sentencing Commission. He is a great choice to serve on the Commission, and I look forward to the Senate confirming him.

Among its responsibilities, the Commission is tasked with setting sentencing policy in our Federal judicial system. While I don't always agree with the policy outcomes, I appreciate the important role it plays in trying to ensure fairness in our Federal courts. Judge Reeves is well prepared for the task ahead. I am confident he will do great work on the Commission.

His legal career began in Northern Kentucky University's Salmon P. Chase College of Law, where he graduated with honors in 1981. After graduation, he clerked with Judge Eugene Siler, then a district court judge in the Eastern and Western Districts of Kentucky. Upon finishing his clerkship, Judge Reeves entered private practice at what was then known as Greenebaum Doll & McDonald. He became a partner there in 1988.

In 2001, I had the first of many indepth discussions with Judge Reeves. I was so impressed by him that I recommended him to then- President George W. Bush and that he appoint Judge Reeves as a Federal district court judge in Kentucky. The Senate confirmed him without a dissenting vote, and he served with distinction on the Federal bench.

Judge Reeves has been lauded for his steady devotion to the rule of law, for his commitment to fair rulings predicated on the facts and law--rather than his own political beliefs--and for his evenhanded approach to all who enter his courtroom. Because of his demonstrated appreciation for these precepts, Judge Reeves will be a significant asset to the Commission and an advocate for sound and sober decisionmaking.

As many of you know, the Commission has been operating, to the extent it can, without a quorum. Not only does Judge Reeves' appointment stand as validation of his distinguished career as a respected jurist, but, along with the reappointment of U.S. District Court Judge Charles Breyer, it represents a return to an operational agency. Now the Commission can get back to the business for which it was designed, establishing uniform sentencing practices and policies that will be utilized in Federal courts all across the country.

So I look forward to supporting and congratulating Judge Danny Reeves, as well as his wife Cindy and their sons Adam and Joe and their families, on his confirmation to the U.S. Sentencing Commission.

Mr. President, on one final matter, over the past several weeks, the Senate has been working to bring much needed relief from the regulatory onslaught of the last 8 years. Using the Congressional Review Act, or CRA, we have already taken action to end regulations that threaten jobs, weaken our economy, and undermine States' authority. Today we will continue to move forward with our efforts to block more unnecessary regulations that hold our country back in a number of ways. The CRA resolution that we will consider today will end regulation that undercuts Alaska's ability to manage its fish and wildlife resources. As a coalition of hunters, fishing enthusiasts, and conservationists recently wrote me, ``Congress promised that the citizens of Alaska, working through their Department of Fish and Game would be able to manage their own fish and wildlife, as do the other 49 states.''

Passing this CRA resolution will roll back the administration's overreach and restore the State-Federal balance that Congress originally intended. Our colleagues from Alaska, Senator Murkowski and Senator Sullivan, are the sponsors of this resolution we will consider today. They know the damage this regulation would do to their home State. They have been working to do something about it.

They have also been quick to point out the concerning precedent this rule would mean for the rest of the States. I appreciate their leadership on this issue and look forward to joining them in overturning this harmful Obama administration regulation as soon as possible.

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

Mr. President, I move to proceed to H.J. Res. 69.

Mr. President, a few short months ago, our colleague Dan Coats retired from his post here in the Senate. At that time, I had a chance to reflect on our friend's impressive career, and I noted that we could expect him to rise to the occasion if called to serve his country once again. Well, that is exactly what Dan Coats is doing now. This time he will be taking on the role of Director of National Intelligence. It goes without saying that the President made an excellent choice in selecting Dan for this job.

Our former colleague from Indiana has served his Nation in the Army, in the House of Representatives, as the Ambassador to Germany, and, of course, he has also served his State here in the Senate where he was a leader on issues regarding our national security and intelligence community. I look forward to the Senate confirming him today.

We are also working toward an opportunity to support another of the President's exceptional selections, LTG H.R. McMaster, his choice for National Security Advisor. The Chairman of the Armed Services Committee recently called him ``an outstanding choice'' and ``a man of genuine intellect, character, and ability.''

He will now be tasked with adapting his vast experience to the responsibility of coordinating our national security policy at a time when our Nation faces myriad threats and challenges. I know each of us appreciates the willingness of both former Senator Coats and General McMaster to take on these challenging positions and their continued efforts to keep our country safe.

Now onto another well-qualified nominee we will advance soon. Next week Judge Neil Gorsuch will come before the Senate Judiciary Committee for the hearing on his nomination to the Supreme Court. Senators from both sides of the aisle will have an opportunity to hear from him directly, ask questions, and listen to the testimony of others who are familiar with his professional background, abilities, and character.

I know we are all looking forward to his hearing and to learning even more about this exceptional nominee, but here is what we already know about Judge Gorsuch. The American Bar Association is an organization that the Democratic leader and former Democratic chairman of the Judiciary Committee have deemed the gold standard for evaluating judicial nominations. What have they done? They awarded him their highest rating: unanimously ``well qualified.''

Leading liberal lawyers like former President Obama's Acting Solicitor General, Neal Katyal, and former President Obama's legal mentor, Professor Laurence Tribe, sing his praises. Mr. Katyal says Judge Gorsuch is ``an extraordinary judge and man'' whose ``years on the bench reveal a commitment to judicial independence.'' Professor Tribe says that Judge Gorsuch ``is a brilliant, terrific guy who would do the Court's work with distinction.''

To that list, you can now add former law partner and longtime Democrat, David Frederick, who is a board member of the liberal American Constitution Society. Other board members of the ACS include people like former Obama Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, and left- leaning law professor Erwin Chemerinsky, among others.

The ACS is anything but a conservative group. Yet now, even one of its own board members has backed Judge Gorsuch's nomination. In an op- ed recently published by the Washington Post, Mr. Frederick called Judge Gorsuch ``brilliant, diligent, open-minded and thoughtful.'' He went on to say:

Gorsuch's approach to resolving legal problems as a lawyer

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

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

the legal rules established by legislatures and through

precedent deserve deep respect; and the importance of

treating litigants, counsel and colleagues with civility is

deeply ingrained in him.

Mr. Frederick, who practiced law with Judge Gorsuch, states:

Over the course of his career, [Neil Gorsuch] has

represented both plaintiffs and defendants. He has defended

large corporations, but also sued them. He has advocated for

the Chamber of Commerce, but also filed (and prevailed with)

class actions on behalf of consumers. We should applaud such

independence of mind and spirit in Supreme Court nominees.

And Mr. Frederick observes:

As a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th

Circuit, Gorsuch has not been the reflexive, hard-edged

conservative as many depict him to be. He has ruled for

plaintiffs and for defendants; for those accused of crimes as

well as for law enforcement; for those who entered the

country illegally; and for those harmed by environmental

damage.

As this self-proclaimed ``longtime supporter of Democratic candidates and progressive causes'' points out, Judge Gorsuch will be the type of Justice each of us should want on the High Court. And though he knows he may not always agree with Neil Gorsuch's rulings as a jurist on the Supreme Court, Frederick says we need judges like Neil Gorsuch ``who approach cases with fairness and intellectual rigor, and who care about precedent and the limits of their roles as judges.''

The bottom line is this: ``The Senate should confirm him because there is no principled reason to vote no.'' Let me repeat that. ``The Senate should confirm [Gorsuch],'' Frederick said, ``because there is no principled reason to vote no.'' This is a board member of the left's flagship legal group in America, and on this point, he happens to be absolutely right.

So as colleagues on both sides will continue to find at next week's hearings, ``there is [simply] no principled reason to vote no'' when Judge Gorsuch's nomination comes before the full Senate.

Mr. President, one final matter: Last year, President Obama said his signature healthcare law had ``real problems.'' He recognized that there are ``people who are hurt by premium increases or a lack of competition and choice.'' President Clinton called it ``the craziest thing in the world.'' And the Democratic Governor of Minnesota said that ``the Affordable Care Act was no longer affordable for increasing numbers of people.'' So even Democrats recognize that the ObamaCare status quo is unacceptable.

Costs have continued to climb higher. Insurers have dropped out of the marketplace. ObamaCare is a disaster, and it is going to keep getting worse unless we act. My home State of Kentucky, like so many others across the country, just can't take it anymore.

Republicans promised the American people relief from ObamaCare, and we are working hard to keep that promise. The legislation the House introduced to repeal and replace is already moving through the committee process.

Here are some things the Congressional Budget Office said about it: It will lower premiums by double digits. It will help stabilize the healthcare market. It will significantly reduce taxes on families and lower the deficit by hundreds of billions of dollars as well. These are the things we heard from CBO.

Instead of forcing Americans to buy something they may not want as ObamaCare does, it will actually give Americans the freedom to choose the type of coverage that is right for them. I appreciate the hard work the House is doing to advance this legislation. We look forward to receiving it here in the Senate. When we do, I expect to consider amendments as part of our robust debate.

But remember, this bill is only one part of a three-pronged strategy to help bring relief to the American people. The first prong is this bill, the second prong is executive action, and prong three is more legislation to reform the healthcare market and make it more competitive for consumers.

The one thing we shouldn't do is nothing. ObamaCare is a failed law that is hurting the middle class. Maintaining the current ObamaCare status quo is really not a good option.

We are fulfilling our promise to the American people, and I urge all of our colleagues to join us.

Mr. President, already this Senate has passed seven resolutions to undo harmful regulations that hold our country back. Using the tools provided under the Congressional Review Act, we have taken action to stop Obama-era rules that have threatened jobs, our economy, and even the success of our students.

Today, we will have another opportunity to block a regulation, one that undermines congressional intent and States' rights. The proposal now before us would end the Obama administration's unemployment drug testing rule and return power to the States so that they can best address this issue at the local level. Congress granted the Labor Department authority to design a rule regarding States' ability to drug-test citizens applying for unemployment insurance; however, as we saw all too often, the Obama administration went beyond its legal authority in creating a regulation that severely limits the role of State and local governments. That is why we heard from several Governors, including those from Mississippi, Wisconsin, Utah, and Texas, who called for Congress to overturn this regulation. As they said in a recent letter, the Department of Labor should go back to the drawing board and put forth ``a new rule that allows increased flexibility for States to implement unemployment insurance drug testing that best fits the needs of each state.'' With a new, smarter rule, these Governors believe their States will be better able to implement drug testing for those seeking unemployment insurance and help individuals suffering from substance abuse to access necessary care and treatment so that they may reenter the workforce as healthy and productive members of our society.

I thank Senator Cruz for his leadership in sponsoring the Senate companion to the bill we will vote on today, as well as Senator Cornyn and Senator Hatch, the Finance Committee chairman, for working to advance this resolution. We should pass it now so that we can restore the power back to the States where it belongs.

Mr. President, now on another matter, in election after election, the American people have made their voices clear: They want an end to ObamaCare. In my home State of Kentucky, ObamaCare premiums are up by as much as 47 percent, and almost half of the counties only have one

option for an insurer on the exchange. The pain individuals and families are feeling across the country is palpable. They have watched their bills skyrocket and their options disappear. ObamaCare has made a mess all across our country.

Again and again, Kentuckians have called for relief from this partisan law. Republicans have heard their call, and we have adopted a three-pronged approach to stabilize the healthcare market and help it grow into the future.

The first prong is the legislation currently being considered by committees over in the House. Yesterday, the Congressional Budget Office underlined some important things we have been saying about the House bill. It will ultimately drive down premiums by 10 percent, in their estimation. It will provide further relief to the middle class by cutting taxes--a tax cut of $883 billion. It will also reduce the deficit by $337 billion, according to CBO.

That is only considering one part of our three-pronged approach. It does not take into account the other actions Congress, the Governors, or the executive branch can take to further provide relief, lower costs, and improve access. Obviously that means the CBO's statistics, on average, are premature and may not represent the final number of Americans covered under the plan.

Last night, we confirmed Seema Verma to head the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, known as CMS. In that role, Administrator Verma has very broad authority to regulate how ObamaCare interacts with the Medicaid Program.

ObamaCare spent years raiding Medicare funds and putting Medicaid on an unsustainable path. Now she has the ability to work with States on much needed reforms.

The Secretary of Health and Human Services, Dr. Tom Price, just met with Senate Republicans to discuss what he is doing to lessen the burdens of ObamaCare on the American people.

ObamaCare gave significant regulatory flexibility to the Health and Human Services Secretary, as well as the CMS Administrator. Secretary Price and Administrator Verma now have the ability to make serious policy shifts to benefit the American people.

With the three-pronged strategy, we can begin to put the troubles of ObamaCare behind us. We can work together to make the health care marketplace more accessible and affordable.

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

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that, notwithstanding rule XXII, following leader remarks on Wednesday, March 15, the Senate proceed to executive session for the consideration of Executive Calendar No. 23, Daniel Coats to be Director of National Intelligence; that the time until 10 a.m. be equally divided in the usual form; and that at 10 a.m., the Senate vote on the motion to invoke cloture.