Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate recess until 8:25 p.m. tonight and, upon reconvening, proceed as a body to the Hall of the House of Representatives for the joint session of Congress provided under the provisions of H. Con. Res. 23; that upon dissolution of the joint session, the Senate adjourn until 10 a.m., Wednesday, March 1; 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 proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the Zinke nomination as under the previous order.

Colleagues, let me just say, this next vote will be the last vote of the evening.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote on the nomination, and I move to table the motion to reconsider.

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 Presiding Officer of the Senate be authorized to appoint a committee on the part of the Senate to join with a like committee on the part of the House of Representatives to escort the President of the United States into the House Chamber for the joint session to be held at 9 p.m. on Tuesday, February 28, 2017.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 69, submitted earlier today.

Mr. President, I further 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 10 a.m. on Tuesday, February 28; that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, and 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 proceed to executive session and resume consideration of the Zinke nomination postcloture; finally, that all time during leader remarks, morning business, recess, and adjournment of the Senate count postcloture on the Zinke nomination.

If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it stand adjourned under the previous order, following the remarks of Mr. Daines.

Mr. President, in just a few minutes we will have an opportunity to confirm the nominee for the Office of Management and Budget. I had several things to say about him yesterday. Now I want to talk about the nominee we can advance after that confirmation vote.

Let me start by saying this. We all want clean water. We all want clean air. Promoting these goals is supposed to be the mission of the Environmental Protection Agency, but under the Obama administration, the agency's leadership prioritized partisan politics instead. It pursued policies that often put political benefits ahead of environmental ones. It ignored laws. It acted beyond its authority. It even treated middle-class coal families as enemies and then attacked them without a real sense of compassion.

The nominee before us, Oklahoma attorney general Scott Pruitt, thinks it is time for the EPA to get back to the business of clean air and clean water instead, and to do so with an appreciation for the complexity of our modern world, with awareness of the broader economy, with compassion toward those impacted, with respect for the rule of law and the rights of State and local governments.

Pruitt has earned the support of countless groups across the country, from State environmental protection officers to agricultural leaders. He has the bipartisan backing of dozens of his fellow attorneys general as well. They say he is someone who is ``committed to clean air and clean water,'' one who is apt to ``come to Congress for a solution, rather than inventing power'' for himself.

What a welcome change. What a welcome change from the previous administration.

This is from a predecessor of Pruitt's in the attorney general's office, Democrat Mike Turpen:

As a Democrat, I take seriously the threats to our

environment. . . . I may not agree with all the President-

elect's policies or nominees, but I do know that Oklahoma

Attorney General Scott Pruitt is a good choice to head up the

Environmental Protection Agency.

Scott Pruitt's background in constitutional law, combined

with a nuanced understanding of how environmental regulations

affect the economy, mean that he will be a thoughtful leader

of the EPA, and one capable of striking the balance between

protecting the environment and our economy.

Here is another Democratic attorney general:

I am a Member of the Democratic National Committee and was

a strong supporter of Secretary Clinton's campaign for

President. I believe in the core mission of the Environmental

Protection Agency.

And the nominee before us is known to him as ``a staunch defender of sound science and good policy as appropriate tools to protect the environment of his State.''

As one Democratic Senator put it, Scott Pruitt simply has ``the right experience for the position.''

He is exceptionally qualified. He is dedicated to environmental protection, and, as someone with State government experience, he understands the real world consequences of EPA actions

and knows that balance is the key to making policies that are sustainable over the long term. Pruitt is just the candidate we need at the helm of the EPA.

We should confirm him. Doing so will represent another positive change in Washington that can give hope to families in Kentucky and across the Nation who are still recovering from the last 8 years.

Mr. President, here is something else that will give cheer to Kentucky families. I am pleased to report that today the President will sign a resolution identical to a proposal I introduced, a resolution that will undo a harmful regulation that could threaten nearly one-third of America's coal mining jobs. I am looking forward to attending that signing ceremony later today.

This resolution is just one of several that we hope to send to the President to begin providing the American people with relief, protecting jobs, and growing our economy. It reflects promises made and promises kept.

Mr. President, now on another matter, let me begin with a statement of the obvious. ObamaCare is a disaster, an absolute disaster. Just one in five Americans say their families are better off since it went into effect. More actually say they are worse off. And, really, is it any wonder?

Americans were promised that costs would go down, but in fact they skyrocketed. Americans were promised choice, but it shriveled. We have been warning that choices would continue their downward decline under the ObamaCare status quo, and that is just what we saw this very week. One large national insurer announced it was being forced from the marketplace altogether--meaning thousands, including many in Kentucky, will lose their current health plans, thanks to ObamaCare.

The CEO of another major insurer predicted more insurers would soon follow--meaning thousands could find themselves without a single choice of health coverage, thanks to ObamaCare. This partisan law has entered a ``death spiral,'' the CEO warned, and ``it is not going to get any better; it's getting worse.''

This should be a wake-up call to the do-nothing crowd on the left. ObamaCare isn't working. It isn't sustainable, and it is going to continue attacking the middle class until it is repealed and replaced.

We have already begun the process here in Congress. We are going to continue working hand in hand with the administration to get it done. In the meantime, there is much the administration can do to help bring calm out of the chaos from ObamaCare's broken promises. That is especially true of Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price, who was finally confirmed after weeks of unprecedented obstruction from across the aisle.

We saw a great example yesterday of what he can do to help stabilize the insurance market and protect consumers. The commonsense reforms he issued can help put downward pressure on costs and help prevent the fraud and abuse that ultimately hurt everyone. I commend him for taking these important first steps. They will help provide relief for Americans as broader efforts are made to address the underlying concerns with ObamaCare.

The status quo on ObamaCare is simply unsustainable. Congress will continue working to repeal and replace it with commonsense, step-by- step reforms. As we do, I hope the administration will continue using its existing authority to protect Americans from the unnecessary harm of this broken law.

Mr. President, on one final matter, Neil Gorsuch is one of the most impressive Supreme Court nominees we have ever seen. His resume is a mile long, his reputation is second to none, and his record is literally something to behold.

In nearly a decade on the circuit court, his work was so outstanding, the Supreme Court didn't need to check it very often. In fact, as we recently learned from his Judiciary Committee questionnaire, the High Court felt the need to review on the merits an opinion he offered only once in 10 years. In that one case, a broad cross section of the Justices on the Court voted to affirm his work, with Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor joining Justices Thomas and Alito in affirming his opinion.

Let me put that in context. Out of 240 opinions Judge Gorsuch wrote for the Tenth Circuit or where he authored a concurrence or dissent-- not to mention the 500 additional unpublished dispositions he has written--the Supreme Court reviewed only one--one of his cases on the merits, and it affirmed the one case.

As for the cases where Judge Gorsuch did not write the opinion but joined in the opinion of his colleagues, the Supreme Court reviewed five of those cases, and the Court affirmed four out of five. So even including opinions that Judge Gorsuch did not author but joined, his overall record in the Supreme Court is being affirmed in five out of six cases.

How does that record compare to some of his would-be colleagues on the Supreme Court?

Well, President Obama's first nominee, Sonia Sotomayor also was a circuit court judge before she was appointed to the Supreme Court, and she was a circuit court judge for about the same amount of time as Judge Gorsuch has been, approximately a decade.

The Supreme Court reviewed on the merits five opinions she authored as a circuit court judge. But the Court reversed her most of the time-- reversing her three out of five times. And in one of those two cases that it affirmed, the Supreme Court unanimously rejected her reasoning in doing so, finding that it ``flies in the face of the statutory language.''

So the Supreme Court actually rejected the approach of then Judge Sotomayor in four out of five opinions she authored.

Our Democratic colleagues are insistent that we have someone mainstream appointed to the Court, with the definition of mainstream, of course, being determined by their particular worldview. Since all of our Democratic colleagues who were here when her nomination to the Supreme Court was pending supported Justice Sotomayor, I know that they found her to be mainstream. Given that Judge Gorsuch's record before the Court he seeks to join is quite a bit better than hers, I assume they would concede, even if grudgingly, that as measured by one's record before the Supreme Court as a lower court judge, Judge Gorsuch is at least as ``mainstream'' as she is.

With Judge Gorsuch's impressive record before the Supreme Court and other impressive qualities, it is no wonder, then, that both sides of the political spectrum can't help but praise him. I have shared some of that praise already from those who have worked alongside him, from those who have studied underneath him, and now some thoughts from those who appeared before him.

Let me read to my colleagues from an article that appeared just a few days ago in the Albuquerque Journal:

Local attorneys from across the political spectrum who have

appeared before U.S. Supreme Court nominee Judge Neil Gorsuch

call him a ``gentleman,'' ``extraordinarily affable,'' and

``an exceptional nomination.'' As a Federal Court of Appeals

judge posted in Denver for the last 10 years, Gorsuch has

ruled on numerous cases from New Mexico, giving many local

attorneys an up-close view of the man who could fill the seat

of the late U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.

Here is one local lawyer who praised his fairness:

He is an enormous intellect, a really, really bright guy. .

. . He'll be one of the brightest justices on that court--if

not the brightest. It was always a pleasure to be in front of

him because whether you won or lost, you knew you were going

to be treated fairly.

Here is another lawyer, a Democrat who appeared before him a dozen or so times, mostly on civil rights cases:

Gorsuch is not an ``ideologue.'' Politics aside, Judge

Gorsuch would be someone good for the judiciary and the

country. People should rest assured that he would always try

to make the most learned and just decision and politics would

not be a consideration or factor in his decisions. . . . And

that's from me, and I'm a longtime Democrat.

Here is one more who noted the legacy he has already left behind:

Gorsuch has placed 11 of his (Appeals Court) clerks with

Supreme Court justices,

so he is in the very top. And not only has he placed them,

his law clerks go all over the place. They've clerked for

Kennedy, Scalia, Thomas, and they've also clerked for Kagan

and Sotomayor. . . . This is a really good indicator of what

the justices think of this guy before he was even a nominee

to the Supreme Court. It's like a Good Housekeeping seal of

approval. And it cuts across the political spectrum.

In other words, clerks of Judge Gorsuch have gone on to clerk for Supreme Court Justices across the ideological spectrum.

Speaking of those who have clerked for Sonia Sotomayor, we recently heard a testimonial from an Obama administration lawyer who clerked for both Sotomayor and Gorsuch. ``I don't think folks on the Left should be concerned about Judge Gorsuch becoming a Supreme Court Justice,'' she said. ``He is extraordinarily fair-minded . . . [h]e will approach each case the same, regardless of the issue or the parties before him, and he will have a great deal of respect for folks on all sides of the ideological spectrum.''

That is very high praise. It is coming from both sides of the aisle. And I am sure we will hear even more of it as the days go by.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote on the nomination, I move to table the motion to reconsider.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

I object.

I object.