Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask consent that floor privileges be granted until June 30 to Christopher Walker, an academic fellow on my staff.

I will be happy to yield.

Mr. President, I want to thank the distinguished majority leader and the minority leader. I didn't expect this today; I was just happy to be in the Chair. But it was certainly nice of them to say such nice things. That means a lot to me, and I am sure it will mean a lot to my wife Elaine and our family.

I have a great deal of respect for both leaders. Senator McConnell is a very close friend and a wonderful leader. I don't think we have had a better leader than he in my time in the Senate.

I will not go on and on, but Senator Schumer and I have been friends for a long time, and I believe he is one of the great Senators here. I hope we will be able to work together on a lot of things in the future. I hope we can get out of this rut we are in right now so we can work together, so we can feel good about being here, and so we can help this country.

I thank both the majority leader and the minority leader for their kind remarks. I didn't expect those, and I was a little shocked that they would say these things this morning, but I am very grateful to both of them. I want to thank both of them for being my friends.

I yield back to the minority leader.

Mr. President, this has been a nice morning for me. To have both the majority leader and the minority leader say such nice things means a lot to me.

Having said that, let me just say I am concerned about this body and how it is going. I am also concerned about the President. I personally wish he would choose his words a little more carefully because everybody in the world pays attention to the President of the United States.

On the other hand, I kind of find it refreshing that he doesn't take any guff from anybody. I like that. He is a person who speaks his mind, but I have also seen him change his mind after saying he was for something and change it when he got more facts.

He is a brand new President coming right out of the private sector. He is picking excellent people for his Cabinet. I don't know that I have ever seen any President pick better Cabinet members than he has, not the least of whom will be the two who should go through before the end of this week. Congressman Price is a tremendous choice. As both leaders had indicated, he probably has as much knowledge about our health care system as anyone on Earth.

Steve Mnuchin--I didn't even know Steve Mnuchin, but I spent hours with him. I have to say he is brilliant. I said to him: You know, Steven, you are going to lose a lot of money by taking this job. He said: I don't care. I want to serve my country.

I was refreshed by this attitude to the point that I am going to help him every way I can to become the greatest Treasury Secretary we have ever had. I will tell you one thing, he does understand a lot about money. He understands a lot about Wall Street. He understands a lot about business acquisitions and business matters. He is a practical person, as is our President.

I don't know that we should be so sensitive sometimes because he oftentimes repeals what he said afterward, and I find that refreshing too. I happen to like this President. I think he is a refreshing new leader for this country. He is not going to play these same old games that almost everybody who has been President has played.

He reminds me a lot of President Reagan in that regard. Of course, Reagan had been a Governor before he came here and a good Governor, but he didn't take himself too seriously, and he would say some things that got him in trouble from time to time too. They all have, haven't they? I guess, being President, every word you say is being carefully weighed.

This President is going to have to realize that as well. I think he will. He is a very bright man. I think we are lucky that we would have somebody come out of the private sector into the White House, with all the flaws, and flaws that people are finding with Donald Trump, and be willing to take the criticisms and fight back sometimes. Is he perfect? No. Is he ever going to be perfect? No, he is not, but neither will any of us ever be perfect.

I will say this. A lot of us have more experience than he has. On the other hand, in my eyes, isn't it wonderful to have someone who has been immensely successful in the private sector--who has had some very tough realities in the private sector, who has had his ups and downs in the private sector, who understands pain, who understands exhilaration-- isn't it wonderful to have someone like that who just may be able to pull this country out of the stinking mess it is in, a mess caused by a superabundance of bureaucracy, by arrogant Members of Congress, and by very liberal States that are dependent upon the Federal Government rather than upon themselves? I could go on and on and on.

Let us give this President a little bit of a chance. Above all, let us give him his Cabinet and let us quit playing these games. I know some on the Democratic side must feel they are making headway by playing these silly games, knowing that these Cabinet officials are going to go through while they stopped them from being able to do the job that needs to be done. They have made it more difficult than any President I recall in my time in the U.S. Senate. They are treating this President in a very belligerent, awful way. So I think we ought to give a little bit of leeway for him to make some verbal mistakes from time to time--even though we all wish he wouldn't.

I will say I think it is time for this body to start working and, more importantly, start working together. There is nothing we cannot do if we work together. We can save this country if we work together. We could have a better attitude in this country if we will work together. We can be an exemplar for the rest of the world if we work together.

Look, there is no excuse for these two big fights that are going on. I like big fights on the floor. I like big fights in committees. Sometimes out of those fights comes very good legislation or very good approaches to government. It is good for us to go at each other from time to time. But to make it impossible for a President to have his Cabinet early on? There is something wrong with this approach.

Some people are using this particular situation to enhance their ability to run for President.

I will say it would be wonderful if, once again, we could get Democrats and Republicans to work together. I remember in the early days, when I became one of the youngest committee chairmen of a major committee in history, when I became chairman of the Labor and Human Resources Committee--which is now the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee--there were nine Republicans.

Senator Kennedy came over from the Judiciary Committee, which he had chaired, to become my ranking member. There were seven Democrats, including Senator Kennedy, but two of our Republicans from the Northeast were from States that were quite liberal then. I couldn't blame them, but I knew that Kennedy had the 9-to-7 ideological edge. I was going to be chairman, and I could determine some things, but I wasn't going to be able to get much done unless I had some help from Senator Kennedy.

Senator Kennedy was not known for being cooperative up to that time. He was not known as a person who really aligned with Republicans to try to get things done. He was known as a bomb

thrower and as somebody who really was one of the most articulate, liberal Democrats in this body.

In his own way, he was a very interesting and good Senator, but he was not known for bipartisan work at that time. When he came over and said: I will work with you, there are some things I can't do--meaning the unions, the feminists, et cetera--but I will help you, that is how the Hatch-Kennedy relationship began and began to bear fruit.

It could not have happened, except for two tough people with differing principles who were willing to get together and set aside their differences and do some things that were not only important to the country but beneficial to the country. We were known as the odd couple. He would laugh about that in public and say: We are known as the odd couple. I would always point to him and say: We all know who the odd one is, don't we.

He would laugh. He was a fun guy to be with. When he was serious about something, he could be a formidable challenger, but he earned the right to be that. He didn't just pop off because he wanted to be President. He earned the right, he earned our respect, and he earned my respect. From that time forth--he was considered a very great Senator at that time, but he was not considered a great legislator. He went on from there and became a great legislator. I know because we worked together on things that are law today and good laws today. He had to learn to be able to compromise to be able to get this type of work done--and so did I.

We have to earn respect here. It isn't just by popping off on the Senate floor, it is by working as hard as we can to do the best we can for our constituents, for the people in this country of both parties-- of all parties--in the interest of everybody.

I wish we could get more of that back. I miss Senator Kennedy. I could talk to him. I could pull him off his liberal perch. I could get him to do things that nobody could get him to do up until that time, and he could get me to do some things I wasn't inclined to do at the beginning. But as we worked them out, we found out that some of the things we both agreed on--by pulling each other together--became some of the most important bills in history.

I would like to see more of that here. I wish to see us all start working together. A good way to do that would be to give the President the Cabinet he needs and wants. Maybe that is one reason why he is saying some things that those on the other side are finding fault with and maybe on my side are finding fault with. He doesn't have his Cabinet. As President, he doesn't have the advisers he needs. We are not helping him here--as President. We are not helping him get the people around him whom he needs. We are delaying, obfuscating, and fighting against people whom we shouldn't be fighting against.

In terms of Congressman Price and Steven Mnuchin, these are two extremely important men for two extremely important positions who are left floundering because we are unwilling to get the job done. If there were real arguments against them, that is another matter, but some of the phony arguments that have been brought up are just pathetic.

I remember when one of the Democrats wanted to be Treasurer of the United States. He had some real flaws. He even hadn't paid taxes in some ways, but he was a good person and wanted to serve his country. We worked out the difficulties, and he was able to serve as Secretary of the Treasury. I can name a number of others. If we want perfection here, we are crazy. Nobody is perfect, and everybody has some things that they wish they didn't have in their biography.

But I can say this: I was very disappointed in this body for holding up Jeff Sessions, who is a really good person. I haven't always agreed with Jeff Sessions, but I knew one thing: He was honest in his beliefs, and he was courteous in making his arguments. He did a lot of things that really were right. Frankly, the fact that we differed was kind of irrelevant because he was worthy of his position. I could go through a number of others.

Let me just say that I happen to be one of the people who really like the minority leader in this body. I think he could become one of the great leaders of this Senate. He is smart; we all know that. He is aggressive; we all know that. He has had some degree of success around here; we all know that. He represents a huge constituency; we all know that. He is a good man; we all know that. And he has a good family; we all know that. Let's get rid of some of the picayune fights around here, and let's start working together.

The majority leader, Senator McConnell, in my opinion, is the best majority leader we have had here in a long, long time. He is smart. He understands the system. He loves the Senate. He is a very honest and good man. He is tough as nails. I am sure he has flaws, just like all the rest of us.

But these are two really potentially great leaders who could not only bring us together but could help us to save this country at a time when it needs saving, where we have $100 billion in unfunded liabilities--I mean trillion dollars; not billion, trillion dollars--where we are deeply in debt. We are now $20 trillion in debt.

These two gentlemen could bring us together and could help solve these problems if we would put the politics aside, for the most part. We have to have some politics here, or this would be an uninteresting body, but we don't have to have it on everything. If these two gentlemen could get together--they are both bright, they are both smart, and they both have given a lot of time to the U.S. Senate. I like both of them. I could say I love both of them. If they would really start working together, we could turn this country around. But to do that, the distinguished Senator from New York is going to have to be concerned about the national debt and the annual deficit, and the distinguished Senator from Kentucky is going to have to worry a lot about what motivates the Democrats and what we can do to find common ground with the Democrats.

I believe these two men can do that, and I am hoping with all my heart they will, and I am praying for them every day, that they might get together and that we might put aside party politics in favor of bringing this country out of the mess it is in. I believe they can do that, and I believe we can help them do that. I would like to see it done because we can't keep going the way we are going.

I actually believe the President will grow into becoming a great President, too, if we will help him a little bit rather than just fight everything he does or everything he says or try to criticize him every time he opens his mouth. I would like to see us show some respect for the President too.

I have a lot of respect for these two leaders. They are great men. But I would like to see them be greater so that they will work together. You will notice I am just saying ``work together.'' I would like it to be this way, all the way together, but I will take this, if we could just get people to work together around here.

I have said enough. I just want these two leaders to know that I am pulling for both of them, and I am hoping we can still have our fights and still have our arguments and still have the enjoyable aspects around here of comradeship and working with each other. But I am hoping we can set aside some of these animosities and give the President his Cabinet and his leaders so that he has at least a shot at pulling this country out of the mess it is in. It is going to take a President Trump. It is not going to take another one of those--I believe President Trump is the person who is right for this time. I believe he will do a terrific job if we will help him. We will have differences, but I believe he will pay more attention, and I believe we will get better people to come into the government to help him to do this work and his job.

I may be a little bit naive in thinking that we can do all of this, but I think we can. And that is said by somebody who was told: You don't want to work with Senator Kennedy because he is a rock-ribbed liberal who doesn't really care about what Republicans like. Well, I found that by working with him and he found that by working with me we were able to do things that helped our country. It was partly because he was a prestigious Senator, no question, and partly because I am an active, hard-working, fighting Senator who kind of appealed to him because he knew he had somebody who would help fight these things through, and I was smart enough to be able to help him to get things done in better ways than they would have been done.

Well, I have said enough. I just love this body. I personally have been very moved by the kindness of the two leaders, and I just hope we can get together and do these things the right way. We are not going to go anywhere with constant bickering and fighting and the constant running for President that we have around here. I don't mind that. I mean, I think there is something to that, but it can't be every time a person opens his or her mouth.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to speak about two of President Trump's nominees. I will first address Nominee Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. Then I will discuss the nomination of Tom Price to be Secretary of Health and Human Services, which is currently pending before the Senate.

Last week, President Trump nominated U.S. Circuit Judge Neil Gorsuch to fill the vacancy left by the death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. I want to address both the process and the substance of what lies ahead for the Senate.

The Constitution gives to the President the power to nominate and, subject to the Senate's advice and consent, the power to appoint judges. The first step in the Senate exercising its power of advice and consent is to decide the best way to handle a nomination made by the President.

The Constitution does not mandate a one-size-fits-all process. In fact, the Senate has handled the Supreme Court nominations in at least a dozen different ways.

Nearly 1 year ago, shortly after Justice Scalia's death, I explained on the Senate floor the two reasons the next President should choose his replacement. First, the circumstances and timing of the Scalia vacancy supported separating the confirmation process from the Presidential election season, which was a hard-fought Presidential election.

When he chaired the Judiciary Committee in 1992, then-Senator Joe Biden urged the Senate not to consider a Supreme Court nomination in that Presidential election year. Each of his four reasons applied, with even greater force, to the circumstances we faced last year.

Second, I said that elections have consequences. The American people were increasingly concerned about the illegal and unconstitutional actions of the Obama administration, actions that the courts struck down dozens of times.

The two Presidential candidates last year represented very different ideas about the power and proper role of judges in our system of government. The American people, therefore, had a unique opportunity to address the future course of the judiciary in general and the Supreme Court in particular.

Not surprisingly, the percentage of American voters who said that the Supreme Court was a very important issue tripled between 2008 and 2016. The issue was always when, not whether, the Senate would consider a nominee to fill the Scalia vacancy.

Plunging into a divisive, ideological confirmation battle in the middle of a confrontational and ugly Presidential campaign would have done more harm than good to the judiciary, the Senate, and the country. We were right to avoid such damage and, as a result, today we can focus properly on the appointment of Justice Scalia's successor.

Democrats and their left-leaning allies, however, sound as though they exist in some kind of parallel universe. In editorials since the election, for example, the New York Times claims that Republicans stole this Supreme Court seat from President Obama.

I am sure they are in denial about the election results, and some observers have called this bizarre fiction sour grapes. I think that gives sour grapes a bad name, between you and me.

No judicial position, including the Supreme Court seat occupied by Justice Scalia, belongs to any President. President Obama exercised the power that the Constitution gives him by nominating someone to that vacancy. The Senate exercised the power that the Constitution separately gives us by not granting consent to that nomination.

I have news for my Democratic colleagues: Not getting your way does not mean that anyone stole anything; it just means that you did not get your way.

When Chairman Biden refused to give a hearing to more than 50 judicial nominees during the 103rd Congress--a record, by the way, that still stands--the New York Times never said that those seats were being stolen from President Bush.

When Democrats blocked a confirmation vote 20 times during the 108th Congress, the Times never accused Democrats of theft but was right there egging them on.

Republicans last year decided to defer the confirmation process without knowing who would win the election. Democrats this year are objecting because of who won the election, even though at the time, it looked as though Hillary Clinton was a sure winner.

I think we should stop the nonsense and act like grownups because we have work to do.

Turning to that work, the task before us is to determine whether Judge Neil Gorsuch is qualified to serve as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. Qualifications for judicial service include both legal experience and judicial philosophy, and I believe we should look at a nominee's entire record for evidence of these qualifications.

Judge Gorsuch's legal experience is well documented and widely acknowledged. Judge Gorsuch clerked for two Supreme Court Justices, spent a decade in private practice, and then served as Acting Associate Attorney General. His qualifications for the U.S. Court of Appeals were so obvious that the Senate confirmed him in 2006 without even a roll call vote.

Let me put that into perspective. During the 4 years that Republicans were back in the majority, 2003 to 2006, the Senate took roll call votes on 86 percent of judicial nominations. Democrats were demanding roll call votes even when, as happened 82 percent of the time, the nominations were unopposed. In other words, it was a very rare exception for a judicial nomination to be confirmed without a roll call vote at all. That is how self-evidently qualified this nominee was for the appeals court.

In 11 years on the appellate bench, he has authored hundreds of majority or separate opinions, many of which have been widely praised. There is no question that Judge Gorsuch has the legal experience to serve on the Supreme Court.

As I have said many times, the conflict over judicial appointments is really a conflict over judicial power. The more important qualification for judicial service, therefore, is a nominee's judicial philosophy, or his or her understanding of the power and proper role of judges in our system of government--in other words, the kind of Justice he will be.

Federal judges have two basic tasks. They can perform those tasks in two basic ways. Their tasks are to interpret and apply the law to decide cases. They can perform those tasks impartially or politically.

An impartial judge interprets statutes and the Constitution to mean what they already mean, while the political judge interprets them to mean what he wants them to mean. When an impartial judge applies the law, he deliberately excludes his own views and does not put his thumb on the scale to make sure the results of the case benefit a particular party or group.

The political judge accepts, and even embraces, that his background and biases shape his decisions and considers how individual decisions will affect other parties, groups, or issues.

Our system of government, and the liberty it makes possible, requires impartial judges in all cases.

In his farewell address in 1796, President George Washington said that the heart of our system of government is the right of the people to control the Constitution. One of his original Supreme Court Justices, James Wilson, described our system of government by saying that here, the people are masters of the government. Our liberty can be secure only if the people control the Constitution, only if the people remain masters of the government. That cannot happen if judges control the Constitution because then, government will be the master of the people. That is why the kind of judge Presidents appoint is so important. Impartial judges

let the people govern; they let the people govern themselves. Political judges do it for them.

The best way to tell which kind of Justice the nominee before us will be is to assess the kind of judge he already is. One of the most obvious places to look is in the opinions he has been writing for more than a decade. Last year, for example, the Tenth Circuit had to decide whether to use the Constitution to create new categories of lawsuits against law enforcement officers. Judge Gorsuch agreed that the courts should resist doing so and wrote:

Ours is the job of interpreting the Constitution. And that

document isn't some inkblot on which litigants may project

their hopes and dreams . . . but a carefully drafted text

judges are charged with applying according to its original

public meaning.

In other words, the Constitution is not a blank check a judge may write to whomever, and for whatever amount, they like. It is not a shape-shifting blob that judges can manipulate into whatever they want it to be.

In this view, Judge Gorsuch was merely echoing America's Founders. Thomas Jefferson, for example, argued that if the Constitution means whatever judges say it means, the Constitution will become ``a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please.''

He was right. The Constitution, after all, is the primary way the people set rules for government, including for the judiciary. If the people are to remain masters of the government, they must remain masters of the Constitution, and that includes not only what it says but also what the Constitution means.

Impartial judges take statutes and the Constitution as they are, not for what they say but also for what they mean.

Political judges act as if the people and their elected representatives established a Constitution or enacted statutes that are merely collections of words with no meaning until judges fill in those blanks. Judge Gorsuch is an impartial judge. Anybody looking at the record has to know that. He knows that he is to interpret but cannot make the law. He knows that the Constitution must control judges, not the other way around.

Last year, Judge Gorsuch delivered a lecture about Justice Scalia's legacy at Case Western University School of Law. In that lecture, Judge Gorsuch embraced a defined judicial philosophy and made clear the kind of judge that he is.

I referred to this lecture in my remarks last week, and this week I sent it to each of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. I truly hope each and every Member of this body will read it carefully because it helps answer the most important question before us in exercising our power of advice and consent: What kind of Justice will this nominee be?

In his lecture, Judge Gorsuch said--and I will refer to the chart again--``Judges should be in the business of declaring what the law is using the traditional methods of interpretation, rather than pronouncing the law as they might wish it to be in light of their own political views, always with an eye on the outcome.''

Some Senators and liberal groups have already stated that they oppose this nomination. Perhaps they think judges should be in the business of pronouncing the law as they might wish it to be in light of their own political views.

Judge Gorsuch said in his lecture that the task of a judge is to interpret and apply the law rather than, as he put it, ``to amend or revise the law in some novel way.'' Perhaps his critics believe the opposite, that judges actually do have the power to amend and revise the law in novel ways.

Last year, Judge Gorsuch echoed America's Founders in saying that the power of the legislative branch to make law and the power of the judicial branch to interpret law should be kept separate and distinct. Confusing them, he said, would be a grave threat to our values of personal liberty and equal protection. Perhaps his critics believe it does not matter whether judges make or interpret the law.

Last year, Judge Gorsuch said that judges must ``assiduously seek to avoid the temptation to secure results they prefer.'' What the law demands, he said, is more important than the judge's policy preferences. Perhaps his critics think judges should give in to that temptation, putting their preferred results ahead of what the law demands?

The more we find out about Judge Gorsuch and his judicial philosophy, the more we should ask what his opponents and critics really find so objectionable. If Democrats and their leftwing allies believe that judges, rather than the people, should control the Constitution, they should come right out and say so. If they believe that the political ends justify the judicial means, that judges may manipulate the law to produce politically correct results, then they should be honest about it and defend that radical idea to the American people.

As I close, I want to offer some wisdom from Daniel Webster, who served in the House and Senate and twice as Secretary of State under three different Presidents. In a speech on March 15, 1837, he said:

Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption

of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the

Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers

of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to

govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good

masters, but they mean to be masters.

Well, there are also judges who mean to be good masters, but they do indeed mean to be masters. They mean to govern well, but they do mean to govern. That kind of judge compromises the heart of our political system and undermines the liberty that it makes possible.

Judge Neil Gorsuch has no intention of governing, of being any kind of master of the Constitution or of the people. He is, instead, an impartial judge, the kind who follows rather than controls the law. He will be the kind of Justice that America needs on the Supreme Court.

I thank you, Madam President.

I still have one more speech to give.

I will try to make this very brief.

Madam President, I would like to turn to the business currently before the Senate and express my support for the nomination of Representative Tom Price to be the Secretary of Health and Human Services at this critical juncture.

HHS encompasses an extremely large and diverse set of agencies, including the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, and the Food and Drug Administration, just to name a few. All told, its annual budget is more than $1 trillion--that is trillion with a ``t.''

The various programs and agencies that fall under HHS's purview have an enormous impact on our Nation's fiscal and economic outlook. I am not exaggerating when I say that HHS affects the daily lives of more American taxpayers than any other part of the Federal Government.

Management of all these agencies is not for the faint of heart. Once confirmed, Dr. Price will have his work cut out for him, but I believe he is more than up to the challenge. He has proven that over the years.

Dr. Price has extensive insight into our Nation's health care system, having practiced medicine for two decades in a variety of settings. That experience has informed his years of service in the House of Representatives, which included a tenure as chairman of the House Budget Committee and in the leadership in the Ways and Means Committee.

While many who come to Washington are content to sit back and talk about our Nation's problems, Dr. Price has always sought to find solutions. At a time when our health care system is in distress, I believe Dr. Price will put his

vast experience to good use and be decisive in not only working with Congress to find solutions but implementing them as well.

My view on his qualifications is shared by a great number of people, including many who see the problems in our health care system up close. For example, former HHS Secretaries Mike Leavitt and Tommie Thompson enthusiastically support his nomination. Major stakeholder organizations, including the American Medical Association, the American Hospital Association, most surgical specialty groups, and others, also support him. In their letter of support, the Health Care Leadership Council, which represents a wide range of health care providers, said that ``it is difficult to imagine anyone more capable of serving his nation as the Secretary of HHS than Congressman Tom Price.'' I couldn't have said it better myself.

Of course, none of this seems to matter to some of my colleagues on the other side. They aren't coming to the floor to criticize Dr. Price's abilities or qualifications; instead, most of what we have heard for weeks now is focused on a vague patchwork of allegations of ethical impropriety on the part of the nominee.

I have participated in quite a few confirmation debates during my time in the Senate, and even over this agency. One thing I have learned is that if the opponents of a particular nomination keep moving their focus from one set of allegations to another, more often than not, they don't have a leg to stand on. That is very much the case with regard to the attacks that have been hurled at Dr. Price.

First, we heard about supposed conflicts of interest in his finances, until it was pretty clear that Dr. Price had followed all the required ethical guidelines and disclosure requirements of the House.

After that, he was accused of lying to the Senate Finance Committee during our vetting process because he had to file an amended disclosure to include some mistaken omissions. Of course, this is not altogether an uncommon occurrence, particularly given the fact that the Finance Committee's vetting process is uniquely exhaustive. It happens in almost every case where you have people who have had a complicated life or work life. Furthermore, he was asked about this during his confirmation hearing, and his answers were reasonable, and I haven't heard anyone credibly argue that he was intentionally trying to mislead the committee.

I will set aside the fact that the particulars of Dr. Price's disclosures to the Finance Committee--information which is typically kept private among members and staff--were apparently managed and embellished in order to create and reinforce a partisan narrative with the media. Instead, I will simply say that the Finance Committee's bipartisan vetting process for nominees has historically operated on an assumption of good faith, both on the part of the nominee and the members of the committee. The fact that my colleagues on the committee, in many respects, have decided to cast all that aside in recent weeks is not evidence of wrongdoing on the part of Dr. Price.

When the overblown claims about his disclosures failed to gain traction, my colleagues on the other side turned their focus to a particular investment in an Australian biomed company in 2015. Their claim: Dr. Price received a ``sweetheart deal'' from the company which allowed him to purchase stock at a discounted price. They also argue that he lied during his confirmation hearing when he said he paid the same price for the stock as everyone else at that time.

Now, my colleagues would have everyone believe that private placement investment arrangements are inherently shady and nefarious. Let's just get that out of the way right now. Private placements are a commonplace and appropriate means for companies to raise--

Madam President, let me yield the floor to Senator Scott.

I sure appreciate my colleague because I have run out of time here and I still have things to say.

Well, let me just go back.

Let's just get that out of the way right now. Private placements are a commonplace and appropriate means for companies to raise additional capital from a small number of investors. I know because I used to practice law and I did a number of private placements in my experience.

The facts in this matter are relatively simple: The Australian company, Innate Immunotherapeutics, had a relatively small number of U.S. investors at the time. It is my understanding that all of the investors who had participated in a previous share offering were offered an opportunity to purchase additional stock as part of a private placement arrangement. Dr. Price purchased additional stock at the price that was offered to all the investors in that group.

Once again, private placements are commonplace investments, not nefarious conspiracies that some of our colleagues would have us believe. And I can certainly testify to that. According to all the available details, this particular investment was in compliance with all of the laws and regulations that govern those types of deals. In fact, as private placement investments go, this one appears to be fairly unremarkable, unless, of course, you just assume without evidence that there simply had to be something fishy going on--an assumption that I don't think could be made.

Put simply, this investment arrangement was a perfectly normal, commonplace affair. There is certainly no evidence to suggest that there was any insider trading, as some of my colleagues have alleged.

On top of that, Dr. Price's statements before the Finance Committee, despite many claims to the contrary, appear to be truthful unless you simply want to assume without evidence that he has to be lying. What a situation that our colleagues try to put this good man in. It is disreputable, in my opinion.

By all accounts, Dr. Price purchased the Innate stock at the same price offered to all other participants in the private placement which, by the way, also included a few thousand investors from Australia and New Zealand. That is what he told the committee and that, by all appearances, is the truth. We certainly haven't seen any evidence to the contrary. Sure, my colleagues on the other side have thrown a lot of dots on the wall, apparently hoping they can create a cloudy impression that something nefarious just had to be going on with this investment, even though they haven't come close to connecting any of the dots. They have parsed words, they have divined alternative meanings behind the nominee's statements. But let me be clear, no one has produced any credible evidence of wrongdoing on the part of Dr. Price. Those of us who know him know that he never did any wrongdoing and, frankly, never intended to do anything that was wrong.

That being the case, it is utterly shameful that my colleagues would go to such elaborate lengths in order to malign not only a nominee for a Cabinet position but a sitting Member of the U.S. Congress. There ought to be some courtesy here, and I am kind of shocked that there isn't. Of course, we went through a fairly ugly episode the other night about the same issue, though that one hit a little closer to home as the nominee under attack was a fellow Senator.

I don't want to rehash that argument here today. Instead, I will say this. I know some people like to fight around here. For some, it seems the fighting is half the reason they are here to begin with, and neither party is blameless in that regard. Do you know what? If my colleagues wanted to have a fierce and lively debate about this nominee's qualifications or his views on policy, I welcome that debate. He is a tremendous human being, a tremendous doctor, with all kinds of experience, and has been a wonderful Member of the House of Representatives for both parties--as a Republican. If they want to fairly debate his record as a legislator

and a public servant, I am game. I will be glad to do it with them, but to throw accusations at a congressional colleague, and even go so far to accuse him--without evidence--of criminal wrongdoing is, in my view, beneath the dignity of the Senate.

That is precisely what has happened to Dr. Price. Ultimately, my colleagues' specious arguments and their desperate attempt to block Dr. Price's confirmation would all seem far more sincere if he were the one nominee or even one in a small handful of nominees they deemed unfit to serve, but that is not what is happening.

My colleagues on the other side have appeared to be apoplectic about almost every single nominee we have had before us. The confirmation of any of President Trump's Cabinet nominees, it seems, will bring about untold destruction, the likes of which America has never seen.

With so many of these nominations, the entire process has been wrought with fever-pitched arguments, accusations, and apocalyptic visions of a future world gone mad. We hear it in committee. We are hearing it on the floor. Then the Senate votes, the nominees are confirmed, and my colleagues immediately switch gears to do the very same thing with the next nomination. Some of them even switch gears and come up to the nominee with smiles on their faces and congratulate him or her.

One can only wonder how so many Senators can keep their outrage settings turned to 11 without getting completely exhausted around here. I expect they are able to do so because their outrage is more show than anything else. Indeed, I suspect that the outrage that has been on display has less to do with the particular nominees and more to do with a longer term political agenda. In service of that partisan agenda, my colleagues appear to be more than willing to cast aside the traditions, respect, and assumptions of good faith that have long been the hallmark of the Senate confirmation process and of the Senate itself.

I am very concerned with the way this has gone on here. I am concerned with the way my colleagues are treating another respected colleague from the House. We have seen it in committee. We are seeing it on the floor. In my view, it is a tragic shame.

The bottom line is, Dr. Price is, by any reasonable objective standard, qualified to serve as HHS Secretary. Some people would say he is qualified just because he has made it all the way to Congress and he ought to be treated with equal respect, but I will not even go that far. I will just say, by any reasonable and objective standard, he is qualified to serve as HHS Secretary. There is nothing in his past record or statements that disqualifies him to serve in that capacity. In a better world, he would be confirmed already. People would be shouting hooray that this good man will take the time and spend the effort to take this very thankless, very difficult job--and to leave Congress in the process. I suspect he will be confirmed in short order.

Once again, I do urge my colleagues to vote with me to confirm Representative Price. I really believe we ought to get past this is picayune stuff that has been going on, on the floor. We ought to get past that and truly, truly support a good man from the other body who we all know is honest and decent and allow him to see what he can do to straighten out this tremendously complex Department of Health and Human Services.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to briefly discuss a number of ongoing efforts in the early days of the 115th Congress. It is a strange time to be working on Capitol Hill, as strange as I have seen in my four decades in the Senate. That is true for a number of reasons. Let me give you an example. Republicans currently control the Senate, the House, and the White House, and are in widespread agreement about most major policy issues. Sure, there are details that need to be worked out, both on the process and the substance on things like tax reform, trade, and of course health care reform, but by and large Republicans all have the same ultimate goals for these key areas. Yet despite the overwhelming consensus that exists on most of these issues, there seems to be an obsession with advancing a narrative of a deeply divided Republican majority. According to this popular narrative, House and Senate Republicans have completely different views on tax reform, Republicans in Congress oppose everything President Trump wants to do on trade, and Senate Republicans are deeply at odds on

how to press forward on repealing and replacing ObamaCare.

As chairman of the Senate committee that is right in the middle of all these issues, I get asked to comment on these matters, literally, dozens of times every day. The questions take many forms. Senator X says Congress should do ``blank'' with ObamaCare. What do you think? Can the House's tax reform plan pass in the Senate? President Trump said ``blank'' today. Is that going to fly in your committee?

These questions may seem straightforward. However, the underlying question behind all of these lines of inquiry is: Will you publically disagree with or criticize another Republican so we can write another story about Republican divisions? Matters such as repealing and replacing ObamaCare or reforming the Tax Code are certainly important topics that are rightly under intense public scrutiny. However, given that these monumental efforts are still in the early stages, the fact that there are some relatively minor differences of opinion shouldn't be all that noteworthy. The existence of these differences in the initial stages of the process doesn't significantly jeopardize the success of these efforts. The purpose of the legislative process-- particularly the process we use in the Senate--is to allow differences to be aired and worked through so, at the end of the process, consensus can be reached. Differing views on some issues at the beginning of the process are to be expected. Once again, they are hardly noteworthy.

Case in point, Republicans are united in our desire to repeal and replace ObamaCare. The vast majority of us want reforms that are more patient-centered and market-driven. As far as I know, pretty much all of us want to return most of the authority for regulating the health care system back to the States. On some of the other questions, let me make clear what my position is just so there is no confusion on these points. I believe we should repeal ObamaCare--including the taxes--and provide for a stable transition period. I believe the work to replace ObamaCare should also begin immediately, meaning that our repeal bill should include as many ObamaCare replacement policies as procedures allow. A more complete replacement can and should be crafted in the coming months as we work through some of the more complicated issues. That has been my position since roughly March of 2010, when the final pieces of ObamaCare were signed into law. I have repeated it numerous times over the years. Moreover, I believe most Republicans in Congress share that same view.

Do some Republicans have different views regarding the proper order and procedure for this endeavor? I am sure they do. But I don't know of a single Republican who does not want to get rid of ObamaCare. I certainly don't know any Republicans who are fine with the status quo in our health care system. That being the case, no one should be trying to parse anyone's words or split hairs in order to manufacture divisions in the Republican ranks on repealing and replacing ObamaCare.

I have little doubt that we can work through whatever differences do exist, and, more importantly, I think we will. I am not going to speculate today on the floor about what the final process or product will look like, but I will say that at the end of the day, only 3 numbers matter: 218, 51 and 1. Those are the numbers of supporters we need at each step to pass an ObamaCare repeal and replacement.

At this point, given what we currently know, I strongly believe that the process I described earlier--a full repeal and a responsible transition, coupled with a sizable downpayment on replacement, followed by a committed effort to implement additional replacement policies in the coming months--provides the best path forward to achieving those thresholds. Like I said, most Republicans in Congress agree with me.

We can discuss other ideas, and I am happy to engage in that discussion, but those numbers--218, 51, and 1--have to be the standard by which we judge any alternatives. And while I would love to see the final product pass with even larger numbers, and even with some Democrats onboard with us, those numbers give us a clear picture as to how much consensus is necessary.

Once again, I think we can get there, and I am continually working with colleagues in both the House and Senate to make sure we do.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, the Committee on Finance has adopted rules governing its procedures for the 115th Congress. Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 2, of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the accompanying rules for the Senate Committee on Finance be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I take umbrage with what the minority leader said. I sat here and listened to the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts, who went on and on and on. Many of her remarks were criticizing a fellow colleague in the Senate. I don't know about the other side, but I find it offensive for either side to be criticizing, as was done here tonight, a sitting Member of the Senate.

I am absolutely astounded that the Democrats, my friends on the other side, have taken to the war tables a desire to defeat Jeff Sessions. I have been here a long time, and I have to say that I knew Jeff Sessions even before he came here, and I have known him since he has been here. And, yes, I differ with him on a number of issues, but I would never say things about him as have been said by my colleagues on the other side. I think that we all ought to take some stock in what we are doing here.

Jeff Sessions is a very fine person. Think of his wife. She is a really fine person. Jeff has been here 20 years. He has interchanged with almost all of us. Sometimes you agree with him, and sometimes you disagree with him, but he has always been a gentleman. He has always been kind and considerate of his colleagues. I can't name one time when he wasn't. Yet we are treating him like he is some terrible person who doesn't deserve to be chosen by the current President of the United States to be Attorney General of the United States.

I think we ought to be ashamed of ourselves--I really do--on both sides. And frankly, we have to get to where everything is not an issue here. I know some of my friends on the other side and I have chatted, and they are not happy with the way this body is going with good reason.

Everything doesn't have to lead to a gun fight on the floor, but that is where we are going. And frankly, sometimes there is an awful lot of politics being played here on both sides.

Look, I happen to like the senior Senator from Massachusetts. I think she is an intelligent, lovely woman in many ways. But I have to tell you, I listened to her for quite a while, and she didn't have a good thing to say about a fellow Senator. Frankly, I don't think that is right. If we don't respect each other, we are going down a very steep path to oblivion.

I would hope that both sides would take stock of these debates. We can differ. We understand that the Democrats are not happy with the current President. We are happy with him. We can differ on that, and we can fight over various issues and so forth. But to attack a fellow Senator without reservation seems to me the wrong thing to do.

It may not have risen to the level of a violation of the rules, but I think it comes close, and I have sat here and listened to most of it and, frankly, I don't believe that the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts was right in any respect. I have been here a long time and I have seen some pretty rough talk, but never like we have had this first couple of months here. We have gone so far on both sides that we are almost dysfunctional.

I admit it was tough for the Democrats to lose the Presidential election. Most people thought that Hillary Clinton would win. I was not one of them. I thought there was a real chance because I knew a lot of people would not say for whom they were going to vote. I think, correctly, I interpreted that meant that they were going to vote for Donald Trump, and the reason they were is that they are tired of what is going on. They are tired of what is hurting this country. They are tired of the picayune little fights that we have around here.

I think we have to grow up. I suggest that all of us take stock of ourselves and see if we can treat each other with greater respect. I have to say, I resented--as much as I like the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts, I resent the constant diatribe against a fellow Senator. Even if everything she said was true, it wasn't the right thing to do. I don't think any of us should do that to them, either. We can differ, we can argue, we can fight over certain words and so forth, but I have been appalled at the way the Democrats have treated Jeff Sessions. I have found Jeff Sessions--having worked with him for 20 years and having disagreed with him on a number of things--to be a gentleman in every respect and to present his viewpoints in a reasonable and decent way.

I would hope that my colleagues on the other side would consider voting

for Jeff Sessions or at least treating him with respect.

I admit that I think some of this comes from the fact that they are very upset at Donald Trump, and it is easy to see why. He won a very tough, contested election against one of their principal people. That is hard to take, maybe. That doesn't justify what has been going on against Jeff Sessions.

We ought to be proud that Jeff has a chance to become the Attorney General of the United States, and he is going to be. That is the thing that really bothers me. Everybody on the other side knows that we have the votes to finally do this. Yet, they are treating it as though this is something that they have to try and win--which they are not going to win--and, in the process, treating a fellow Senator with disdain. It is wrong.

We should all take stock of ourselves. I am not accusing my colleagues of not being sincere, but they have been sincerely wrong. I am personally fed up with it. If we want to fight every day and just go after each other like people who just don't care about etiquette and courtesy, I guess we can do that, but I think it is the wrong thing to do.

I hope all of us will stop, take note of what has been going on, and on both sides start trying to work together. I know it was tough for my Democrat friends to lose the Presidential election. I know that was tough. And they didn't think they were going to, and, frankly, a lot of us didn't think they were going to. I did think that. But, then again, I was one of two Senators who supported Donald Trump, in my opinion, with very, very good reason. I am sure that doesn't convince any Democrats on the other side.

The fact is that we have to treat each other with respect or this place is going to devolve into nothing but a jungle, and that would truly be a very, very bad thing.

I am not perfect, so I don't mean to act like I am, but I have to say that all of us need to take stock. We need to start thinking about the people on the other side. We need to start thinking about how we might bring each other together in the best interests of our country and how we might literally elevate the Senate to the position that we all hope it will be.

I love all of my colleagues. There is not one person in this body that I don't care for a lot. I disagree quite a bit with some of my colleagues on the other side, and even some folks on our side, but that doesn't mean that I have to treat them with disrespect.

I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, I rise today to honor the memory of LaVell Edwards, a giant of the gridiron who guided the Brigham Young University football program through decades of unprecedented success. Surrounded by his family, Coach Edwards passed away peacefully on the morning of December 29, 2016.

Born to Philo and Addie Edwards in 1930 in Orem, UT, he excelled in football and basketball at Lincoln High School.

Following graduation, he decided to attend Utah State University to play football. LaVell figured that if he played for BYU, the hometown school, he would have lived at home and been required to milk the family cows, so he went north to Logan. At Utah State, he met the love of his life, Patti Covey. A few months after the two went on a blind date, they were married in Beaver Dam, UT.

Following graduation, LaVell served in the Army for 2 years. After receiving an honorable discharge from the military, he became head football coach at Granite High School in Salt Lake City.

After eight seasons as head coach, LaVell was hired at BYU by Hal Mitchell in 1962. LaVell humorously remarked that he was hired only because Coach Mitchell wanted to run the single wing offense and Coach Edwards was the only Mormon running that offense at the time.

After 10 seasons as an assistant coach at BYU, he was promoted to head coach in 1972. Prior to his promotion, BYU had never achieved much success in football. In LaVell's words, it was a matter of when, not if, he would be fired. So he decided to do something that few other coaches were doing at the time: make the forward pass the focal point of the offense. LaVell's bold move revolutionized the game of football. His quarterbacks ended up throwing for over 100,000 yards, and four of them won the Davey O'Brien Award, given annually to college football's best quarterback. One of his quarterbacks even won the Heisman Trophy, which is awarded each year to college football's best player. LaVell's high-powered offense boosted the team to national prominence and culminated in BYU's 1984 national championship victory.

Following this historic season, Coach Edwards was named the AFCA National Coach of the Year. With LaVell at the helm, BYU consistently finished in the top 25. He would eventually lead the Cougars to 19 conference championships and 257 victories, making him the seventh winningest coach in college football history. He coached 31 all- Americans, 6 College Football Hall of Famers, and 2 Outland Trophy winners. Coach Edwards himself was ultimately inducted into the College Football Hall of Fame in 2004.

Despite his tremendous success on the field, LaVell always remained humble. He also never lost his sense of humor. Although college football fans typically remember Coach Edwards for his trademark sideline scowl, he was renowned for his wit. He quipped on this fact, saying, ``Someone once said I'm a happy guy; I just forgot to tell my face.'' With his disarming humor and clever one-liners, LaVell could lighten the mood and make almost anyone laugh.

Coach Edwards also had a remarkable ability to delegate. Although he knew football forward and backward, he surrounded himself with capable coaches and he let them do their jobs. His assistants were some of the best ever in college football, partially because he let them have free reign. This quality allowed him to focus on the personal element of football.

He valued all of his players, and by all accounts, his door was always open to them. Indeed, many of his players have spoken about having frequent meetings with him that helped change their lives for the better. At his funeral, hundreds of former football players showed up--Hall of Famers, top-notch-rated people in almost every case. I was there at the funeral on Saturday.

Coach Edwards simply cared about people, and I was fortunate to witness this up close. In the 100th Congress, I had the pleasure of working with him when he was president of the American Football Coaches Association. Together, we helped to pass legislation that allowed the AFCA to establish multiemployer pensions for college football coaches. Given the uncertain nature of the coaching profession, this legislation was an important achievement for coaches and their families across the country.

Although football was important to LaVell, his faith was first and foremost. While he was coaching at BYU, LaVell served as a lay bishop in a Mormon student congregation. He thoroughly enjoyed the interactions he had with those students.

Throughout his life, he served his church in many other positions of responsibility. Following his retirement from coaching in 2000, LaVell and Patti served a public affairs mission in New York City for the Mormon Church. He served honorably in that capacity and even put his experience as a football coach to good use.

I might add that he invited me to come up and go to dinner with a number of dignitaries in that area so that he could chat with them and tell them a little bit about his faith and his beliefs, and it was a privilege to do so.

He and Patti were terrific missionaries and good people. While a missionary, LaVell aided in the establishment of Harlem's first high school football program in decades.

Coach Edwards and Patti also met with many different political and religious leaders, and, as he put it, they looked to ``build bridges'' between these leaders and his church.

Madam President, LaVell Edwards was a champion on and off the field. Not only was he one of the most successful coaches in college football history, he was also one of the greatest men I ever knew. I will be forever grateful for my own friendship with LaVell, and I pray that we will always remember the humility and humor that were the hallmarks of his life. It was one of the privileges of my life to have a personal relationship with him and Patti. They are two of the finest people I have ever met.

I have to say that LaVell would drop anything to support his religious beliefs, and he was a tremendous influence on literally hundreds, if not thousands, of football players and others who watched what he said, watched what he did, and loved how well he did those things.

I personally was befriended by him on a number of occasions, and it meant a lot to me. It means a lot to me to this day not because he was so important, he was one of the greatest coaches who ever lived, and he was in the Hall of Fame, but because he was down-to-earth, a person who loved to play golf, loved all sports, and loved being with people. And when he supported you, it was really support.

All I can say is, he is one of the greatest men I have ever met in my life. He had a great influence on so many people--still does. His wife is every bit as great as he has been. Both are tremendous human beings who have made this world a better place to live.

From a football standpoint, I think most coaches who knew him would say he was unexcelled, and I agree that is true, but that was minor compared to the type of life he lived, the type of things he did, the type of honors he shared, the type of kindness he showed, the ability to talk to people and help them through the problems they had, and, of course, the overall genuine goodness of a fellow whose life was well spent, who touched so many lives, literally hundreds of thousands of lives over the years, and who had this tremendous sense of humor that made being around him a real pleasure.

I am grateful I knew LaVell Edwards well. I am grateful for the life he lived. I am grateful for the example he set. I am grateful for the joy he brought to so many people. And I wish his dear wife Patti well. I just hope that these words will be a little bit of consolation for her.

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 rise today in support of the nomination of Judge Neil M. Gorsuch to serve as the next Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. Judge Gorsuch has been nominated to fill the seat left vacant by the late Justice Antonin Scalia.

Justice Scalia was a dear friend of mine, and his death was a great loss to me and to our country, not just to me personally but for the whole Nation. Justice Scalia joined the Supreme Court after years of unbridled activism by the Court, during which time Justices imposed their own left-wing views--completely unmoored from the law as written--on the American people.

In response, he led a much needed revolution based on the enduring principle that the role of a judge is to say what the law is, not what a judge wishes it were. As the intellectual architect of the effort to restore the judiciary to its proper role under the Constitution, Justice Scalia was a singularly influential jurist.

To say that he leaves big shoes to fill is an understatement. Any worthy successor to his legacy will not only be committed to continuing his life's work but also capable of delivering the sort of intellectual firepower and leadership that Justice Scalia provided for decades.

Of all the potential candidates for this position, this vacancy, Neil Gorsuch stands out as the jurist best positioned to fill this role. His resume

can only be described as stellar: Columbia University, a Marshall Scholarship to study at Oxford, Harvard Law School, clerkships for Judge Sentelle on the DC Circuit and for Justices White and Kennedy on the Supreme Court, a distinguished career in private practice and at the Department of Justice, and more than a decade of service on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

Even among his many talented colleagues on the Federal bench, his opinions consistently stand out for their clarity, thoughtfulness, and airtight reasoning. In the words of one of his colleagues appointed by President Carter, Judge Gorsuch ``writes opinions in a unique style that has more verve and vitality than any other judge I study on a regular basis.'' He continued: ``Judge Gorsuch listens well and decides justly. His dissents are instructive rather than vitriolic. In sum, I think he is an excellent judicial craftsman.''

This view of Judge Gorsuch's capabilities is broadly shared across a wide swath of legal observers. Consider some other descriptions of his qualifications from outlets that could hardly be considered conservative. The New York Times reported on his ``credentials and erudition.'' The Los Angeles Times called him a ``highly regarded . . . jurist,'' and ABC News described how ``in legal circles, he's considered a gifted writer.''

I think there can be no doubt that Judge Gorsuch has the credentials to make him a capable and effective member of the U.S. Supreme Court. Nevertheless, I have long held that a nominee's resume alone--no matter how sterling--should not be considered sufficient evidence to merit confirmation to the Supreme Court. Rather, we should also consider a nominee's judicial philosophy. In this analysis, Judge Gorsuch has developed a record that should command ironclad confidence in his understanding of the proper role of a judge under the Constitution.

Judge Gorsuch's opinions and writings show a clear fidelity to a judge's proper role. While his body of work is replete with examples of this fidelity, I want to point to one example in particular, a lecture he delivered last year in the wake of Justice Scalia's death that is one of the most thoughtful and persuasive cases for the proper role of a judge that I have ever read. In it, he affirmed his allegiance to the traditional account of the judicial role championed by Justice Scalia, which he described as such:

The great project of Justice Scalia's career was to remind

us of the differences between judges and legislators. To

remind us that legislators may appeal to their own moral

convictions and to claims about social utility to reshape the

law as they think it should be in the future. But that judges

should do none of these things in a democratic society. That

judges should instead strive (if humanly and so imperfectly)

to apply the law as it is, focusing backward, not forward,

and looking to text, structure, and history to decide what a

reasonable reader at the time of the events in question would

have understood the law to be--not to decide cases based on

their own moral convictions or the policy consequences they

believe might serve society best.

As Justice Scalia put it, ``If you are going to be a good and faithful judge, you have to resign yourself to the fact that you're not always going to like the conclusions you reach. If you like them all the time, you are probably doing something wrong.''

This is exactly the kind of judicial philosophy we need our judges to espouse, and Neil Gorsuch is exactly the man to embody it on the Supreme Court. If there is one line in that lecture to which I could draw attention, it is the quotation of Justice Scalia's formulation of the very basic notion that a good judge will oftentimes reach outcomes that he does not personally agree with as a matter of policy. Such a notion should be uncontroversial.

Indeed, many of Justice Scalia's brightest opinions came in cases in which I suspect he would have voted differently as a legislator than as a judge. Yet such a concept might seem wholly foreign to a casual observer of media coverage of the Supreme Court, in which cases are invariably viewed through a political lens. Decisions and Justices are regularly described as liberal or conservative, with little attention paid to rationale and methodology, the matters properly at the core of a judge's work. This phenomenon reflects a regrettable dynamic observed by Justice Scalia himself. As the late Justice observed, when judges substitute their personal policy preferences for the fixed and discernible meaning of the law, the selection of judges--in particular, the selection of Supreme Court Justices--becomes what he called a mini- plebiscite on the meaning of the Constitution and laws of this country. Put another way, if judges are empowered to rewrite the laws as they please, the judicial appointment process becomes a matter of selecting life-tenured legislators practically immune from any accountability whatsoever.

If we value such a system of judicial review, a system deeply at odds with the Constitution's concept of the judiciary, then one can easily see why judicial selection becomes a matter of producing particular policy outcomes. Thus, it is easy to see why many on the left who believe in such a system demand litmus tests on hot-button policy issues. To them, a judge is not fit to serve unless they rule in a way that produces a particular policy. Simply put, this is a terrible way to approach judicial selection. It undermines the Constitution and all of the crucial principles that it enshrines from the rule of law to the notion that our government's legitimacy depends on the consent of the government.

A good judge is not one that we can depend on to produce particular policy outcomes. A good judge is one we can depend on to produce the outcomes commanded by the law and the Constitution. Neil Gorsuch has firmly established himself as that kind of a judge. In Neil Gorsuch's America, the laws that bind us are made by the people's elected representatives, not unelected, unaccountable judges. In Neil Gorsuch's America, the powers and limits of each branch of government are decided by the Constitution, no matter whether their enforcement produces a liberal or conservative outcome. In Neil Gorsuch's America, the basic freedoms of the American people enumerated in the Bill of Rights are carefully protected, whether they are in fashion lately with the left, the right, both or neither. In Neil Gorsuch's America, the views that matter are yours and mine, not those of a handful of lawyers in black robes in Washington.

For these reasons, I applaud the President for his absolutely stellar choice. Judge Gorsuch will do us proud as our next Supreme Court Justice. I will do everything in my power to ensure his confirmation. I will have more to say on this in the future, but I yield the floor at this time.

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

Mr. President, several years ago, Democrats in Congress pulled out all the stops to pass the so-called Affordable Care Act and force the system we now call ObamaCare on the American people. They passed the law on a purely partisan basis and without any regard for public opinion. Quite simply, it was one of the most blatant exercises in pure partisanship in our Nation's history. It deepened partisan divides in Washington and around the country and contributed to the cynicism many have about whether their government is actually paying attention to their needs. Worst of all, in the years since the passage of ObamaCare, the American people have been paying the price in the form of skyrocketing costs, fewer choices, burdensome mandates, and unfair taxes.

For 7 years, many of us in Congress--virtually all of us on the Republican side--have been working to right what has gone wrong under the Affordable Care Act. We have pledged to our constituents that, given the opportunity, we would repeal ObamaCare and replace it with reforms more worthy of the American people. Those promises are among the biggest reasons why we Republicans are now fortunate enough to find ourselves in control of Congress and, very soon, the White House.

Last night we took a big step in the effort to repeal and replace ObamaCare. With the budget resolution passed, many in Washington and in the media are talking about what happens next. We are hearing a lot of discussion about the timing of our repeal-and-replace efforts, with some arguing that we should hit the brakes and solve every problem in advance of taking another vote. My view is that the repeal of ObamaCare cannot wait. The American people need us to act now. While there is still some debate as to what our replacement plan should look like, a majority of Senators voted last night to give us the tools to take the next steps to repeal and replace ObamaCare. The American people have entrusted us with the power to do just that.

We could spend the next several months coming up with more slogans and analogies, but this is not a campaign. The elections have been won, and it is time to do what our constituents have sent us here to do. I am not saying we need to put off the replacement effort. On the contrary, I think it is important that the legislation we draft pursuant to the budget reconciliation instructions include as many sensible health reforms as possible, keeping in mind the limitations that exist with our rules and the necessary vote count.

We should definitely work on making the largest possible downpayment on the ObamaCare replacement with the budget reconciliation bill. That downpayment should include measures that give individuals and families more control over their health care decisions and empower States to do more of the heavy lifting when it comes to regulating health care. In addition, we need to provide for a smooth transition period so we can maintain some stability in the health insurance markets and ensure that we are not leaving Americans who have insurance under the current system out in the cold.

As chairman of one of the primary committees with jurisdiction over these matters, I have been working closely with my House counterparts-- Chairman Kevin Brady of the House Ways and Means Committee and Chairman Greg Walden of the House Energy and Commerce Committee--to develop proposals on the matters that fall within our purviews. We have been talking with stakeholders throughout the country and working through the various problems that exist. That work will continue unabated as we work on the immediate repeal effort and into the future. I am quite certain that my friend who chairs the Senate HELP Committee has been similarly engaged in addressing the draconian insurance regulations that were imposed under ObamaCare, as well as the other parts of the law that are within that committee's jurisdiction.

In other words, the work to replace ObamaCare is ongoing, and we hope to have some initial elements ready to include in the budget reconciliation package. That work will continue once the repeal has been passed and signed into law so that we can help ensure that affordable health care options exist for Americans. We do not need to wait until every single replacement measure is drafted and agreed upon before moving forward. Instead, we need the incoming administration to add to our current efforts and work with us to produce a full replacement plan and then to execute it. I look forward to continuing to work with President-Elect Trump and his team.

The path forward on replacing ObamaCare could end up taking many forms. We could draft and pass a series of limited reforms to replace ObamaCare piece by piece or we could pull together a full and comprehensive replacement package that puts all the necessary changes into law at once. I think there are merits and potential pitfalls with either approach. That is something we need to consider as we move forward, but it is not a decision that needs to be made before we can keep the promises we all made to our constituents to repeal ObamaCare.

To be sure, replacing ObamaCare is going to be a difficult process; however, with a new and more cooperative administration in place, I have every confidence we can accomplish these important objectives without imposing artificial deadlines or goalposts or putting the repeal process on hold. All of this is possible so long as we remain committed to the principles that have guided most of our efforts thus far. For example, in my view, the new reforms need to be patient- centered, not government-driven. They need to recognize the reality of the marketplace and the benefits of competition. Perhaps most importantly, any suitable reforms need to put the States back in charge of regulating and overseeing health care policy. If the ObamaCare experience has taught us anything, it is that when the Federal Government gets a hold of something that is as consequential as health care, it will overpromise results, overstep its authority, and overregulate the subject matter.

As I have said a number of times, Utah is not California or Massachusetts, and California and Massachusetts are not Utah. All of our States face different challenges and have different needs. There is no reason to begin with the premise that any single approach to health care policy is what is best for the entire country. That is why I, along with several of my colleagues, have been engaging with stakeholders at the State level for quite some time as we work to craft reforms and to put them in place. For example, next week the Senate Finance

Committee is hosting a roundtable discussion on Medicaid with some of the most prominent Governors in the country. I am pleased that Energy and Commerce chairman Greg Walden will join us for the discussion as well. This meeting and others like it will give States the opportunity to detail the challenges they face and how we can empower them to meet those challenges instead of dictating solutions from offices here in Washington, DC.

I believe all of my colleagues want to be judicious and methodical with this undertaking. No one wants to act recklessly and do even more damage to our Nation's health care system. Discussions and debates over the substance of our ObamaCare replacement should continue. As I said, they have been going on for some time now, and they are not going to stop. But after last night, we have the tools we need to take the first major step in this effort by repealing ObamaCare. In my view, we need to take that step now.

Republicans are united in our desire to repeal ObamaCare. We have the support of the American people to do just that, and I personally will do all I can to deliver on that promise. I hope our friends on the other side will work with us. If they will, I think we can come up with an approach toward health care that not only will work but will be better for our country but most importantly, better for our citizens, better for the States that will manage a lot better than we will here, and better for our citizens within those States.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Madam President, ObamaCare exacerbated financial pressures on the Medicaid Program at a time when many States were already facing difficult choices. Even before ObamaCare, Medicaid was plagued by quality issues and the law did nothing to address these problems. Instead, under ObamaCare, able-bodied adults not previously eligible, including some prisoners, are now covered by Medicaid which has strained already limited resources at the State level.

Republicans are committed to working with States, stakeholders, and the American public to improve the quality of the Medicaid Program, ensuring its long-term sustainability. That is reflected in my amendment. My amendment would create a reserve fund to allow for reforms to Medicaid and ensure the program has the right priorities.

I urge my colleagues to vote for my amendment and against the Menendez amendment, which is simply designed to prevent the repeal of ObamaCare and enshrine its flawed approach to Medicaid in a budget point of order.

Madam President, I move to waive the applicable provisions of the Budget Act with respect to my amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, as I stated, ObamaCare came along when States were already facing difficult fiscal choices, and, sadly, made things worse. ObamaCare's Medicaid expansion exacerbated the pressure on States without even addressing the numerous quality issues in the program. Republicans are still committed to working with interested parties, including our State governments, to reform Medicaid and ensure its long-term sustainability. That is the purpose of my amendment here tonight.

My amendment would create a deficit-neutral reserve fund to allow for reforms to Medicaid as well as the Children's Health Insurance Program and to ensure the programs have the right priorities.

I urge my colleagues to vote for my amendment and against the Brown amendment, which is simply designed to prevent the repeal of ObamaCare and enshrine its flawed approach to Medicaid in a budget point of order.

Mr. President, I move to waive the applicable provisions of the Budget Act for purposes of the pending amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, in the final hour of our legislative business early last December 10, we passed a remarkable bill. It had no ideological division, did not cost the taxpayers a dime, and will benefit Americans in every part of the country. And, like the House did, we passed it unanimously.

This bill had the somewhat unwieldy title of the Foreign Cultural Exchange Jurisdictional Immunity Clarification Act. While not lending itself to a catchy acronym, it is accurately descriptive. For more than 50 years, a Federal law has provided legal protection for art loaned by foreign governments for exhibition in the United States. Confidence in that protection is an essential piece of the complex arrangements that can take years to complete in order to bring wonderful exhibits to American museums for everyone to enjoy.

America has hundreds of museums of all sorts. The art museum at Brigham Young University, for example, is one of the largest and best attended in the Mountain West. When it began working on a major exhibition of art from Islamic countries, some of its loan requests were unexpectedly denied. It turns out that a 2007 Federal court decision had made such loans risky, rather than secure. After that court decision, the act of lending, even after State Department review and approval, could actually lead to a new category of lawsuits against the foreign lenders.

This legislation, now signed into law, reverses that court decision and clarifies that lending art after State Department review does not raise the possibility of new litigation. Foreign governments can once again have confidence that lending art for exhibition will improve cultural understanding and enrich people's lives without the threat of new lawsuits.

The bill has two narrow exceptions. I want to thank Dr. Wesley Fisher, director of research at the Conference on Jewish Material Claims against Germany, and Rabbi Andrew Baker, director of International Jewish Affairs at the American Jewish Committee, for their help in drafting the exception for Nazi-era claims. The second exception covers comparable state-sponsored coercive campaigns of cultural plunder. Art that was looted in such a campaign should not be given protection for exhibition in the United States.

The senior Senator from California, Mrs. Feinstein, was my principal partner in this effort. She and her staff have been patient, thoughtful, and dedicated; in particular, I want to thank her chief counsel, Eric Haren, and counsel Lartease Tiffith for working so diligently with my own chief counsel, Tom Jipping. The problem to be solved was clear, but it was challenging to find the right language to solve that problem without unintended consequences.

I also want to thank the Association of Art Museum Directors, their director of government affairs Anita Difanis, and their special counsel Josh Knerly. They have been committed to this goal from the start, and their effort began with educating many of us about this unique area of law and policy. They mobilized hundreds of art institutions and associations to support this bill. And they were flexible about many things while staying focused on the essentials.

I gratefully acknowledge the consistent support for this legislation from the BYU Museum of Art, the Utah Fine Arts Museum, and the Utah Museums Association. We have a vibrant art community in Utah, and this legislation means that these fine institutions have additional opportunities to bring new experiences to the people in our great State.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record following my remarks a letter from James S. Snyder, director of The Israel Museum in Jerusalem. He writes that the risk of new lawsuits has been ``a disincentive to lend works to American museums,'' but that this legislation ``will ensure that museums worldwide can continue to lend to American museums in the precise spirit of international cultural cooperation that U.S. Immunity from Seizure protection was intended to provide.'' That, in a nutshell, is the problem and the solution we are enacting today.

This legislation restores the confidence that foreign governments need to lend art for exhibitions that Americans across the country can enjoy. That is something we can all be proud of.