Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to speak on the latest efforts to derail the nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to be Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. I would like to focus today on a few areas where attacks have come up.

Judge Kavanaugh's critics, faced with an exceptionally well- qualified, baseball-loving, carpool-driving nominee, are struggling to find anything that might slow or even stop his confirmation. Let me focus today on a few areas where their attacks have come up short.

It seems that some folks can't mention Judge Kavanaugh without suggesting in the same breath that his confirmation would somehow be the death knell of Special Counsel Mueller's investigation. It can be difficult to keep straight critics' dizzying array of claims on these separation of powers issues, but it is worth taking a closer look to set the record straight.

It was hard to miss the headline, ``Brett Kavanaugh Once Argued That a

Sitting President Is Above the Law,'' or the article that suggested Judge Kavanaugh ``has been an open advocate for precisely the sort of imperial presidency that the founders of the American experiment feared.''

Democrats soon piled on, but never in the law review article that spurred this hysteria did Judge Kavanaugh suggest that a President would be immune from civil or criminal liability. Rather, he suggested that, as a policy matter, it might be wise for Congress to enact a law that would defer such litigation until the President leaves office, and, of course, Congress could accelerate that timeline through impeachment.

Judge Kavanaugh's law review article represents an interesting policy proposal--and one, it is worth noting, that he offered while a Democrat was in the White House. The critics' attempts to equate his policy recommendations with his views on the constitutional limitations on prosecutions of sitting Presidents are simply wrong. If anything, Judge Kavanaugh's recommendation that Congress enact a law suggests that in the absence of any such legislation, a sitting President can be investigated and perhaps even prosecuted.

Then there was the hoopla over Judge Kavanaugh's statement that he would ``put the final nail'' in the ruling that upheld the constitutionality of independent counsels; never mind the fact that the independent counsel statute expired nearly two decades ago and was described by Eric Holder as ``too flawed to be renewed.''

Today, special counsels, such as Robert Mueller, are appointed pursuant to Department of Justice regulations. They do not represent the same constitutional concerns as the independent counsel statute. By conflating independent counsels and special counsels, Judge Kavanaugh's critics ignore his own record on the matter.

In a dissenting opinion he wrote last year, Judge Kavanaugh himself observed: ``The independent counsel is, of course, distinct from the traditional special counsels who are appointed by the Attorney General for particular matters.'' But Democrats just figure that the average American will gloss over the distinction between independent counsels and special counsels and tune out legal experts who say that Judge Kavanaugh's views on the independent counsel law have absolutely nothing to do with the Mueller investigation. By the time we are on to them, Democrats will have already moved on to a new line of attack.

The latest was the minority leader's suggestion that Judge Kavanaugh ``would have let Nixon off the hook'' based on comments Judge Kavanaugh once made about the Supreme Court's unanimous decision in the United States v. Nixon. They forced President Nixon to turn over the Watergate tapes, but those comments--read by some who would suggest that Judge Kavanaugh thinks the case was wrongly decided--ignores the context of those specific remarks and the mountain of evidence that Judge Kavanaugh agrees with the Court's ruling in Nixon.

There is the law review article in which Judge Kavanaugh wrote that there was ``no need to revisit'' Nixon and that the case ``reflects the proper balance of the President's need for confidentiality and the government's interest in obtaining all relevant evidence for criminal proceedings.''

More recently, he has cited Nixon as one of ``the greatest moments in American judicial history . . . when judges stood up to the other branches, were not cowed, and enforced the law.''

Those sure don't sound like the words of a judge who is critical of the Court's decision in Nixon, much less a judge who would vote to overrule it, but this more fulsome look at Judge Kavanaugh's writings on the issue is at odds with the Democrats' campaign to paint Judge Kavanaugh as an existential threat to the Mueller investigation. So they are content to cherry-pick and mischaracterize Judge Kavanaugh's record.

On the subject of Judge Kavanaugh's record, I would also like to talk about the Democrats' fixation on the issue of Judge Kavanaugh's documents from his years of service in the executive branch. It has only been 2 weeks since President Trump nominated Judge Kavanaugh, and yet Democrats seem more interested in using their time talking about documents they do not yet have rather than carefully reviewing the unprecedented number of documents that are already available to the Senate and the American public. Specifically, we aren't hearing much from Democrats about the more than 300 opinions Judge Kavanaugh has authored during his time on the Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. In these opinions, Judge Kavanaugh has addressed a vast array of hot-button issues Democrats claim to be so interested in: separation of powers, administrative law, national security, religious liberty, immigration, and so many more.

Something Judge Kavanaugh told me when I met with him recently really stuck with me. He told me, he hoped people would actually read his opinions, not just articles about his opinions but actually read the opinions themselves. So I would urge my Senate colleagues to indulge Judge Kavanaugh on this point. These opinions are gold for any Senator making an honest effort to evaluate Judge Kavanaugh's judicial philosophy.

Judge Kavanaugh has spent the past 12 years in public service and as a Federal appellate judge. Now, he has been nominated to be--you guessed it--a Federal appellate judge. I can think of no better evidence of Judge Kavanaugh's judicial philosophy or his qualifications to serve on our Nation's highest Court than the thousands of pages and opinions he authored during his time on what is arguably our Nation's second highest Court. If Democrats actually took the time to follow Judge Kavanaugh's advice and read his opinions--not just articles about them or summaries prepared by staff--they might be disappointed to learn that there is nothing to suggest that people will die if he is confirmed, and they might actually learn how Judge Kavanaugh interprets the Constitution and the laws passed by Congress. Isn't that what all of this commotion is about? It is about documents. Isn't that really what it is about?

I suggest Judge Kavanaugh's opinions should be more than enough to assess his qualifications and judicial temperament, not to mention the thousands of pages from his time in the executive branch that are already publicly available. I understand this represents just a fraction of the documents the Senate will ultimately receive--likely to be far more than those received for any other Supreme Court nominee in history.

Senator Grassley has pledged that relevant records will be made available through a fair and thorough process, but, for some, it is never enough. We have heard Democrats claim they are not demanding every scrap of paper that crosses Judge Kavanaugh's White House desk, but they have also said the standard for determining what is relevant and subject to production should be whatever Senators--in other words, Democrats--think is relevant. Some have even claimed that all the documents are ``extremely relevant.''

Well, if Democrats think the standard for document production should be whatever Senators think is relevant--and they think everything is relevant--then it sure sounds like they are asking for every scrap of paper.

Now, it is true that Republicans sought White House documents for Justice Kagan's nomination, but these two nominations--Kagan and Kavanaugh--are hardly comparable. At the time of her nomination, Justice Kagan had no judicial record to speak of whatsoever, having never served as a judge at any level. She had no written opinions. There was almost nothing we could use to assess her judicial philosophy.

The White House record was among the very limited information we had to gauge her fitness to serve, so, of course, we asked to see it. By contrast, Judge Kavanaugh has 12 years of experience on the Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, the second highest Court in this country, and that is not even to mention over 300 opinions.

Again, thousands of pages have been written clearly outlining Judge Kavanaugh's views on the Constitution. If Judge Kavanaugh's extensive record is not enough to paint a clear picture of judicial philosophy, then what is? What more do Democrats need to know that this is a man who is eminently qualified to serve on our Nation's highest Court?

I can only think of one reason a Senator would need every scrap of paper to evaluate the qualifications of a judicial nominee--any nominee, for that matter--that is, if they are going on a never-ending fishing expedition, which is clearly what the Democrats have been doing since the day Judge Kavanaugh's nomination was announced.

I urge my colleagues to follow Judge Kavanaugh's advice. Read his opinions. You undoubtedly will learn something about how Judge Kavanaugh interprets the Constitution and the laws passed by Congress. Then, by all means, continue your fishing expedition, but at least you will have consulted the record that matters the most.

All I can say is, this man has an excellent record. There are plenty of things to look at. The more you look at them, the more you realize this fellow does really belong on the Supreme Court, and he will make a difference in the future.

Pioneer Day

Mr. President, on another matter, I wish to speak today in celebration of Pioneer Day, a holiday my home State of Utah observes each July 24 to commemorate the arrival of the Mormon pioneers to the Great Salt Lake Valley. On this special day, Utah and communities in other States remember the extraordinary history of the Mormon pioneers who endured tremendous hardship in search of religious freedom in this great country that is set up for religious freedom, but they were mistreated and fought against from day one.

In honor of Pioneer Day, I submitted a Senate resolution recognizing the sacrifices of the Mormon pioneers in their pursuit of religious liberty and their invaluable contributions to the settlement of the American West. I hope the Senate will join me in commending the pioneers for their example of courage, industry, and faith that continues to inspire people throughout the world.

In the years following the establishment of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in 1830, the Latter-day Saints--or Mormons as they are more commonly known--encountered much religious persecution in this freest of all lands. They suffered physical assault, threats of violence, death, in some cases, and war, prison, rape, and murder. Violent mobs damaged their houses and businesses, stole their property, and drove them from their homes. Especially devastating was the martyrdom of their leader and beloved prophet, Joseph Smith, who was shot and killed with his brother as well, by an armed mob.

Despite the discrimination and abuse they endured--sometimes at the hands of government officials who should have protected them from violence and injustice--the Latter-day Saints remained a patriotic people who loved and revered the Constitution of the United States. Still, they recognized they would need to seek refuge in an unknown territory to live in safety and practice their religion free from hostility and abuse.

In search of such a haven, the Mormon pioneers fled Illinois in the winter of 1846 and proceeded westward on a journey that would cover more than 1,300 miles of wilderness, across arid deserts, jagged mountains, and turbulent rivers.

Along the way, the Mormon pioneers erected bridges, built ferries, and cleared trails to assist those who would follow their path. They established communities, planted crops, and expanded trade posts that provided the crucial supplies necessary to survive expeditions onward. They learned how to irrigate and make the desert blossom as a rose, and their irrigation principles have been followed all over the world.

They set up trail markers and charted maps that guided thousands of settlers westward. The United States certainly owes a debt of gratitude to those pioneers for their contributions to our Nation's settlement of the West.

Their service to our country did not come without significant personal cost. Throughout the arduous trek, the pioneers battled harsh climates, illness, hunger, and exhaustion. Many lost their children, spouses, parents, and friends to exposure, disease, and starvation. Yet they confronted crippling sorrow and hardship with incredible grace and a steadfast trust in their Heavenly Father. They expressed gratitude for the strength to surmount each challenge and gloried in life's daily miracles. What could have broken their spirit only fortified their convictions and drew them closer to the Divine.

Upon entering Utah's Great Salt Lake Valley on July 24, 1847, their new leader, Brigham Young announced: ``This is the right place.'' This prophetic declaration foretold how the valley would become home to many Latter-day Saints and their posterity.

Unfamiliar with the area and with few resources at their disposal, the pioneers worked together to plant their crops, irrigate fields, and build houses and businesses, thus transforming the barren desert into a thriving set of communities.

Two years later, on July 24, the Latter-day Saints first commemorated their arrival to their new home with a procession to Salt Lake City's Temple Square for a special devotional followed by a feast of thanksgiving. Today, Pioneer Day is one of the largest regional celebrations in the United States, where we remember the early settlers with parades, flag ceremonies, reenactments, devotionals, sporting events, feasts, dances, concerts, festivals, rodeos, and fireworks.

The rich heritage of the pioneers is shared not only by Utahns and those of the Mormon faith but with people throughout the world, regardless of religious affiliation. These pioneers demonstrated what can be accomplished when industrious and resilient people stand together as one to build a brighter future. Their determination and ingenuity encourages our own pioneer spirit, calling on us to strive toward further progress and innovation. Their example of courage empowers us to triumph over adversity and inspires us to press forward with unconquerable faith and undaunted hope.

On Pioneer Day this July 24, I hope we not only remember these remarkable pioneers but reflect on what we can do to follow in their footsteps and ensure their legacy lives on in us and in future generations.

I am proud to be a descendant of these pioneers. My family was part of the pioneers. Yes, I was born in Pittsburgh, but I couldn't wait to move to Utah. I love Pittsburgh, but I love Utah more. I have to say, part of that is because of my pioneer heritage and my desire to see that Utah continually improves itself and continually makes its case on how important these pioneers really were and are to us even today.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I rise today to discuss the confirmation process for Brett Kavanaugh. By any honest measure, President Trump's nominee, Judge Kavanaugh, is exceptionally well qualified to serve on the Supreme Court. When he was nominated to the DC Circuit, he already had stellar credentials, a keen intellect, and an impressive knowledge of the law. He was confirmed to the DC Circuit Court in 2006, following years of Democratic obstruction. I have followed his work closely on that court for over a decade. His judicial record never ceases to impress.

A nominee with such a sterling reputation should receive wide bipartisan support. But over the years, I have seen firsthand the deterioration of the judicial confirmation process. When Justice Kennedy announced his retirement, I knew the Democrats would, again, play politics with the Supreme Court. It is what they have done for more than three decades. It is a matter of grave concern to me, especially with an eminently qualified nominee. They are casting about looking for something--really, anything--to stop Judge Kavanaugh's confirmation.

Because Democrats want political judges, they politicize the confirmation process. This is what they did to oppose Justice Neil Gorsuch when he was nominated. They took a few cases out of the thousands he had decided and distorted what he had said. They attacked him as being unfit to serve. They said he was unqualified to be a Justice, but Justice Gorsuch had an unassailable record as a principled jurist on the Federal bench.

We fought back against the misrepresentations, the caricatures, and the exaggerations, and the American people saw through the Democrats' ruse. They saw the kind of Justice Neil Gorsuch would be--a Justice who says what the law is, not what he wants it to be, a Justice who respects the separation of powers, a Justice who will stand up to the executive and legislative branches when they overreach. I believe the American people will see the same thing when they look at Judge Kavanaugh.

The debate over Judge Kavanaugh's confirmation should be a debate over his qualifications. Does he understand the proper role of a judge under our Constitution? Does he have the experience needed? Will he respect our Constitution and the rule of law?

With hundreds of opinions, Judge Kavanaugh has built a reputation as being one of the most respected and influential judges in the entire country. His incisive reasoning has led the Supreme Court to adopt his positions in at least 12 cases.

Fidelity to the Constitution and to the rule of law are hallmarks of his opinions. Importantly, his vast body of work shows a deep commitment to the separation of powers. His opinions demonstrate his commitment to the principle that judges should interpret the law, not make it.

Judge Kavanaugh should be asked questions about his rulings and his approach to the law. As a judge, he has developed a reputation for his preparation in court. I have no doubt that he can stand up under the most rigorous questioning.

Yet what we have seen so far is a mix of hyperbole, mudslinging, and distortion. Attacks aimed at Judge Kavanaugh have not focused on whether he is qualified to serve. They have not focused on whether he understands the role of a judge. They have not focused on how he will interpret the Constitution and the laws passed by Congress. When it comes to what we should be asking about a nominee, what we have seen so far is not even in the ballpark.

After scouring Judge Kavanaugh's financial disclosure, progressives thought they had struck gold with a shocking revelation that would, surely, turn public opinion against him. So

what salacious scandal did they uncover? What damning evidence did they find that would dash all hopes of confirmation?

The Presiding Officer is not going to believe this, but they discovered that Judge Kavanaugh enjoys America's pastime. That is right. Judge Kavanaugh loves baseball--horrors. Honestly, I couldn't believe it either. But wait. It gets worse.

Not only does Judge Kavanaugh love baseball, but he was once a season ticket holder at Nationals Park. OK, but here is the real kicker. Judge Kavanaugh bought those season tickets with a credit card--with a credit card of all things. As was the Presiding Officer, I was speechless too. I have been racking my brain all week trying to figure out how a credit card-using baseball fan could slip through the cracks of the White House's vetting process.

Now, I am being facetious to prove a point. We are only 9 days into the confirmation process, and progressive opposition is already beyond parody.

Of course, this is nothing new. Everything we have seen so far comes directly from the Democrats' playbook. Throw every rumor, half-truth, and exaggeration at the nominee, and just see what sticks. When nothing sticks, double down on partisan attacks, take past statements out of context, mischaracterize his positions, and lob a hyperbolic Hail Mary if you have to. Do everything you can to denigrate, disparage, and dehumanize the nominee no matter his qualifications or character.

If Democrats continue down this path, we are going to lose all ability to debate matters of public importance. We cannot expect that all debate will be well reasoned, but opposition should, at the very least, be rational. It should never be hysterical. The rhetoric used to oppose Judge Kavanaugh crosses that line.

Just last week, when speaking about Judge Kavanaugh's impressive resume, I said you could not knock Yale, Harvard, or Georgetown. Maybe I spoke too soon. Shortly after the announcement that Judge Kavanaugh would be the nominee, Yale Law School released a statement with praise of Judge Kavanaugh from professors and administrators.

One professor even noted that ``politics have deeply harmed our Supreme Court nomination process,'' but she lauded Judge Kavanaugh as being a ``true intellectual,'' an ``incomparable mentor,'' and a ``fair-minded jurist who believes in the rule of law.'' She went on to say that ``he is humble, collegial, and cares deeply about the federal courts.''

The response from some Yale Law School students, staff, and alumni was swift, forceful, uncompromising, and completely ridiculous: ``People will die if he is confirmed.'' As these Yale alumni were feverishly opposing the nomination, Judge Kavanaugh was spotted volunteering his time with a local charity to distribute food to the poor. His decision to keep his commitment to volunteer the week he was nominated to the Supreme Court says more about Judge Kavanaugh than any letter could.

This overwrought reaction, sadly, comes as no surprise. Crying wolf is the left's trademark strategy in attempts to sabotage Republican nominees. Back in 1990, a group that opposed then-nominee David Souter warned that he was a threat to the ``lives, health and livelihoods of millions of women and their families.'' It wasn't true then, and it isn't true now.

I hope that the Senate can raise the level of debate as we consider the nomination. In doing so, we should focus on whether Judge Kavanaugh is qualified.

I hope my Democratic colleagues can resist the temptation to politicize this nomination as they have with others in the past. Some of what we are seeing now has me worried.

We have also heard a lot from Democrats about how important transparency is to the confirmation process. Because of Judge Kavanaugh's long record of public service to our Nation, the executive branch has been asked to produce a large number of documents. Democrats have been demanding that they be given access to these documents as quickly as possible.

Some of my colleagues have expressed shock that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein requested that assistant U.S. attorneys help to review these documents. The truth is that the Office of Legal Policy at the Justice Department always assists with nominations, and that Office is composed mostly of career attorneys. It is not uncommon for attorneys from other offices in the Justice Department to help with the review of nominations.

The government attorneys at the Department of Justice who work on nominations are extraordinarily thorough. Given the reportedly large number of documents, it makes sense that to facilitate this process, the DOJ would seek extra help.

When we spoke last week, Judge Kavanaugh said he was proud of his opinions, and he hoped people would actually read them rather than just read about them. I think those who do that will be just as impressed by Judge Kavanaugh's work as I am. I hope Senators will take the time to sit down with him.

Judge Kavanaugh has spent more than 23 years in public service. As a good man, a decent man, and an honest man, Judge Kavanaugh is the type of person we should all hope is nominated to a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court. That is why I am so pleased that President Trump nominated Judge Kavanaugh. I intend to do everything I can to support his nomination, and I hope that all other Senators will do the same.

We have to quit this mudslinging and mischaracterizing of people's characters. Judge Kavanaugh is one of the finest people I know. He is also one of the smartest. He is conservative--no question about that-- but he is honest. To me, these are some of the most important keys to these judgeship positions. I hope we get rid of the unjust representations against the judge. I hope we will start treating the Senate like the great deliberative body it really is.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I particularly enjoyed the remarks of my distinguished friend from Texas, a good man, who makes a real difference around here.

I rise today to speak on the administration's recent actions regarding global tariff policy. I am one of the President's strongest supporters in most matters. I have been steadfast in working with President Trump on our shared economic agenda, especially passage of the most important piece of tax reform legislation in a generation.

Tax reform is already providing significant relief to families and businesses, large and small. Businesses across the country are now more globally competitive and are investing in their workforce through wage hikes, bonuses, and increased 401(k) contributions that are benefiting American workers, families, and their communities. But this roaring economy, which we worked together to build for American workers and businesses, is at risk because of the President's trade policies.

Tariffs against our allies and partners in Europe, Canada, Mexico, and around the world are already harming American farmers and manufacturers and raising costs for American families. If this continues, our economy will suffer.

I have long advocated for implementing enforceable international rules to level the playing field for American businesses, innovators, and entrepreneurs, and I have consistently fought to protect U.S. intellectual property rights around the globe. I have also been committed to advancing a trade agenda that serves the American people. But the administration's recent actions are misguided and will harm, rather than protect, the American people.

The administration has implemented or threatened global tariffs on approximately $500 billion of goods. Pure and simple, tariffs are attacks on American businesses and consumers. These actions put American families and businesses at risk and threaten to undermine the success of tax reform. Furthermore, they are closing off international markets that our farmers, ranchers, and other exporters depend on.

I have heard from businesses from my home State of Utah that have already been hurt by the imposition of steel and aluminum tariffs. Utah manufacturers are struggling with higher steel and aluminum costs and, as a result, are struggling to compete with foreign manufacturers.

I have also been hearing from U.S. auto manufacturers and share their deep concerns about the consequences of raising tariffs on cars, trucks, and automotive parts. A decision to raise auto tariffs would lead to a net job loss and lower capital investment in the U.S. auto sector by increasing costs and reducing choice. The result will be lower demand for cars in the United States and lower auto sales and production.

While I share the administration's goal of strengthening American manufacturing, tariffs on cars and auto parts would directly injure one of our country's most important manufacturing sectors.

Some of my colleagues have been pressing the need for legislation to restrict the trade authorities that Congress has delegated to the President, and I have been sympathetic to their efforts. If the administration continues forward with its misguided and reckless reliance on tariffs, I will work to advance trade legislation to curtail Presidential trade authority. I am discussing legislative options with colleagues both on and off the Finance Committee, and I will continue to do so. However, I would much rather work with the administration to advance a trade agenda that serves the interests of the American people and job creators.

I want the President to hold our trading partners accountable. I want him to negotiate strong deals that help our U.S. companies and workers compete around the globe.

In particular, I agree with the President that China utilizes mercantilist trade policies to benefit state-owned and Communist Party- controlled firms, harming American companies and workers. We have to help U.S. businesses, innovators, farmers, and ranchers compete globally, and that means we have to confront the challenges posed by China. That is why I have recommended to the President that it is time to engage in negotiations with China, using a target of strategy to address their unfair trade practices. While those efforts are under way, the administration should not impose further tariffs on our allies and partners, particularly on autos and auto parts. In that way, the President can safeguard the economic growth we have worked so hard to achieve and give himself a strong negotiating position with China.

The administration's actions on trade have hurt American manufacturers, farmers, ranchers, workers, and families. The President has asked all of those groups to endure losses so that he can negotiate winning trade agreements. All are watching to see what the President will achieve at the negotiating table in return for their sacrifice. However, now is the time for the President to undertake that effort. I believe that I will support him if he does undertake that effort, and I hope he will.

I care a great deal for the President. I want him to be a success. These approaches are not successful. They are not the way to go. I want to help the President to get around those and do the things that he ought to be doing to strengthen our economy and to strengthen our workers and our businesses.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I enjoyed listening to the minority leader and disagree with almost everything he said. I do believe he is one of the great Senators here, and I care for him. He has a job to do, I suppose.

It seems strange that every time a Supreme Court nominee comes from the Republicans, there is every reason in the world not to confirm that nominee in the eyes of the current Democrats. Even without the first day of hearings, we are getting that type of situation. It is hard to believe. It is really hard to believe.

I rise today in strong support of the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. I have known Brett for quite a while. He is a terrific human being. He is honest, decent, and a good family man. He is everything you would want on the Bench. He is fair. He is considerate. He is knowledgeable. He is intelligent. He understands the law, and when he doesn't understand the law, he will search it until he does.

President Trump has made an outstanding choice. He has kept his commitment to the American people. He has selected a nominee with deep experience in the law and an understanding of the proper role of a judge under our Constitution.

I first met Brett Kavanaugh 14 years ago when he came before the Judiciary Committee for his first confirmation hearing to the DC Circuit. I was the chair of the Judiciary Committee at that time. I was impressed at that time by Brett's sterling credentials, his broad knowledge of the law, and his demeanor. At only 39 years of age, he knew more about the law than most lawyers who have practiced a lifetime. I think anybody who is fair would acknowledge that.

Brett was confirmed to the DC Circuit in 2006 following years of obstruction by Senate Democrats. I was pleased and proud to support Brett's

nomination to the DC Circuit. I have followed his work on that court the last dozen years with great interest. He spent a dozen years on that court, the second greatest court in our country, without criticism, by the way--or at least, I should say, without fair criticism. He has been a true intellectual leader, authoring landmark opinions on the separation of powers, administrative law, and national security.

It is no overstatement to say that Judge Kavanaugh is among the most distinguished and most influential judges in the entire country. The Supreme Court has adopted his positions and his opinions no less than 11 times. He has authored multiple dissents that ultimately prevailed in the Supreme Court. That ought to be complimented, not condemned.

He has taught courses at Harvard, Yale, and Georgetown. I would have preferred if he had taught some courses at Brigham Young University and the University of Utah, but that was too far west, I guess. But you can't knock Harvard, Yale, and Georgetown.

It bears mention that liberal and conservative Justices alike have hired his former clerks, which shows the respect he has across the ideological spectrum.

Truly, there is no one more qualified and more prepared to serve on the Supreme Court than Brett Kavanaugh. The funny thing is most people know that, including my friends on the other side. That is one reason they are afraid to have him on the Court. I speak from experience on this. I am the former chairman of the Judiciary Committee. I have participated in the confirmation of more Federal judges than any Senator in our Nation's history--more than half of all Federal judges ever confirmed. I have participated in the last 14 Supreme Court confirmation battles, including the confirmations of all current members of the Court.

I know a good nominee when I see one. Brett Kavanaugh is not just a good nominee; Brett Kavanaugh is an exceptional nominee, and any fair person has to admit it.

It has been a little over a year since we last considered a nominee to the Supreme Court. That nominee was Neil Gorsuch.

I have to say, President Trump hit a home run with Justice Gorsuch. I came to this floor nearly a dozen times in support of Justice Gorsuch's nomination because I knew Neil Gorsuch, and I knew what kind of a Justice he would be. I knew he would interpret the Constitution according to its original meaning, not according to the pet theories of liberal law professors or progressive activists. I knew he would give effect to the plain text of statutes rather than roaming around to find bits and pieces of legislative history to support his preferred view. I knew he would hold the administrative state to task and help check the unrestrained growth of the unelected, unaccountable fourth branch of government.

Justice Gorsuch has done all of that and more. He has shown himself to be an independent thinker who faithfully applies the text of the Constitution and the text of statutes. He has shown that he is perfectly comfortable disagreeing with the administration when the administration advances what he believes is a wrongheaded argument. Most of all, he has shown that he understands deeply that under our Constitution, political power lies with the people and their elected representatives, not nine Justices in Washington, DC.

In all the ways Neil Gorsuch has been a home run, Brett Kavanaugh will be one too. In his dozen years on the DC Circuit, Judge Kavanaugh has been an independent, fair-minded jurist who is deeply committed to the Constitution and the rule of law. He has made his mark especially in cases involving the separation of powers and agency decision making. He is serious about ensuring that the branches of government stay within their proper spheres and that agency officials have sufficient political accountability. He has also shown a commitment to our First and Second Amendment freedoms. In all this, he has been a true intellectual leader. And like Justice Gorsuch, Judge Kavanaugh has demonstrated that he understands that in our system of government, judges interpret the law. They don't make the laws; they interpret them. Policymaking is for the other branches of government.

In a rational world, Judge Kavanaugh's nomination would be confirmed by the Senate overwhelmingly. I don't think there is any question about that. His qualifications are unquestionable. His integrity is beyond reproach. He is respected throughout the country as one of our Nation's leading jurists.

Sadly, however, sometimes we don't live in a rational world, at least not when it comes to the Supreme Court. We saw this last year. My Democratic colleagues attacked Justice Gorsuch as unfit and unqualified. They said he had not sided often enough with the right sort of causes and that he would not do enough to protect the ``little guy'' when deciding cases. Democrats' objection, at root, was that they did not think Neil Gorsuch would rule the way they wanted. They did not think he would reach liberal enough outcomes. Of course they couldn't say that directly, as that would have given the whole game away and shown that their opposition was really just about politics, which is exactly what it was. So they latched on to a couple of cases, blew them entirely out of proportion, and misrepresented what then-Judge Gorsuch had actually said.

They asked him questions about cases likely to come before the Supreme Court that neither he nor any other nominee could answer without violating the canons of judicial ethics. He could not answer without violating the canons of judicial ethics. Yet they asked these questions anyway. I guess they expected an answer, but no self- respecting nominee would have given an answer.

They claimed he would be some sort of rubberstamp for the administration, when there was nothing in his record at all to suggest he had ever been a rubberstamp for anything.

My Democratic colleagues could not with a straight face oppose Neil Gorsuch or Neil Gorsuch's nomination on the merits, so they kicked up a cloud of half-truths and misrepresentations and used those to justify their opposition. Fortunately, the majority of my colleagues saw these desperate tactics for what they were--complete baloney, and that is putting it mildly.

Now we are about to replay the same game. In the coming weeks, my Democratic colleagues are going to throw everything they have at Judge Kavanaugh. We are going to see Judge Kavanaugh's opponents twist his words, misrepresent his opinions, and do everything they can to make him into some sort of a monster, a judicial monster. They will call him a rubberstamp for the rich and powerful and warn that his confirmation will mean the end of liberty and civil rights. That is trash talk, but that is what we are used to around here when they are afraid of the nominations that come from the Republican side. There is no reason to be afraid; these are people who are going to abide by the law, live in accordance with the law, and decide cases the way the law demands and dictates.

This is the same playbook we have seen before. It is the same playbook we saw last year with Neil Gorsuch. It is the same playbook we would have seen no matter whom the President nominated because the opposition will not be about Judge Kavanaugh's credentials or his qualifications; it will be about politics, straight and simple. My Democratic colleagues want a Justice who will reach the outcomes they want, who will use the Constitution to make policy, but Judge Kavanaugh is not that kind of a judge. He interprets the Constitution as written. He interprets our laws as written. He follows the separation of powers and leaves policymaking to the political branches.

Brett Kavanaugh is one of the most respected judges in our country for good reason--because he is a real judge. He has been an intellectual leader on one of our Nation's most important courts for over a decade. He has heard thousands of cases and issued hundreds of opinions. He is a great thinker, a powerful writer, and, I might add as somebody who knows him well, a kind and humble man. I cannot think of a better person to fill Justice Kennedy's seat on the Supreme Court than his former clerk because Justice Kennedy is a kind and humble man, and he is excited about having this nominee take his place.

After all the kicking and screaming last year, after all the obfuscations and misrepresentations, we confirmed Neil

Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. We did so because he was unquestionably qualified and because he had demonstrated a firm understanding of the judge's proper role under the Constitution.

Like Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh is unquestionably qualified. Like Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh has shown a commitment to the Constitution and to the principle that judges are to interpret the law, not make it up. Like Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh will be confirmed. I have confidence in my colleagues that he will be confirmed. He is a good man. I know him personally. I have known him for a long time. He is a good man. He is a brilliant man and a man whose nomination I am honored to support.

I intend to do everything in my power to see Judge Kavanaugh confirmed to the Supreme Court. I could not be more pleased that one of my final acts here in the U.S. Senate will be to help shepherd through one last nominee to our Nation's highest Court. I could not be more pleased that this nominee is Judge Brett Kavanaugh.

I know Judge Kavanaugh. I know what a great Justice he will make. I know that he will be fair. I know that he will live in accordance with the law. I also know that he has courage and conviction and that he will do what Justices have to do; that is, interpret the Constitution and our statutes in this country in ways that will please the vast majority of all Americans. That is about all we can ask for. I know he will do that because I know the man. I know his family. I know his parents. All I can say is that I am very pleased that our President has decided to nominate him as a Justice on the United States Supreme Court.

I would caution my colleagues to pay attention to his record because you can't keep voting against people just because politically they are not on your team. I think you can if they are not qualified, but he is qualified. I think you can if they are not willing to abide by the law as written, but he is and has proven that.

I could go on and on. All I can say is that he is a good nominee. I hope all of my colleagues will support him. I hope my friends on the Democratic side will do the right thing. The right thing will help propel the confirmation process along. Who knows who the next President is going to be. It could be a Democrat, and I would hope that Brett Kavanaugh would be an example to Republicans, if they are in the minority, to do what is right--make your case, but don't slander people or libel them, and certainly don't stop decent, honorable candidates from holding these positions on the Federal bench.

I wish Judge Kavanaugh well because I think he will make a great Justice on the Court. I think he will be the type of Justice who will make everybody proud, even those with whom he disagrees. He is a decent man. He is an honorable man. He is a family man. He is brilliant. He is exactly like the person our Founding Fathers would like to have on the Supreme Court Bench. I believe that if we give him a chance, he will do a very good job. He is not going to always please me. He is not going to always please the Republicans. He will do what is right. I hope my colleagues on the other side will understand that and will not make this another cause celebre.

Be that as it may, we are going to push as hard as we can, and hopefully he will become our next Justice on the United States Supreme Court.

With that, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I come to this lectern to speak on a subject of perennial importance. It is a subject I know a little something about--one that will not only influence the Senate agenda in the near term but will determine the direction of our democracy for decades to come. I speak, of course, on the future of the Supreme Court.

Yesterday, Justice Anthony Kennedy--a great friend of mine and a wonderful Justice on the Court--announced his intention to step down, effective July 31. Justice Kennedy has served this Nation with the highest distinction. Over the course of his tenure, he has exercised outsized influence on the Supreme Court and has played a pivotal role in some of the most consequential Court decisions of modern times--from McDonald v. City of Chicago to Citizens United v. FEC.

As a testament to his independence, he rightly gained a reputation as the Supreme Court's swing vote. Sometimes he sided with the Court's liberal wing. At other times, he sided with the conservatives. Yet he always sided with what he believed to be the correct interpretation of the law. What more could we ask from a judge?

Throughout his public service, Justice Kennedy has mentored a generation of jurists who went on to become luminaries in their own right. Not the least among them is Justice Neil Gorsuch, a former Kennedy clerk who now serves as his equal on the Supreme Court. With his onetime pupil now working alongside him--and with dozens of former clerks now serving on the Federal bench--Justice Kennedy leaves behind a legal legacy that is almost without equal. Although he will be stepping down next month, his influence on our judicial system will be felt for generations to come.

With Justice Kennedy's impending retirement, the responsibility now falls on us to confirm an able replacement. In the coming weeks, the President will announce his nominee to fill Justice Kennedy's seat. In doing so, he will seek the advice and consent of the Senate, which is a process that entails confirmation hearings and extended hours of debate in order to fully vet the qualifications of the President's nominee.

The questions we should ask during this confirmation hearing should focus solely on the judge's qualifications: Does he or she have the requisite experience to adjudicate wisely from the bench? Does he or she understand the proper role of a judge under the Constitution? Does he or she respect our Constitution? Is he or she committed to upholding its principles no matter the consequence?

This process should be simple, straightforward, and, most importantly, nonpolitical, but it rarely is. That is because we already know the Democrats will do everything they can to politicize a process that should not be politicized. We already know that many of them will ask questions of the nominee and will have an ulterior motive in mind-- to divine his or her partisan leanings rather than to evaluate the quality of his or her jurisprudence.

How do we know the Democrats will do this? It is because we have seen them do it time and again. It started with the character assassination of Robert Bork, and it culminated in the unholy inquisition of Clarence Thomas. Tensions seemed to subside for a time, but then came the unprecedented filibuster of Samuel Alito and, most recently, the public flagellation of Neil Gorsuch.

In every case, the nominee in question possessed indisputable credentials and an airtight judicial record, but in every case, my colleagues sought to drag these men into the partisan gutter--asking questions designed to parse their political positions rather than their legal philosophies.

In my 42 years of Senate service, I have witnessed the gradual deterioration of the judicial confirmation process. As the former chairman of the Judiciary Committee and now as its longest serving Republican member, I have taken an active role in the confirmation of every Justice who is currently sitting on the Supreme Court and in the confirmations of a number who have retired. Moreover, I have participated in the confirmations of half of all article III judges who have ever served.

Throughout this process, I have met some of the brightest legal minds this world has had to offer, and I have watched in disgust as my friends on the Democratic side have sought to undo these men and women for political gain. Judicial obstruction is a serious issue in its own right, but it is merely a symptom of a much larger problem--the politicization of our courts. In today's America, Republicans and Democrats espouse two vastly different visions for the judicial branch.

On the right, we believe in the judiciary as it is outlined in the Constitution--an integral but necessarily limited branch of government that interprets laws but doesn't make them. We

believe in a judiciary that is filled with sober-minded judges who are committed to upholding the Constitution as written, not to molding it to fit their political preferences.

On the left, you have a starkly different vision. The left believes the judiciary should assume an activist role and step in to fill the gaps of legislation when Congress fails. In doing so, the judiciary becomes its own quasi legislative body--a Congress 2.0 of sorts--that is filled with hundreds of judges who are unelected and therefore unaccountable to the American people.

This conception of judicial power is inherently anti-democratic. It undermines the principle of representative government and cedes lawmaking power to a cadre of black-robed philosopher kings--a cloistered group of men and women who have no constitutional authority to make legislation but seek to do so anyway through its opinions.

Given the left's radical vision of judicial power, it is no wonder the confirmation wars have escalated over the years, and it is no wonder the Democrats have made a circus of confirmation hearings. They seek to politicize the process because ultimately they seek political judges.

As usual, what the left wants is not what America needs. America doesn't need political judges. It doesn't need an army of super legislators who tell us what to do. It certainly doesn't need a second Congress that makes laws on a whim. Isn't the one we have dysfunctional enough?

No. What is best for America is wholly different from what the left envisions. America needs a judiciary that is insulated from the corrupting influence of politics. Accordingly, we need principled judges who put the law before any partisan concern.

As opposed to political judges, we need impartial judges--judges who understand their limited role under the Constitution, judges who are content to say what the law is, not what they want it to be, judges who act as umpires, calling balls and strikes instead of swinging at every pitch that comes their way. In short, we need judges who will interpret the Constitution, not remake it in their own image.

In taking Justice Gorsuch as an example, I have every confidence that the President's nominee to the Supreme Court will be qualified, competent, and impartial in every way. If the Democrats' treatment of Justice Gorsuch is any indication of things to come, then I have every reason to believe they will again do everything in their power to politicize this important confirmation process.

They will do everything they can to malign the nominee, no matter his or her background or credentials, and will depict his or her as an extremist who is outside the mainstream. They will press, prod, and pry in an attempt to unearth a political agenda where none is to be found. They will bring all resources to bear in an effort to prevent a principled, constitutionalist judge from taking Justice Kennedy's seat. They will pull out all the stops to accelerate the politicization of the Supreme Court, but we will not let them.

It is up to us to preserve the integrity of the judicial branch. We can begin by confirming a Supreme Court nominee who is committed to upholding the principles of the Constitution at all costs--a nominee who understands that the lawmaking power lies with Congress, not with the courts.

I look forward to working with my colleagues in this endeavor in the weeks to come. Yet I have to say I have seen a lot of abuse in the area of picking judges and in confirming judges throughout the years. Both sides have been complicit in some ways, but I have never seen more of a politicization of the courts than that which has come from the other side. I hope they will not do that this time.

I don't know who the President is going to pick. I have a pretty good idea of the list of people from which he is going to pick. I know he will chat with me about it, as he will with others, but I can guarantee you this: He is going to pick somebody who has the ability to go on that Court and do the job from the beginning. It is not going to be pleasing, perhaps, to some of my Democratic colleagues, and it may not be pleasing to some of my Republican colleagues. The fact is, I think we can rely on this President to pick an excellent person to fulfill this responsibility.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, allow me to say a few words on the passing of a dear friend, Charles Krauthammer. Charles was a giant in the conservative intellectual movement and community. With his passing, we have lost not only a first-rate political mind but a model of civility. As testament to his decency, leaders on both sides of the aisle paid tribute to Charles over the weekend. Today, I know I speak for people of all political stripes when I say we will miss him dearly.

Few were as formidable in debate as Charles Krauthammer. Although his body was confined to a wheelchair, his intellect was boundless. With even keel and gentle voice, he could carefully deconstruct the views of his opponents, expressing his own ideas with preternatural eloquence.

In a political landscape marked by anger and acrimony, Charles stood for reason and respect. Indeed, he was a voice of temperance in intemperate times. While he never backed down in debate, he was also well practiced in the subtle art of disagreeing without being disagreeable. In so many ways, Charles showed us how political discourse should be: balanced and rational, measured and informed, with emphasis on facts over feeling.

I think we can all agree that civility took a beating this weekend, but perhaps the biggest blow was losing Charles Krauthammer--a man who embodied civility in his very being. At different times throughout our history, we have been called upon to heed the better angels of our nature. Charles was one of those better angels. He represented what we could be if we listened to our better selves and if we listened to each other.

As a nation, we have much to learn from the example of Charles Krauthammer. In celebrating the life of an extraordinary man, we must do

more than pay lipservice to his legacy; we must honor it through our actions. We can do so by being strong in our convictions but soft with our words, by being principled in our positions but respectful of other views in this world. In a word, we can be more civil.

Open the newspaper, scroll through Twitter, or simply turn on the TV, and you will see that this Nation suffers from a deficit of civility quite unlike anything I have ever seen. The problem is bad. It is getting worse, and both sides are to blame. Both sides are at fault for escalating the rhetoric to irresponsible levels.

I have said this many times before, but it bears repeating: Our words have consequences, and in an age of retweets, viral videos, and shareable content, those words often echo well beyond their intended audience and context. It is incumbent upon all of us--from the President, to Congress, on down--to be responsible for our speech.

With that, I ask my colleagues, is there a better way to honor the life of Charles Krauthammer than to follow the example of civility he leaves behind? May we all, then, recommit ourselves to civility by living as Charles lived. May his memory be a blessing to us all.

My wife is a wonderful person. She is a farm girl. She grew up on a farm and really has earned everything she has ever had. She had a brother named Ramon. Ramon was an athlete when he got struck--right before the solutions to his illness were arrived at--and he became crippled. Ramon was one of the finest men I ever met in my life. He was very hurt by this malady that came upon him, but I can remember what a decent, honorable, kind person he was and how he went on and got his master's degree. He went all the way through undergraduate and got a master's degree at Utah State University and then became a major electrical engineer in Las Vegas. I remember one time carrying him--he was so light--in my arms through the Los Angeles Temple of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. He was one of the finest men I have ever known at any time, anywhere.

That is one reason why I recognize Charles so well. Charles Krauthammer is one of the finest men I have known too. He and Ramon were heroes of mine, people who took on the ramifications and difficulties of life and beat them.

We are going to miss Charles Krauthammer. Not only was he brilliant, but he was somebody who made sense. He was somebody who really could relate to everybody. He was a really good person, just like my brother- in-law, Ramon, was as good a person as you could have ever thought. I think we all should stop and think about these two lives and recommit ourselves to being more reasonable to our colleagues. We might all realize there is more to this Earth than just fighting, finding fault, and advancing our own cause. I believe this is the greatest of all legislative bodies. We have come close to doing that--to doing what is right, to showing respect for each other--but we don't always get there. I am not sure you can always get there. Sometimes you really have to speak out and you have to speak bluntly.

I just want to remind people that Charles Krauthammer and my brother- in-law, Ramon Hansen, were two people who literally lived very good lives, set very good examples, and overcame the challenges of being crippled and terribly hurt to rise above and to do things that really made a difference in this world.

I wish the Krauthammer family the very best. I care for them. I hope they come and visit once in a while. We lost a great person this weekend; I just wanted to say a few words about it.

This is a great body. We have great people on both sides. I would like to see us work better together and accomplish more together in the best interest of the greatest country on Earth. If we do that, I think we will all, when the time comes, leave this place knowing we had done our best.

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

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

Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a man who was a loyal and diligent staffer on the Senate Finance Committee for nearly three decades--Mark Prater.

Mark began as a tax counsel with the committee in January of 1990. During his 28-year tenure with the committee, Mark has been a shining example of a bipartisan policy staffer. He is a proud Portlander, where he graduated with his accounting degree from Portland State University. He went on to receive his law degree from Willamette University and then his LLM in taxation from the University of Florida.

After practicing law for a few years in Portland, Mark thought he would take a 2-year break from practice to work in public service, but after he started working for his home State Senator, Bob Packwood, Mark became consumed by the work on the Finance Committee, which was easy to do but especially for somebody like Mark.

This was a time when America had a Republican President and both the Senate and House were controlled by Democrats. Yet the tax staff, including a fresh-faced counsel from Oregon, found ways to get bills across the finish line. Some of those bills included significant budget and energy deals that helped jump-start the economy in the early 1990s.

After a few years, Mark was promoted to chief tax counsel in October of 1993--a post that became synonymous with Mark Prater for nearly 25 years. In 2007, Mark was named deputy staff director of the Senate Finance Committee.

For the next decade, Mark's legislative management and institutional knowledge were crucial in virtually every bill that was passed out of the Senate Finance Committee--and there have been a lot of them--but Mark's impact in Congress did not end there. In 2011, Mark was appointed as the staff director of the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, or the Super Committee, as it was more commonly known.

As many of us remember, September of 2011 was a trying time for America and Washington. Just about any stray statement or suggestion seemed to throw spark on the dry kindling of political frustrations. The Super Committee was created to find a solution to America's debt crisis but also to act as an example of bipartisan and bicameral cooperation. The first step was selecting a director who would be able to handle an immense workload while also dealing with unknown forces and Members of Congress who were unfamiliar with those forces. Mark was the man for the job and shepherded the committee through a process that resulted in many work products that would be used over the next several years.

But my personal work with Mark is when I really learned to trust and appreciate him the most, although I trusted and appreciated him before. From the moment I became the ranking member on the Senate Finance Committee and even more so after I became chairman in 2015, I leaned on Mark to help develop and negotiate a reform to our long outdated and broken Tax Code. The result was the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act--the largest and most comprehensive overhaul of the U.S. Tax Code in 36 years. In the end, I think we can safely say this is one of the greatest legislative achievements in recent memory, and it all happened in large part due to Mark's efforts, influence, and expertise. I relied on him, and I have to say my reliance was well-placed.

Perhaps more than anyone else, Mark can testify that the process for tax reform was years in the making. Contrary to what Democrats may tout, this was not a 6-month, 1 year, or even 2-year effort; tax reform had been debated and individual pieces had been negotiated and proposed in some form or another for years, with the Senate Finance Committee producing bipartisan working papers and holding hearings on dozens of occasions throughout the last decade.

Rather than a last-second rush job, I think the facts and history indicate that the process actually began in earnest thanks to Mark's work at the Super Committee. That was when several of the major bipartisan conversations about improving innovation, returning to normal GDP growth, and improving fairness while broadening the base became earnest bipartisan conversations.

As we continued to develop tax reform, much of the work between Senators, their staff, the Big 6, Treasury, constituents, and stakeholders was at least in part facilitated by Mark Prater, who was always there to listen and politely make suggestions and answer questions. He did not always like what he heard, but he was willing to negotiate and try to find common ground just to get the football another inch down the field.

Tax reform had many bipartisan ideas: Provide relief for middle-class families, broaden the base, bring the corporate rate down, and fix the broken international tax regime. As anyone who has worked in tax before knows, there are 1,000 levers to pull and knobs to twist to get to an end result. But all of this has to happen while walking a difficult political tightrope--a tightrope I am not sure we would have balanced upon without Mark. His absolute mastery of the Tax Code, his compassion, his patience, his sense of humor, and his creative solutions to difficult problems were a key part of the process and the substance of the final product. I am and will be forever grateful to Mark for his sacrifices and commitments to making tax reform a reality.

I would be remiss not to also thank his wife Lori and his son James for their support and sacrifice as well. He loves both of them, and really, they are lucky to have him and his love. I am glad to see them all here today, especially so that we can finally celebrate the Stanley Cup coming to Washington. As most of us know, Mark is an avid hockey fan, and his diligent support in that sphere has paid off as well.

In sum, losing Mark has been a terribly sad day for all of us here in the Senate, but I am confident that his legacy, the tax reform that owes much to him, and the example Mark set for all of us will be remembered and cherished for years to come.

I have had hundreds of staff people work with me over the years, all of whom I have regard for, revere our friendships, have learned from, and have pushed and shoved as hard as I could. I have had some really wonderful people with me, and they have all been dedicated. They have all given of

themselves to help this country. But I have never had anybody any more dedicated or giving than Mark Prater.

Mark Prater deserves the recognition that I am trying to give him here today and much more. I have such a regard for him, such a regard for what he stands for, what a decent, honorable, kind, and hard- working young man he is. We have been very lucky to have him in the Senate, on the Senate staff, and on the Finance Committee staff. His efforts and his work are going to be around and understood by many of us for many years to come.

I want to thank him personally for the work he has done, the friendship he has given, and the hard work he has performed for all of us here. I wish him and his family the very, very best. On top of all that, I just want him to know that we love him and appreciate him.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, I rise in celebration of the 6-month anniversary of passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. I know there were a lot of remarks about the benefits of tax cuts right out of the gate, but many of the benefits from the reform of the old, broken, and outdated Tax Code will accumulate over the long run.

I rise to talk about some of the benefits from the new Tax Code that can be witnessed by hard-working families right now. For example, the typical family of four making the median family income of around $75,000 a year is right in the middle of the first year of our cuts. Those typical families are going to see their taxes cut by more than half.

We also doubled the child tax credit and expanded its refundability to benefit more working families. The Tax Code also makes filing taxes easier and more straightforward for the typical middle-class family. That is because the standard deduction was nearly doubled.

Taken all together, provisions like these are the reason the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation found that the overall distribution of the new tax bill is directed toward the middle class. This is happening everywhere.

Take my home State of Utah, for example. According to some recent numbers from the Tax Foundation, citizens of Utah can expect, on average, a tax cut of nearly $1,500, or 2.4 percent of their income.

Take advantage of those hundreds of dollars and start paying off your car a little sooner. Maybe go out to see a baseball game or take your family on a road trip to see some of the beautiful national parks around our country and especially throughout the State of Utah. All of those things are now that much more possible because of our tax reform.

Those direct tax cuts are just a part of the larger picture ushered in by tax reform. More broadly, tax reform has provided a shot in the arm to a long-ailing economy. After cutting the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 21 percent, businesses have been able to reinvest, build new facilities, hire new workers, and start innovating now more than ever.

Recent polls by the National Association of Manufacturers, the Business Roundtable, Gallup, and the National Federation of Businesses show that optimism, and plans to expand hiring and growth for businesses of all sorts and sizes are at alltime highs. This optimism, along with lower costs of increasing investments and doing business, has already started to result in real changes for the middle class.

Take, for example, the list of more than 100 different utility companies that have cut their rates across the country. According to one compilation, the American people are on track to pocket more than $2.8 billion just this year off those savings.

Some might also argue that this is a normal period of expansion and growth in the economy. As one journalist recently noted, tax reform has poured ``jet fuel'' on a growing economy.

According to the most recent reports in June, the total number of workers receiving unemployment benefits is running at the lowest levels in 44 years, and that is just in terms of numbers of people drawing unemployment benefits, not even taking into account the massive population growth since December 1973.

For the first time since record-keeping began in 2000, the number of available positions exceeded the number of job seekers, according to the information from the Department of Labor. This is just the initial boost. I tend to think positive economic outcomes are most often created by hard work and good policy, like our tax reform package.

That is why activity in the labor market has been especially robust, with more than 1 million jobs already created in this year alone. That is why wage growth has been trending upward, and that is why business investment has been robust. More Americans now have access to more of their own hard-earned money. As Republicans predicted, we are already seeing the middle class and the economy generally benefit.

Mark my words, there is a lot more growth we should anticipate coming down the pike as more and more people start to realize how much tax reform actually does, and will, affect their families, their businesses, their communities, and our country as a whole.

As business investment and productivity pick up due to higher expected aftertax returns from investment, wage growth, too, will continue to pick up. All told, these changes are creating a paradigm shift. More than ever before, Americans can expect things to be better tomorrow than they are today.

Personally, I am more excited than ever for my great-grandchildren, my grandchildren, and my children. I am grateful to everyone who has made this possible. After all, major tax reform like this is truly a once-in-a-generation opportunity for all of us.

Just 6 months in, we have seen so many positive results from the tax reform that the list is too long to cover in just one speech. Make no mistake, the list of positives from tax reform for

American families and businesses will continue to grow larger and longer.

With that, I yield the floor.

Madam President, as President pro tempore of the U.S. Senate and as the senior Senator from the great State of Utah, I wish to speak today about the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019.

I join my colleagues in congratulating my good friend Senator John McCain on the soon-to-be-successful passage of the 58th straight Defense bill. I would also like to offer my sincere appreciation for Senators Inhofe and Reed and their staffs, along with Senator McCain's staff, who gracefully navigated the committee and the floor processes. This is a monumental bill that will truly modernize our Armed Forces.

I have long appreciated the bipartisan nature of each year's NDAA. Some would say that this process could be seen as a microcosm of how things should work here in Congress--putting the good of the country ahead of politics. It is certainly how I have sought to do things here during my Senate service. I also appreciated the efforts from most Members of this body to get to yes on such an important proposal.

The yearly Defense bill is not something we do out of tradition or habit; we do it out of necessity. Yes, it is a constitutional requirement, but perhaps more importantly, it is an honor to give our men and women in uniform the tools they need to keep America safe. The policies and authorizations we have debated on the floor over the last week represent people. They represent soldiers, sailors, marines, airmen, and the civilian workforce, all of whom are family, friends, neighbors, and fellow citizens.

Since first coming to the Senate in 1977, I have witnessed the use of military force for good across the globe. I was personally involved in helping use our military tools to counter Soviet expansionism in Central Asia. It was around that time that I helped establish the National Endowment for Democracy--an initiative in which Senator McCain was intimately involved. The National Endowment for Democracy embodies our commitment to promoting the virtues of freedom and liberty across the globe.

Anyone who knows me knows that I like to see the good in people, but even with my optimism, one unfortunate truth exists: There are people and groups in this world who seek to do harm to the United States, and our men and women in uniform face these threats every day. I am eternally grateful for the sacrifice and dedication of our servicemembers. I am grateful for their strength, their intelligence, and their commitment to preserving the values we hold dear.

As we see today with the heinous violations of human rights around the world, freedom, prosperity, and security are under constant threat. The abusive actions of the Governments of Iran and North Korea are just two examples among many.

Given the constant threats our country and our allies face, we must always work to maintain a strategic advantage over our adversaries. We must be able to win wars without fighting them, and if we need to fight, we need to begin wars having already won them. How do we do this? By investing in our military and the civilians who support them, giving them more of what they need, not less; by modernizing our weapons systems; by taking care of our bases and facilities; and by never losing sight that people come first and that our obligation to them extends beyond their service to the Nation. That is what we have accomplished with this year's NDAA, which covers an unprecedented $716 billion in support of the Department of Defense and the national security program of the Department of Energy.

With this historic bill, members of our Armed Forces will enjoy a 2.6-percent pay increase. With this legislation, we also increase personnel for all branches of the military.

This bill represents a significant step forward in the modernization of our Armed Forces. The future fighting force of high-tech warfare is quickly becoming a reality. But we cannot rest on our laurels. Just as our adversaries modernize their forces, we have to do the same. I think we can all agree that maintaining our strategic advantage against now near-peer adversaries must always be our objective.

So how do we prepare our future fighting force? We continue to modernize through recapitalization efforts, such as the F-35, KC-46, and the future ground-based strategic deterrent. We have to maintain our competitive edge. We must also focus on attracting talent and shoring up the supply chain.

In serving Utah, I have been honored to represent the hard-working men and women of our major military installations--Hill Air Force Base, Dugway Proving Ground, Tooele Army Depot, Camp Williams, and the Utah Test and Training Range, which cannot be duplicated. Contained within this bill are necessary increases to keep those installations manned and operational. Utah is a wonderful place that provides extensive support to the warfighter through advance manufacturing, training, and operational capabilities.

I have faithfully worked on behalf of the people of Utah and the people of this great country for the last 42 years. As a symbol of my respect for the men and women in uniform, I wish to express my sincere reverence and gratitude for all who have given the ultimate sacrifice in serving our country, including the over 330 Utahns who have died while on Active Duty service since 1976. I likewise wish to honor their families, whose sacrifices are just as great.

That we were able to accomplish so much with this Defense bill is credit to the leadership of Senator John McCain--and others but certainly Senator McCain--who has been a key part of this legislation over the course of his Senate service. Senator McCain is so much more than the chairman of the Armed Services Committee; he is an American hero who represents the best this Nation has to offer. I know I speak for all of my colleagues in thanking him for his service and sacrifice.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a remarkable Utahn whose impact has been felt by generations of Americans every day: the ``Father of Television,'' Mr. Philo T. Farnsworth. A true American inventor, Farnsworth's image has graced Statuary Hall in the U.S. Capitol Building since 1990 in larger-than-life fashion, as one of two statue contributions by Utah.

Just a few months ago, the Utah State Legislature voted to replace the Farnsworth statue with that of Martha Hughes Cannon, the first woman State senator in Utah and the Nation. Her influence as a Mormon pioneer, a Utah women's rights advocate, and early female physician opened doors and paved

the way for millions to follow. In 1896, when she defeated her own husband to become the first female State senator elected in the United States, she made history for our State and for women across the country.

Martha's contributions have been far-reaching in Utah, but in no way should the changing of the statues diminish the contributions of Philo T. Farnsworth as one of America's greatest innovators. I have always been proud to show the thousands of constituents who visit the Capitol each year the Farnsworth statue. This iconic sculpture has been a wonderful representation of the traits that our State was founded on: hard work, innovation, and industry.

Farnsworth was born in 1906 in Beaver, UT, a small rural town settled in 1856 by Mormon pioneers traveling the road to southern Utah. His early pioneer roots encouraged a work ethic and can-do attitude that propelled his lifelong love of learning and invention. From a very young age, he imagined and later implemented scientific designs, including a machine to convert electric power in his family home and a tamper-proof lock, but it was in a high school chemistry class in Rigby, ID, that he began to sketch an idea for a vacuum tube that would forever change the media and entertainment landscape. Farnsworth's sketch was the blueprint for what would eventually become the modern- day television.

Farnsworth had a special knack for taking big ideas from paper to practice--first, as a student at Brigham Young University, then later as a businessman. He didn't just stop with television. In fact, his scientific mind made great inroads in other areas of advancement, including sterilizing milk using radio waves.

In later years, Farnsworth continued research in further technologies, including radar, the infrared telescope, and nuclear fusion. In fact, in 1967, he moved back to Utah to run a fusion lab at Brigham Young University, which was later relocated to Salt Lake City operating as the Philo T. Farnsworth Association.

Unfortunately, Farnsworth had to endure legal battles throughout his career regarding patent claims. He also faced great financial hardship. He passed away from pneumonia on March 11, 1971, in Salt Lake City, UT, just as having a home television set became the norm in most American households. Sadly, Farnsworth did not live to see the full impact of his revolutionary invention, but his influence lives on.

Whether you are gathering friends to watch the latest playoff game, laughing at a comedy series, or keeping updated on what is happening in the world, your life has been touched in one way or another by Philo T. Farnsworth. Who would have thought that the rough sketches of a daydreaming schoolboy would one day change the world?

Utah is proud of its native son, Philo T. Farnsworth. He was not only the ``Father of Television'' but truly one of the most brilliant minds and creative innovators of the 20th century. His statue will be missed here in the Capitol, but through his singular invention, Farnsworth's influence in our daily lives will be ever present.

Farnsworth's statue has represented--and will continue to represent-- the honor and appreciation Utahns have for his monumental life achievements. His image has honorably served our State well for almost three decades, and I am hopeful it will find the right home. It has been a pleasure sharing the Capitol with the image of Philo T. Farnsworth.

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

Mr. President, I rise to address a public health issue that has left in its wake a trail of tragedy and shattered life. The suicide epidemic has touched all sectors of our society, but the problem is particularly acute among LGBT who have experienced bullying and discrimination at every turn. In the most devastating cases, these teenagers even face estrangement from their own families. That is why today, in honor of Pride Month, I wish to devote a significant portion of my remarks to them--my young friends in the LGBT community.

The prevalence of suicide, especially among LGBT teens, is a serious problem that requires national attention. No one should ever feel less because of their gender identity or sexual orientation. LGBT youth deserve our unwavering love and support. They deserve our validation and the assurance that not only is there a place for them in this society but that it is far better off because of them.

These young people need us, and we desperately need them. We need their light to illuminate the richness and diversity of God's creations. We need the grace, beauty, and brilliance they bring to the world. That is why, as we commemorate Pride Month, my message today is one of love for my LGBT brothers and sisters. It is also a call for action to Americans of all political stripes.

Regardless of where you stand on the cultural issues of the day-- whether you are a religious conservative, a secular liberal, or somewhere in between--we all have a special duty to each other. That duty is to treat one another with dignity and respect. It is not simply to tolerate but to love.

The first tenet of my faith is to love one another. The same Man who taught this principle also lived it by His example. In an era characterized by rigid social divisions, He broke down barriers propped up by centuries of tradition and cultural belief. In His teachings, He made no distinction between man or woman, Jew or Gentile, sinner or saint but invited all to come to Him--all. He saw beyond the arbitrary differences of group identity to the inherent worth of the individual. He taught that we were all equal because we are all children of the same God and partakers of the same human condition. This Man loved radically, and He challenged all of us to do the same.

If there were ever a time to show our LGBT friends just how much we love them, it is now. In a world where millions suffer in silence, we owe it to each other to love loudly. That is why I am a strong supporter of Utah's Love Loud Festival, among many other efforts to combat suicide and improve mental health in the LGBT community, which is afflicted by these problems. These young men and women deserve to feel loved, cared for, and accepted for who they are. I don't think they chose to be who they are. They are born to be who they are, and we ought to understand that. They deserve to know they belong and that our society is stronger because of them.

Ensuring that our LGBT friends feel loved and accepted is not a political issue; we all have a stake in this. We all have family or loved ones who have felt marginalized in one way or another because of gender identity or sexual orientation, and we need to be there for them.

On a much broader scale, we need to be there for anyone struggling with feelings of isolation, especially those experiencing suicidal thoughts. By no means is suicide a problem exclusive to the LGBT community. In one way or another, this public health crisis has affected all Americans, regardless of color, class, or creed.

Over the last two decades, the suicide epidemic has taken tens of thousands of lives, with suicide rates rising by as much as 30 percent across the country. The severity of this public health crisis was thrown into sharp relief last week with the tragic deaths of Kate Spade and Anthony Bourdain.

In my home State of Utah, the statistics are particularly alarming. Every 14 hours, a Utahn dies by suicide, resulting in an average of 630 deaths each year. The problem is so acute that Utah now has the fifth highest suicide rate in the Nation.

In addressing this topic today, my heart is both heavy and hopeful-- heavy

because suicide has already taken so many lives; hopeful because I believe we are on the cusp of a major legislative breakthrough that could turn the tide in the campaign against this epidemic.

As some of you may recall, I joined Senator Joe Donnelly last year in introducing the National Suicide Hotline Improvement Act--a bipartisan proposal that makes it easier for Americans of all ages to get the help and treatment they need when they are experiencing suicidal thoughts.

Our bill requires the FCC to recommend an easy-to-remember, three- digit number for the national suicide prevention hotline. I believe that by making the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline system more user-friendly and accessible, we can save thousands of lives by helping people find the help they need when they need it most.

The Senate passed our bill with overwhelming bipartisan support in November. Now it is time for the House to do its part. While I am pleased to learn that our legislation is slowly making its way through the House committee process, I call today for more urgent action. Every minute we wait, we leave hundreds of Americans helpless who are struggling with suicidal thoughts. There are literally lives on the line here, and leaving them on hold is not an option. That is why I call on my colleagues in the House to pass, without further delay, our suicide hotline bill. By doing so, we can prevent countless tragedies and can help thousands of men and women get the help they so desperately need.

Before I conclude, I wish to express my heartfelt belief that we can win the battle against suicide, but I would also remind my colleagues that no amount of legislation can fix this problem. No public policy is a panacea for an issue as deep and intractable as the suicide epidemic.

Beyond legislation, however, there are steps we can take to create a society that is kinder, more civil and understanding--a society, in other words, where suicide is less of a problem. It doesn't take a social scientist to tell you that the coarsening of our culture has negatively affected our communities. As the political discourse breaks down, so, too, do the social ties that bind us together. The gradual dissolution of civil society has led to unprecedented levels of loneliness, depression, and despair. In this sense, suicide is merely a symptom of a much larger problem.

Yet, even though there is hopelessness, there is still reason to hope. I firmly believe that by restoring civility to its proper place in our society, we can fight the despair that has seized hold of so many. Civility starts with the words we use. Whether in person or online, we can be softer in our language, kinder in our actions, and stronger in our love. We can combat coarseness with compassion and choose empathy instead of anger.

On an individual level, reclaiming civility entails a fundamental shift in how we view our political opponents. No longer should we see each other as adversaries in a zero-sum game but as allies in preserving the American experiment for future generations.

Restoring civility and respect to the public square cannot be achieved through legislation; ultimately, this is a change that must take place in the heart of every American. Here in the Senate, we can lead by example, which is why I urge all of my colleagues to join me today in recommitting to civility and working to bring people together to help solve these very serious problems that are keeping us apart and hurting our society. There are people out there who really suffer, who don't choose to be the way they are, and we have to be intelligent enough and compassionate enough to help them. So I hope that we will, and I hope that our wonderful country will take these things to heart.

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 to voice my enthusiastic support for the majority leader's announcement yesterday that we would be staying in Washington through August. Already we have seen media reports that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are upset about having to work through August recess. As Leader McConnell said, this action would not have been necessary but for the historic obstruction by our Democratic colleagues who have used every available tool to delay confirmations of executive and judicial nominations.

To put the scale of their obstruction into perspective, Senate Democrats have forced 101 procedural cloture votes on President Trump's nominees in his first 18 months. By comparison, the previous 6 Presidents combined saw a total of only 24 cloture votes in their first 2 years. In other words, Democrats have somehow managed to fit 40 years' worth of obstruction into just 18 months.

Even more infuriating, after Democrats pretend to object to nominees by calling for cloture, many of them later vote in favor of confirmation, acknowledging that the nominees are qualified and worthy of the Senate's support.

Take, for example, the case of Fernando Rodriguez Jr., a highly qualified nominee to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. Fernando has spent the last few years serving in the International Justice Mission combating sex trafficking and human rights abuses. He also has 10 years of experience practicing law, not to mention invaluable experience as an educator with Teach for America.

Yesterday, Democrats forced a cloture vote on Fernando Rodriguez to slow down his confirmation but still voted to confirm him unanimously. This is absurd. It seems my friends on the other side of the aisle want to have their obstruction cake and eat it, too, but you can't have it both ways.

These procedural slowdowns are a transparent charade, a cynical side show meant to shore up support among the Democratic base. I would remind my friends on the other side of the aisle that this Chamber is meant for policy, not politics. We can campaign on the weekends, but right now we have serious work to do.

I have to state that there are some reasons to be political sometimes on the floor but not to the extent that we have been subjected to by our friends on the other side. Democrats have wasted precious hours of debate with their partisan grandstanding, and the country is worse off because of it. While my colleagues posture and preen for audiences on national TV, dozens of executive and judicial nominations remain unfilled, bringing the important work of government to a halt.

Enough already. Enough of the games. Enough of the disingenuous handwringing. Enough of the Twitter-tailored cable TV meltdowns. Let's set our egos aside for one moment to get done what the American people have sent us here to do.

I look forward to working through August to make up for lost time. That is not to say that recess or instate work periods are unimportant. Indeed,

connecting with constituents back home is the most important part of our jobs.

Despite what some would have you believe, we work just as much during recess as we do here in session, if not more. I travel around the State meeting with as many Utahns as possible, normally breaking just long enough for a quick meal at my favorite all-you-can-eat buffet. In 1 day of recess, I can talk trade and tariffs with a group of Utah cattlemen before meeting with health experts to learn more about medical marijuana research, visiting the family of a Utahn held captive overseas, and convening a panel of education leaders to discuss school safety--all in just 1 day. That is just part of what that 1 day was. As anyone who has served in Congress knows, recess is no respite.

The time we spend at home meeting with constituents is absolutely vital to our jobs, but of equal importance is confirming capable, qualified judges to our courts. Our responsibility in the Senate is to keep the judicial branch up and running. I have participated in more than 1,800 judicial confirmations throughout my term of service, and I look forward to working through August to confirm a few more. There is no time to waste. I call on my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to come together to get this done.

I believe there are really good people on both sides of the floor. I believe most people would like to see us function better than we do right now. I am certainly one of them, and I think there are a lot of others in this body who feel exactly the same way. I just hope that for the remainder of this year we can get together and do what we should do in the best interest of the American people, and if we do that, everybody will be better off. This country will be better off, our functions in government will be better off, almost everything will be better off. I think it is time for us to quit playing games around here and do the work of the U.S. Senate, the greatest deliberative body in the world, some say. I am one of them who does say that because I believe we handle more absolutely crucial matters than any other legislative body in the world, and I intend to see that we continue to do it.

There are some things that folks on the other side or folks on our side might want to fully test and fully work against. That is not bad; that is part of this job, too, but to do it on everything, to make it just miserable around here to get anything done, that discloses the bad faith on whichever side is doing it, and it is just plain wrong. We have to wake up and start acting like adults and do the things that really should be done in this greatest of all legislative bodies.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I am here today to discuss new legislation to help Puerto Rico gain a stronger fiscal footing, but before turning to that, I would like to make a few comments regarding the current NAFTA trade talks.

Over the past few weeks, there has been a lot of discussion in the press about potential deadlines for concluding negotiations on NAFTA. While speculation about timelines is natural, let me be clear. As I have said from the beginning of these talks, the most important thing for determining when and how Congress will vote on an eventual North American Free Trade Agreement outcome is the quality of the agreement.

I understand that the current negotiations are about an existing agreement that American businesses and workers rely on in dealing with two of our largest trading partners. I understand that continuing negotiations means a level of uncertainty about these important relationships will continue to persist. Nevertheless, it is critical that the administration take the time necessary to get these negotiations right. I believe the administration understands that.

A modernized NAFTA will help American businesses and workers only if it includes strong and enforceable protections for America's creators and innovators, supports cross-border data flows, and maintains and expands market access for American goods and services exporters to the Canadian and Mexican markets.

The bottom line: Substance is what matters, and we should not allow other considerations to impede achieving our goals.

I am confident that with continued discussions between the United States, Canada, and Mexico, we can create a strong agreement that will meet the high standards set by Congress in trade promotion authority. I will continue to support the administration in achieving that outcome.

Mr. President, as President pro tempore of the U.S. Senate, I ask my colleagues to join me in marking a special day. Exactly 70 years ago today, the State of Israel was established. On the same day, the United States was the first country to recognize Israel's statehood. I applaud President Trump's decision to commemorate this historic anniversary with the opening of the U.S. Embassy in Jerusalem.

In the 70 years since its founding, Israel has shared an unbreakable bond with the United States. I am pleased to be a friend of Israel's and to have played an integral role in strengthening relations between our two countries.

It is difficult for me to express the profound reverence I have for the Jewish people. As a symbol of my respect, I wear a mezuzah around my neck and have done so every day for almost four decades--I think, actually, for more than four decades. The mezuzah reminds me of the affinity I, as a member of the Mormon faith, hold for the Jewish people and their history. Both Israel and Utah were settled by religious minorities who sought refuge from persecution--a shared history that deepens our devotion to democracy and our love of freedom.

Although my schedule does not allow me to be in Israel today, perhaps it is even more appropriate that I make these remarks here rather than in Jerusalem, where I would like to be. After all, today should be seen as an American holiday just as it is an Israeli one. America's interests, prosperity, and security have benefited immeasurably from our deep friendship with the State of Israel. Indeed, the world is a much better place because of Israel, and it is high time the country received its fair treatment on the world stage. That is why, last week, I joined Senator Booker in introducing legislation that calls for the fair treatment of Israel and urges other nations to foster diplomatic ties with the country and recognize its sovereignty.

Israel desperately needs allies. Indeed, the events of last week are a stark reminder that Israel has many enemies that seek its destruction. The Iranian Government directed missile strikes into the Golan Heights in the early hours of the morning last Thursday. Just hours before, the Iranian Government announced it may explore enriching uranium toward acquiring nuclear weapons. I know the Golan Heights. I have been there. I have looked over the Golan Heights.

We stand at a historic crossroads. Whatever your ideas about the Iran deal, whether you were for it or against it, we should remember the goals and ideas of the Iranian Government have not changed. They are, as they have been for the last several decades, aimed at the destruction of Israel.

Our Israeli friends need our help. So my message today is to the American people, to their Representatives in both Chambers of Congress, and to all the nations of the world. Now is not the time for partisanship or political games. Now is the time for meaningful and unified action in defense of the Jewish people and the State of Israel.

That means a number of things. It starts with all of our getting behind this President and his new approach to Iran. We can have our disagreements on his policies in other areas, but taking an aggressive, holistic posture on Iran should be a bipartisan issue. We must be willing to confront Iran on its nuclear program as well as on its bases in Syria, its support for terrorism, and its numerous violations of human rights and religious freedom. Here in Congress, we should support the administration's position through legislation.

To that end, I invite my colleagues to join me on a number of initiatives I have championed this Congress, including the Continued Support for the Iranian People Act, which holds the Iranian regime responsible for its human rights abuses. I also call on my friends to join me in supporting the Iranian Leadership Asset Transparency Act, which exposes the hypocrisy of the Iranian Government in its funding of violent causes rather than in its providing for the welfare of its people.

These actions are just the beginning. We now have an opportunity to hold the Iranian Government accountable. We should start with curbing Iran's nuclear ambitions. We would do well to remember that Iran's nuclear program is not an end in itself but just one of many tools the government has at its disposal for causing great harm.

In that light, we need to appeal to our partners in Europe and in the Middle East to not only settle on talking points but on plans of action. If, indeed, we share the priority of protecting democratic values and institutions, we must do so by protecting Israel--a beacon of democracy in the Middle East. We need to both talk the talk and walk the walk.

The world is a different place from what it was in 1948, and so is Israel. Today, Israel is on the cutting edge of every innovation that helps the human condition--from medicine to technology, to irrigation. As a testament to Israel's strength, it has nurtured partnerships across the Middle East, Africa, and Asia.

The United States must continue doing its part to foster these partnerships. Just as important, we must continue leading the charge in ideas and actions that can help bring about a secure Israel. The task has never been more urgent. I call on my colleagues in the Senate to come together on this--to build a future of peace and prosperity for Israel and its neighbors. Let Israel's founding be a holiday for us and, indeed, for all nations of the world, and let us pray that we can soon celebrate this anniversary in more peaceful times.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.