John Cornyn

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10 a.m., Tuesday, May 2; further, that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and morning business be closed; further, that following leader remarks, the Senate proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the Clayton nomination, with the time until 12:30 p.m. equally divided in the usual form; further, that the Senate recess from 12:30 p.m. until 2:15 p.m. to allow for the weekly conference meetings; finally, that all time during recess, adjournment, morning business, and leader remarks count postcloture on the Clayton nomination.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, our military and our intelligence community grapple with intersecting issues that aren't wholly unique to this day and age. Our national security has always been imperiled by foreign threats, from the Revolutionary War to two World Wars, and we previously faced a seemingly unsurmountable debt burden following World War II. The challenge seems to be, as it always is in a democracy, that people of different views differ on the sense of urgency on priorities and the means to address both those threats and our financial house in order to be able to pay for what it takes to keep America safe. What is unique is the range and complexity of the problems we face and their scale. I am reminded of a sobering quote from the former Director of National Intelligence during a hearing just last year, former Director James Clapper, who served 50 years in the U.S. intelligence community. He said: ``In my time in the intelligence business, I don't recall a time when we have been confronted with a more diverse array of threats.'' I agree with him. On top of that diverse array of threats, never before has our country been at war for such an extended period of time since 9/11, and never before have we done so much with an all-volunteer military force stressed by repeated deployments, while at the same time defense spending has been cut by nearly 15 percent over the last 8 years. So the United States is at a crossroads when it comes to meeting the diverse threats we face today, while simultaneously preparing for the ever-evolving future threats headed our way tomorrow. I wish to first provide a little bit of context about our lack of readiness to meet those threats by framing the challenges our military and our Nation faces, and then I wish to offer some thoughts about how we can rise to meet these challenges and maintain our military preeminence and leadership in the world. First, there are the challenges abroad. We face a range of adversaries unlike any other in our history. In the Middle East, even as ISIS forces are pushed back in Iraq, their ideology spreads like a contagion through their so-called cyber caliphate, and it continues to permeate the West and attract the vulnerable and the disillusioned. FBI Director Comey has said that his agency has open investigations into home-grown jihadists in all 50 States. Iran, under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, is a breakout nuclear threat and remains the No. 1 state sponsor of terrorism in the world. At the same time, it is rapidly growing its ballistic missile arsenal and has regained much of its financial strength following sanctions relief under the JCPOA. Then there is Syria. Since the Syrian civil war began, 400,000 have died in a bloody civil war, while Bashar al-Assad, a brutal dictator known to repeatedly use chemical weapons on his own people despite redlines drawn, enjoys Russian and Iranian support and protection. In addition to its meddling in the Middle East, Russia has invaded eastern Ukraine and annexed Crimea. It routinely threatens NATO member states and has ramped up its use of ``active measures''--a program of both overt and covert action that leverages propaganda, cyber espionage, social media, and a sometimes gullible mainstream media both here and abroad--to influence and undermine public confidence in the very foundation of our democracies, which are our free and fair elections. In the Pacific, China seeks to advance its regional dominance by making claims to former sandbars and reefs that it has now built into strategic military bases--complete with a 10,000 foot runway--in the South China Sea. Finally, as we learned more about yesterday at the White House in the briefing from the President's national security advisers, North Korea continues to develop and test its nuclear and ballistic missile capabilities with the threat of soon being able to combine the two to threaten the continental United States and wreak death and destruction. Many before me have observed that American strength on the world stage is a deterrent and a stabilizing influence, while weakness is an invitation to our adversaries and inherently destabilizing. I think that proposition has never been more evident than it is today. But to address these threats--to maintain the peace and fight, if we must--we need a capable, ready, and modern military force. But the truth is we are not ready. While I believe America will always rise to the challenges once roused from our national complacency, it makes a dangerous world even more dangerous. U.S. military readiness and modernization--already under great stress and stretched thin around the world--has suffered 15 years of continued operations and simultaneous budgetary restrictions and deferred maintenance and investment. That has led to some very real consequences for our military. Let me just illustrate a few of those consequences. According to General Walters, the Assistant Commandant of the Marine Corps, more than half of all Marine Corps fixed- and rotary-wing aircraft were unable to fly at the end of 2016. Let me say that again. That is a shocking statistic. More than half of the Marine Corps' fixed- and rotary-wing aircraft were unable to fly by the end of 2016. These aircraft are in constant operation overseas and are absolutely necessary to continue the fight against ISIS and terrorism, yet half of them are unable to take off. The Navy fleet currently stands at 275 of the 350 ship requirement. Law mandates an inventory of 11 aircraft carriers and has a stated force level goal of 12. But today, the Navy requires a waiver in order to operate just 10, currently. As we all know, these carrier strike groups deploy worldwide, and, as the Navy likes to say, they act as ``100,000 tons of diplomacy that doesn't need a permission slip.'' Of our 58 Army brigade and combat teams, only three are considered fully ready for combat. These are the main building blocks of the Army that support the majority of Army operations, and only three are fully ready. Keep in mind, too, that our Army is smaller than at any time since before World War II, as a result of draconian cuts in defense spending. Finally, when it comes to our Air Force, General Wilson, the Air Force Vice Chief of Staff, recently testified: ``Sustained global commitments and funding reductions have eroded our Air Force to the point where we have become one of the smallest, oldest equipped, and least ready forces across the full-spectrum of operations in our service history.'' The Air Force currently has 5,500 aircraft in its inventory. That is down from 8,600 since 1991. The average aircraft in the U.S. Air Force is 27 years old. For example, I was at Dyess Air Force Base in Abilene, TX, just last week, viewing some of their B-1 bombers, which is a plane first flown in 1974. Then, of course, there is the grandpa of our aircraft fleet, the B- 52--that is still in operation--first introduced in the 1950s. The Air Force is also experiencing a pilot shortage crisis due to the pressure on the force, including quality of life issues and, of course, increased demand and competition from the airline industry. So our military faces these internal issues as well. No one would argue that in order to keep the peace and to protect our national vital interests, we must have a credible and modern force. But the hard truth is that we don't currently meet that standard, and we can't afford to ignore the problems. So why, I ask, do we continue to do so? More importantly, the question is this: Where do we go from here? How can we assure that our military can maintain its competitive edge and ensure it is ready to meet these and future challenges? I have a few suggestions. First, we must fund our military to meet the threat environment, not do what we can to meet the threat environment with what we funded for the military. In other words, the threat should determine the resources necessary to meet that threat. So I would suggest we should start by eliminating sequestration of Department of Defense funding under the 2011 Budget Control Act. The truth is that the Budget Control Act was never meant to cut military spending. It was meant to spur action. Remember the supercommittee and the hoped-for grand bargain? Instead, the BCA took a meat ax to our defense budget. Allowing the Budget Control Act to keep making automatic cuts to our military until 2021 does not serve the national security interests of the United States. It does the opposite. These cuts add risk not just to our national security but also to our servicemembers and their families--who, as I said, have been fighting the longest war in our Nation's history--and it does so by undermining their training, readiness, and modernization. At a time when our growing national security threats require greater investment in technology, we are tying the hands of our military and simply hoping for the best. So if we want to return to a strong American military after years of stress and inadequate funding, we need to start with ending the Department of Defense sequestration. Of course, the next logical question becomes this: If we do away with the defense portions of the Budget Control Act, how do we control overspending, deficits, and unsustainable national debt, which is a serious problem? That brings me to my second point. A bipartisan Congress and the Trump administration must address our budget priorities by looking at and addressing all government spending, not just the 30 percent or so represented by discretionary spending. Right now, about 70 percent of Federal spending isn't even appropriated by the Congress. It simply runs on autopilot, and it grew last year at the rate of 5.5 percent, while discretionary spending has remained relatively flat. Until we have the political courage on a bipartisan basis to tackle our structural financial problems, we will never adequately fund the military or our other national priorities. We also need a bipartisan commitment to ending continuing resolutions and the self-destructive drama and narrative of potential government shutdowns. Most importantly, perhaps, the Defense Department needs to be able to plan, not just for the duration of the next continuing resolution, but it needs to be able to plan long term and to spend the money that is appropriated to it in an efficient way. The Chief of Staff of the Air Force, General Goldfein, captured the point well 2 months ago, when he said: ``There is no enemy on the planet that can do more to damage the United States Air Force than us not getting a budget.'' This sentiment is shared by all the service chiefs, and I wholeheartedly agree. In a Department as big, as large, and as unwieldy as the Department of Defense, there is no doubt that there is room to streamline, improve efficiencies, and reduce duplication. We can all agree on that. But the truth is we need to take a hard, strategic look at our budgetary and fiscal needs across the Federal Government. Endless continuing resolutions aren't the answer. Continuing resolutions actually limit an agency's ability to be efficient and flexible, and they prevent the establishment of new programs and the retiring of the old and obsolete programs. At the end of the day, the only way we can rein in spending, get a handle on our debt, and ensure our military stays ready for the threats facing it every day is to clearly articulate our country's needs and how we plan to meet them. That way, we can restore constitutional oversight responsibilities to Congress. Finally, Congress has a tremendous opportunity, working with the Trump administration, to propose a strategy to modernize our military and prepare for the next generation of warfighting. Both readiness and modernization have been encumbered by the lack of a coherent national security and foreign policy strategy in recent years, in addition to the blanket restrictions placed on defense spending. Too frequently, modernization has simply been pushed aside by myopic views of how to deal with our financial challenges, which place greater risk on the warfighter and our collective security. You had better believe that, not hamstrung by redtape and regulations or continuing resolutions or deep cuts in defense spending or national security spending, our enemies take full advantage of our reluctance to deal with our challenges on a bipartisan basis. All the while, the United States operates on platforms engineered decades ago to fight the last generation's wars. I can't think of a better example than our nuclear weapons program. This is the preeminent deterrent to war. Our country is the leading pioneer in science and technology, but instead of modernizing our nuclear weapons to provide a safe, reliable, and dependable deterrent, we, in effect, merely extend the service life of outdated and ancient weapons. Clearly, we need a coherent national security strategy from President Trump and his Cabinet to do that. I know Congress is committed to working with them to make that happen. By doing away with the Budget Control Act, putting the Pentagon on a dependable and predictable budget and developing a coherent national security strategy, we can maintain our status as the top military in the world. Along the way, we can deter our enemies and reassure our allies. We don't need to rewrite the playbook. We need to go back to the basics of government, providing for our national defense and keeping our fiscal house in order, all in light of the challenges and threats these times present. My hope is that we will get out of the rut we have been in the Senate and in the Congress for the last few years and we will actually capitalize on this moment--and rally around a bipartisan commitment that a strong, modern, and ready military is really a nonnegotiable item--to lay the foundation for a modern military that will continue to keep our Nation safe for generations. I am committed to working with the administration and all of my colleagues in order to accomplish these goals. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, with the media and others looking at the first 100 days or so of this new administration, and looking at this new Congress and the Republican majority, I think it bears reflecting on the last couple of months in the Congress under the new Trump administration and looking at some of the accomplishments that have been made on behalf of the American economy and the American people. We are committed to helping job creators do what they do best; that is, innovate, create more jobs, and employ more people, and not force those same job creators to waste time dealing with onerous rules and regulations that bear no relationship to public safety. With a like-minded President, we have been able to deliver some real relief to the American people. One of the ways we have been able to do that is through a mechanism known as the Congressional Review Act. The Congressional Review Act was created to give Congress an opportunity to do away with regulations with which it disagrees. It allows Congress to act as a real check. The problem with regulations is, it is really a substitute for lawmaking. Of course, when Congress acts and passes laws, the President signs them, and then we are held accountable by the voters for the laws we pass. That is not so when it comes to the bureaucracy that writes regulations. Bureaucrats don't stand for election. Bureaucrats are not accountable to the people. So that is why it is really important for us to have a mechanism like the Congressional Review Act to act as a check on runaway regulation. By using this mechanism, the Congressional Review Act, with an ally in the White House, we have started undoing some of the thousands of burdensome rules and regulations created by the Obama administration-- rules and regulations that add up to a hefty pricetag for our country. By one estimate, the costs of these Obama-era regulations add up to more than $1 trillion. That is a tremendous wet blanket on the American economy. If the job creators have to pay somebody to help them comply with these onerous rules and regulations, they obviously are not paying somebody to grow their business and to be productive. By one estimate, the cost of these Obama regulations adds up to more than $1 trillion and more than 700 million hours of paperwork, but fortunately we have been able to chip away at them by working with the White House and focusing on bringing regulatory relief to the American people. Here is the tally so far. So far, we have been able to save the American economy $636 billion worth of regulatory relief. That adds up to 52 million hours of compliance time. Again, when somebody is busy complying with busy work mandated by a micromanaging Federal bureaucracy, they are not doing productive work. Now, some of these rules and regulations are things that we may not read or hear about in the headlines or the evening news--things like the stream buffer rule, the Bureau of Land Management planning rule, and the Securities and Exchange Commission resource extraction rule. These are not well-known rules and regulations, but they have a real cost on the American economy. There is a real reason why, after the great recession of 2008, our economy has been bouncing along at about 2 percent real growth. That is not enough growth to keep hiring people as they come of age and become eligible to work in the workforce. We need the economy to grow faster, and one of the ways to do that is to relieve businesses and the economy of those overly onerous regulations. As I was thinking about it, I think what has happened to our economy is, it has died a death of 1,000 cuts. Each of these regulations, while they seem rather innocuous, in and of themselves, or people don't know about them, have actually accumulated to cause real damage to the American economy. So we have been able to help those small businesses that would like to hire more people to do productive work, to grow the economy, and to help pay their employees better wages. We have helped them by repealing these regulations to help our job creators and not hurt them. This has always been, to me, the mystery of Washington, DC. Back home in Texas, we look at the job creator as a positive influence on our economy, as somebody who is going to be creating a real opportunity for someone to find productive work and to pursue their dreams, but here in Washington so often the opposite seems to be true. It almost seemed like the attitude, particularly of the previous administration, was, What other obstacles can we put in the way of businesses? What other burdens can we impose upon the economy in the name of trying to micromanage the economy from Washington, DC? Well, I think what we have seen--the evidence is pretty clear--is anemic growth, and that is something we need to roll back, along with these rules and regulations. I am hopeful the President will be signing more of these Congressional Review Act initiatives soon. So far, he has signed 13 of them, and we have more in the queue. As we look ahead to big-ticket items we all want to make progress on, I am committed to continuing to work with all of our colleagues and the administration in doing all we can to help small businesses, family farmers, and entrepreneurs spend more time doing productive work and less time doing busy work mandated by the bureaucrats here in Washington, DC. One of those big-ticket items is tax reform. We have seen some big ideas floated out there by the House of Representatives and last night and today by the President and his Cabinet as well. I look forward to reviewing the proposal the President has made. There is no question there is a lot of room for reforming our Tax Code. Our Tax Code is literally a self-inflicted wound which damages our economy. We have trillions of dollars earned by American-based businesses earned overseas that they will not bring back because they don't want to be taxed twice on that money. We know our Tax Code is way too complicated. It is riddled with loopholes, inconsistencies, and provisions that impede job creation. Pro-growth tax reform should be our goal. It is something that has united Republicans and Democrats in the past, and there is no reason we shouldn't be united again in accomplishing that tax reform. So I look forward to hearing more about the President's proposal, and I applaud him for making a bold statement about the direction we ought to pursue. Now is finally the time to address it. All of these efforts--tax reform, rolling back unnecessary regulations and rules, and providing a better environment for businesses to thrive--are vital to getting our economy back on track and away from years of stagnant growth we saw under President Obama. I should note it is hard to argue with how business-friendly policies--and the promise of more--affect the economy and create an atmosphere conducive to building businesses and helping families get by. I think what we have seen is a resurgence of public confidence in the American economy. One index by Gallup suggests that business owners are now more optimistic than they have been since the summer of 2007. That is the kind of confidence and optimism that helps them grow their business and create opportunity for the working man and woman in our country, and it is a testament to the sea change we have seen over the last few months since the new administration came into office and the American people chose to retain Republican majorities in the House and the Senate. More family-run businesses are expecting us to keep putting forward policies that empower job creators, not to get in their way. I know we have only seen the first few months of the new Congress and we have only seen the first few months of a new Presidential administration, but I am proud of what we have been able to accomplish so far; frankly, without much help from our friends across the aisle who have done everything they can to slow-walk nominations and otherwise impede progress. I hope they realize that is bad politics, and it is not serving the interests of the American people very well. Sooner or later, enough Democrats are going to say: We came here not to just say no to every constructive proposal made but actually participate in the legislative process and work for the benefit of the American people. I look forward to doing even more to help those who want to bring more jobs and more economic growth to our communities across this great land. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, as we come back into session after a 2- week State work period, I think we need to take stock of what we have been able to accomplish in working together during the last few months. Through the efforts of the administration and in working with Congress, we have been able to greatly lessen the regulatory burden on many American job creators, which is something sorely needed while our economy has been bumping along at, roughly, 2 percent growth of our gross domestic product since the Great Recession of 2008. We have confirmed a ninth Supreme Court Justice, and we have seen strong, credible action taken against people like the terrible Assad regime in Syria. It is important to remember, as folks continue to judge the current administration and its foreign policy in particular, how we got here and what this White House inherited after 8 years of the Obama administration. As President Obama left office, he left in his wake fires burning around the world. There is no better example than the Middle East. President Obama celebrated the Arab Spring as a testament to the power of a democratic voice, but he did little to help our partners across the Middle East and North Africa find stability and prosperity. Along the way, he made the world a lot more dangerous for all of us by his inaction or, in some cases, by his actions. Libya is one of the most tragic examples. Without his coming to Congress but instead going to the United Nations for a resolution, under President Obama's watch, the country fractured after he helped to launch a poorly conceived military campaign that helped depose Muammar Qadhafi, with no plan at all as to what to do afterward to stabilize the country. Apparently, despite all of President Obama's criticisms of President Bush's 2003 invasion of Iraq, he learned very little from it, and terrorists, including ISIS, jumped at the opportunity to fill the vacuum in Libya. Later, the American Consulate in Benghazi would be attacked, resulting in the deaths of four Americans, including that of Ambassador Christopher Stevens. That was the result of President Obama's failed strategy in Libya. To the east, as 2016 came to a close, Syria was embroiled in even more disarray, more bloodshed, and more violence than when the civil war initially broke out. President Obama promised the world--now infamously--that should the Syrian Government use chemical weapons that at that point a red line would have been crossed. We know how that turned out and so do the citizens of Syria and so do, importantly, other thugs, autocrats, and dictators around the world--red lines crossed but not enforced. President Obama's threats went unanswered. Russia became bolder in its support of Assad as it became clearer that the United States would not intervene. Now, in light of years of inaction by the previous administration, we have a refugee crisis in the Middle East and throughout Europe. Millions of people have been displaced both internally and externally across Europe. We have a war criminal leading the Syrian Government who has repeatedly used chemical weapons and indiscriminately killed civilians, including children, in a region even further from any measure of stability than when President Obama took office. Yet, instead of developing a strategy, instead of listening to his own military and national security leadership, President Obama and his team perversely opted to strengthen our adversary Iran. The ill- conceived JCPOA deal cemented the status of this state sponsor of terrorism as a future nuclear power as it released billions of dollars in sanctions relief to the regime and empowered our enemy to engage in even more terrorist activities abroad and around the world. After 8 years of the Obama administration, the bottom line is, our foremost enemy in the Middle East became stronger, not weaker. On top of all of that, President Obama pushed aside our strongest ally in the region--Israel--time and time again to appease nations that were working against us. That is simply not how the United States should operate in its leadership role around the world. I could go on and on about the foreign policy failures of the last administrations with respect to the Middle East, but it is not the only region in worse shape. Under President Obama's watch, Russia invaded Crimea and eastern Ukraine. It repeatedly threatened NATO member states and ramped up its cyber espionage to influence and undermine public confidence in free and fair elections both in the United States and in Europe. Along the way, our allies in Europe were cast aside rather than assured of our support--all with Russia's mounting aggression close by. In the Pacific, China continued to advance its regional dominance by making claims to islands disputed by our allies, going so far as to convert sand bars and reefs into island military bases--some with 10,000-foot military-capable runways right there in the South China Sea. Finally, North Korea continues to develop and test its nuclear and ballistic missile capabilities with the threat of soon being able to use both to reach the continental United States. North Korea carried out four nuclear tests during the Obama administration. That is simply unacceptable. The truth is, after two terms of inaction, no coherent strategy, and leading from behind, our allies and partners around the world questioned the commitment and power of the United States and our ability to defend our national interests around the globe. I, personally, am thankful for what we have seen President Trump accomplish so far, even in a short period of time. His tough but honest discussions about America's role in the world are appreciated not only by those of us here at home but by our allies and friends around the world who have been hungry for American leadership. When Assad crossed a line the entire international community deemed abhorrent, President Trump, unlike President Obama, took action. Unfortunately, President Trump has inherited foreign policy predicaments that were created by both the action and inaction of his predecessor around the world. My hope is, President Trump will continue to work with the great team he has assembled to make sure U.S. interests are put first and that America continues to exert its leadership role around the world. The truth is, a strong America and an America that leads is a stabilizing and peacekeeping influence around the world. Just the opposite is also true. As America retreats, there is no other country that can fill that leadership vacuum. It is inherently destabilizing, and it is an invitation for bad actors around the world to take advantage of that power vacuum. I look forward to working with the administration, as well as all of our colleagues in the Congress, to help keep Americans safe by making clear that we will back up and support our allies and partners abroad and send a powerful message to those who threaten our interests. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Flake) and the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Shelby). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Shelby) would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I would like to start briefly by mentioning the horrific chemical attack on innocent civilians in Syria earlier this week. It was nothing short of evil. I stand shoulder to shoulder with the administration in condemning this brutality. Again, we see Bashar al-Assad crossing a line--a line drawn and then ignored by the Obama administration. The United States and the world community simply can't stand idly while Syria continues crimes against humanity, again, under Russian protection. That is why last night the administration responded quickly and proportionally. I commend the President and his national security team for acting decisively and sending a clear message to Assad and our allies. I am sure it was a message that was not missed by the leaders of the Iranian Government, the Russian Federation, and North Korea. I agree with Ambassador Haley that Russia's obstructionism at the U.N. has enabled Assad and prevented international action, resulting in at least 400,000 Syrians dead in this civil war and millions of others displaced as refugees, not only internally but externally as well. Going forward, I stand ready to work with the President and his administration on a unified strategy to defeat Assad's barbarism and work toward greater stability in Syria and throughout the region. Madam President, on another subject, as we all know, here in about 20 minutes, we will start the vote to confirm Neil Gorsuch as the next Justice of the Supreme Court. Over the last few weeks, our colleagues and I have--and the entire country, as a matter of fact--have gotten to know Judge Neil Gorsuch not only as a judge but as a man. He is a good man with superb qualifications and incredible integrity. A Colorado native, Judge Gorsuch has served on the Denver-based Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals for about 10 years. He is known for his sharp intellect, his brilliant writing, and his faithful interpretation of the Constitution and laws passed by Congress. He is, in short, a distinguished jurist with an impeccable legal and academic record. In addition to his decade on the bench, his professional experience includes years practicing in a private law firm, prestigious clerkships, including the Supreme Court of the United States under two separate Justices, and service in the Department of Justice. It is simply undeniable that Judge Gorsuch is a qualified, high- caliber nominee. I have no doubt that he will serve our Nation well on the Supreme Court. But of course, in spite of all of this--his sterling background, his proven character, his broad bipartisan support--we have seen an unprecedented attack on this good judge and this good man in the form of a partisan political filibuster, the first ever lodged against a Supreme Court nominee. Yesterday, our Democratic colleagues would have prevented the up-or-down vote we are getting ready to have here starting at 11:30. For what? Well, it certainly was not because of the judge, his character, his qualifications, or his background and experience; it was merely because so many of our colleagues across the aisle simply have not gotten over the fact that Donald Trump won the Presidential election and Hillary Clinton did not. Before Judge Gorsuch was nominated, the minority leader, our colleague Senator Schumer, said they needed a ``mainstream nominee.'' After President Trump nominated a mainstream nominee, Democrats then looked for other ways to make him out to be some sort of extremist or radical. But they failed because there is simply no evidence to justify those kinds of characterizations. For one, judicial experts spanning the political spectrum, including President Obama's former Solicitor General, voiced their support. Second, they had to deal with the facts of his record. During his time on the Tenth Circuit, Judge Gorsuch was involved in thousands of decisions--2,700 to be exact. The vast majority of those panel decisions made by at least three judges-- sometimes more on the panel--97 percent of them were unanimous. So you would basically have to slander the reputations of all of those other judges with whom the judge agreed to claim that he is some sort of out- of-the-mainstream extremist. That is truly an impressive record for a judge in a multi-judge court like the Denver-based Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. It simply rebuts any picture our friends across the aisle have attempted to paint of him as some kind of extremist or radical. I would ask our friends this question: If Judge Gorsuch does not fit the bill for a qualified, mainstream nominee, then is there any nominee from this President or any other Republican President who will meet the Democrat's arbitrary, flimsy standard? Time and time again, our friends across the aisle failed to make any intellectually honest argument against this nominee. Still, they are determined to block him. That brought us to the cloture vote yesterday and the last-ditch effort to block Judge Gorsuch. They did not want to even give him the up-or-down vote we are getting ready to have here in a few minutes. Instead, they wanted to kill his nomination by simply refusing an up-or-down vote and moving his nomination forward. In our Nation's entire history, before yesterday there had only been four cloture votes for Supreme Court nominees--only four. None of them had been cast as a partisan filibuster determined to try to block the nomination--until yesterday. Still, the minority leader, cheered on by the extreme groups on the left, barreled this Chamber to the first-ever partisan filibuster of a Supreme Court nominee, following a regrettable and recent tradition of Democratic obstructionism when it came to Republican judicial nominees. Now that there is a Republican White House, that is what they want to do again--obstruct. This is a wholly concocted method the Democrats started back when George W. Bush was President to deny a Republican President an opportunity to nominate the person of his choice, confirmed by a majority vote in the Senate. Before 2000, before Senator Schumer and a number of liberal legal activists decided they wanted to raise the threshold for confirmation to 60 votes, instead of what the Constitution requires, which is a majority vote. No one would ever have dreamed that the Constitution would have allowed for a 60-vote requirement, rather than an up-or-down vote. It is not that our friends across the aisle truly oppose Judge Gorsuch. The fact is, they oppose President Trump. That is what this is all about. This vote isn't actually about President Trump. It is about the man we have all learned so much about, Judge Neil Gorsuch, who has a record of faithfully interpreting the law, a man who has proved himself to possess an independent judicial mind, who simply follows the law wherever it may lead. He is someone who has won bipartisan approval. This vote is about delivering our promise. The Republicans have promised to let the American people's voice be heard in deciding who they would choose as President to select the next Supreme Court Justice. The American people did that. They chose President Trump, and he chose Judge Gorsuch. If Hillary Clinton had been elected President today, I have no doubt that her choice for the Supreme Court would be confirmed by a majority vote in the same U.S. Senate. Now it is time that we deliver on the promise we made to the American people and confirm Judge Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Isakson). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Isakson) would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Isakson).

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, yesterday the Senate Judiciary Committee voted out the nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court left by the death of Justice Scalia. During the meeting, as the Presiding Officer knows, our Democratic colleagues trotted out the same old tired arguments we have heard time and again about Judge Gorsuch. In the end, though, none of those arguments hold water, and of course many of them aren't even about him. Instead, these arguments reveal how our colleagues across the aisle are grasping for reasons to justify an unprecedented partisan filibuster of a Supreme Court Justice. Some object to the nomination of Judge Gorsuch because they claim he refuses to answer specific questions. But I ask: How would any of us feel if the judge before whom we might later appear had previously, in order to get a confirmation of his nomination, made certain promises of how he would judge that case when presented at a future date? We would all feel more than a little bit betrayed and even cheated if the judge had prejudged our case before he even heard it. The judge is simply engaging in a common practice for Supreme Court nominees. They steer clear of any questions that may pertain to cases they may have to rule on later. It is a matter, as the Presiding Officer knows, of judicial ethics, and we wouldn't have it any other way. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg set this precedent early on. During her confirmation hearing in 1993, she said she didn't want to give any hints or previews about how she might vote on an issue before her. So she politely and respectfully declined. Others followed her example, and Judge Gorsuch is, of course, doing precisely the same. By any fair review, Judge Gorsuch has a history of 10 years as a judge sitting on the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals out of Denver, CO. He has a history of interpreting the law fairly, basing his judgments on the law and the facts, without regard to politics and without respect to persons. That brings me to this argument that somehow he is against the little guy. Clearly, a review of the records demonstrates that this is not so. But, again, how are judges supposed to perform? Are they supposed to see the litigants--the parties to a lawsuit--in their court and say: Well, you have a big guy and you have a little guy, and I am always going to vote or render a judgment for the little guy without regard to the law or the facts? I realize that sometimes our colleagues can weave a story that seems somewhat sympathetic when it comes to the fact that not everybody is guaranteed a win in court. As a matter of fact, when there are two parties to a lawsuit, one of those parties is likely to be disappointed in the outcome. But that is what judges are there for. That is what they are supposed to do. They are supposed to render judgments, without regard to personal preferences or politics or without regard to their sympathies, let's say, for one of the parties to the lawsuit. Judge Gorsuch even said this during his hearing: No one will capture me. No one will capture me--meaning that no special interest group or faction would derail him from following the law, wherever it may lead. That is why Judge Gorsuch is universally respected. That is why he was confirmed by voice vote 10 years ago to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. No one objected to Judge Gorsuch's confirmation to a lifetime appointment on the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. Again, as the Presiding Officer knows, the Supreme Court of the United States only hears about 80 cases, give or take, a year. Most of the hard work gets done in our judicial system at the district court level and at the circuit court level, and almost all of the cases end in circuit courts, like the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, on which Judge Gorsuch serves. That is not to say that the Supreme Court is not important--it is--in resolving conflicts between the circuits or ruling on important questions of law to guide all of the judiciary and to settle these issues for our country, at least for a time, and maybe even permanently when it comes to constitutional interpretation. Judge Gorsuch enjoys broad support from across the political spectrum, especially from his colleagues and members of the bar. For 13 years, I served on the State judiciary in Texas, with 6 years as a trial judge and 7 years as a member of the Texas Supreme Court. When I heard that Judge Gorsuch had participated in 2,700 cases on a three-judge panel and 97 percent of them were unanimous, that told me something special about this judge. It takes hard work to build consensus on a multijudge panel, whether it is three judges or nine judges, like the Supreme Court. I think what we are going to see out of this judge is not somebody who is going to decide cases in a knee-jerk fashion but somebody who is going to work really hard to try to build consensus on the Supreme Court of the United States. That is really important to the Supreme Court's respect as an institution of our government. What causes disrespect for our judiciary is when judges act like politicians, when they make pledges of how they will decide cases ahead of time or they campaign, in essence, for votes based on ideological positions. Judge Gorsuch is the opposite of that, and that is the kind of judge America needs right now in the Supreme Court. That is why later on this week, on Friday, Judge Gorsuch will be confirmed. In spite of all the evidence in support of the nominee's intellect and qualifications, without regard to the bipartisan chorus urging his confirmation, the Democratic leader has decided to do everything he can to prevent us from even having an up-or-down vote on his nomination. Unfortunately, he will be making history in urging his Democratic colleagues to engage in a partisan filibuster against a Supreme Court justice. In our Nation's long, rich history, there has never been a successful partisan filibuster of a Supreme Court nominee. Now, some people want to talk about Abe Fortas back in 1968, which was totally different. But there has never been a successful partisan filibuster of a Supreme Court justice until, apparently, this week on Thursday--not one of them. Not one of my Republican colleagues mounted a filibuster when President Obama nominated Justice Sotomayor or Justice Kagan. Both received an up-or-down vote. That is because that has been the customary way this Chamber has treated Supreme Court nominees in the past. Only four times in our Nation's history has a cloture motion actually even been filed. But cloture was always achieved because, on a bipartisan basis, enough votes were cast to allow the debate to end and then to allow an up-or-down vote on the nominee. To show how new this weaponization of the filibuster has become, back when Clarence Thomas was confirmed to the Supreme Court of the United States, he got 52 votes--52 votes--and was confirmed and now serves on the Supreme Court. Back when he was confirmed, no one even dreamed of its use. It was theoretically possible, but no one dreamed of the idea that someone would raise the threshold for confirmation from a 51- majority vote to 60. Our colleagues have made it quite clear that they don't want to support any nominee from this President. So it is not even just about Judge Gorsuch. It is about any nominee this President might propose to the Supreme Court. And I think what it boils down to is this: Our Democratic colleagues haven't gotten over the fact that they lost the election. I think it really isn't much more complicated than that. They adamantly resisted participating in the legislative process. They dug their feet on every Cabinet nomination and now on the Supreme Court nomination. All they know is to obstruct because they haven't gotten over the fact that Hillary Clinton isn't President of the United States. They keep bringing up Merrick Garland's name. Judge Garland is a fine man, a good judge who serves on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, but you would have to go back to 1888 to find a time when someone was nominated in a Presidential election year with divided government and where that person was confirmed. What we decided to do upon the death of Justice Scalia is to say that the Supreme Court is so important that we are going to have a referendum on who gets to nominate the next Justice on the Supreme Court. Our Democratic friends thought for sure it would be Hillary Clinton. When it turned out to be Donald Trump, well, all bets were off, and they were in full opposition mode. But we would have respected the right of a President Hillary Clinton to fill that nomination because that is what we said was at stake in the election. I think it had a big impact on whom got elected on November 8 as President of the United States and who would fill that vacant seat and any future vacant seats on the Supreme Court. So here is the problem. If Judge Gorsuch is an unacceptable nominee, can you imagine any nominee by this President being acceptable to our Democratic colleagues? I can't, because Judge Gorsuch is about as good as you get when it comes to a nominee. He is exactly the type of person we should hope to see nominated to the Supreme Court. So it is time for our Democratic colleagues to accept reality and not to live in some sort of fantasy land and not to try to punish good people like Judge Gorsuch, who has done an outstanding job, because they are disappointed in the outcome of the election. So here is the bottom line. Our Democratic friends will determine how we get to an up-or-down vote on Judge Gorsuch. If they are genuinely concerned about the institution of the Senate, they will provide eight votes to get cloture to close off debate, they will decline to filibuster the judge, and they will allow an up-and-down vote on this imminently qualified nominee. I am holding out hope that more thoughtful and independent Democrats will think better of the Democratic leader's strategy. Several already have, and I commend them for it. I hope more will come around to that idea, but as I and others have said before, regardless of whether they do, Judge Gorsuch will be confirmed. But it is up to the Democrats to determine just how we get that done. I see a friend from Vermont here. I won't take much longer. I want to take about 3 or 4 minutes, maybe 5 minutes, to debunk some of the myths about how we got here. I have in front of me an article written by Neil Lewis dated May 1, 2001. The title of this New York Times story is ``Washington Talk; Democrats Readying for Judicial Fight.'' It is dated May 1, 2001. That was, of course, in the early days of the George W. Bush administration. What it says is that 42 of the Senate's 50 Democrats attended a private retreat in Farmington, PA, where the principal topic was forging a unified party strategy to combat the White House on judicial nominees. Mr. Lewis goes on to quote one of the people there who said: ``They said it was important for the Senate to change the ground rules'' by which judicial nominees were confirmed. And they did as a result of that meeting, which was led by Laurence Tribe of Harvard Law School, Cass Sunstein of the University of Chicago, and Marcia Greenberger, codirector of the National Women's Law Center. Senator Schumer, the present Democratic leader, and others, cooked up a new procedural hurdle for President George W. Bush's judicial nominees, and we remember what happened after that. It became almost routine for our Democratic colleagues to filibuster President Bush's nominees. Ultimately, there came a meeting of a group called the Gang of 14, where there was a deal worked out that some of President Bush's judicial nominees were confirmed and others were returned and not confirmed. There was a decision made at that time by the Gang of 14, a bipartisan group, that there would be no filibuster of judicial nominees, absent exceptional circumstances. That was the language that they used--``absent exceptional circumstances''--that let us get by that obstacle and those filibusters for a time. The next major development occurred in 2013, when President Obama really wanted to see on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals--the primary circuit court that reviewed administrative decisions--more of his Democratic nominees on that court. So in a new and unprecedented fashion, Senator Harry Reid changed the cloture rules once again--so- called the Reid Rule. For what purpose? It was a naked power grab. It was to pack the DC Circuit Court of Appeals--one of the least busy circuit courts in the country--in order to have judges confirmed by 51 Democratic votes that would rubberstamp President Obama's administrative actions during his administration. And sadly, it worked. They did just that. So in a way, we are coming full circle, back to what the tradition in the Senate was before the year 2000, before Democrats went to this retreat led by liberal legal activists who cooked up this idea that you could filibuster judges, and they tried to impose a requirement of 60 votes for confirmation when, in fact, the Constitution contemplates a majority vote, or 51 votes for confirmation. Some have said this represents the end of comity in the Senate. I don't believe that. Some have said this threatens the end of the legislative filibuster or cloture requirement. I don't believe that either. There is a big difference between a nominee by a President that is an up-or-down vote--confirm or don't confirm. There is a big difference between that and legislation, which by definition is a consensus-building process by offering an amendment, by offering other suggestions to build that consensus and get it passed. You can't amend a nominee. All you can do is vote up or down. So I don't believe restoring the status quo ante--going back before 2000 and restoring the 200-year-plus tradition of the Senate where you don't filibuster judges--I don't see that as a bad thing. I don't see it as the end of the legislative filibuster. It is completely apples and oranges. It is true that 51 Senators will be able to close off debate and confirm Judge Gorsuch, and we will see that happen later this week. It also means that the next Democratic President can nominate a Supreme Court nominee, and that person will be confirmed by 51 votes. Again, this has been the 200-plus-year tradition of the Senate. I don't see that as the end of the Senate. I don't see this as somehow damaging our country--the restoration of the status quo before 2000, when our Democratic colleagues decided to weaponize the filibuster and use it to block judges based on this trumped-up idea that 60 votes would be required rather than 51. I look forward to confirming Judge Gorsuch later this week. He is a fine man and a very good judge. He has exactly the sort of record we would want to serve on the Court. No, he is not a liberal activist. Clearly, Hillary Clinton, if she had been elected, would have nominated somebody different. That is one reason why we choose whom we choose for our President, because of the kinds of nominations they will make, and I must say President Trump has chosen well in Neil Gorsuch. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Isakson).

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, if my friend the Senator from Virginia needs a minute or two to wrap up, I know it caught him midthought. I am happy to yield to him for that purpose.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, Members of the Senate have been coming to the floor talking about the important vote we will be casting tomorrow and then again on Friday which will result in the confirmation of Judge Neil Gorsuch as the next Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. Having served on the Senate Judiciary Committee since I first came to the Senate, it has been my honor to participate in the confirmation hearings in the committee on now five Supreme Court Justices, Judge Gorsuch being the latest. What I have been struck by when it comes to Judge Gorsuch is how much our friends across the aisle--who cast a party-line vote in the Judiciary Committee against the judge on his confirmation--how much they have been struggling to come up with even one intellectually honest argument against the nominee, in spite of his obvious and tremendous qualifications and bipartisan support. For example, I heard our colleague from Virginia, my friend Senator Kaine, criticize a couple of decisions that the judge made. What he left out is that Judge Gorsuch participated in 2,700 panel decisions on the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals during his 10-year tenure there. Ninety-seven percent of them were unanimous. As the Presiding Officer knows, that means that each of the judges--three judges on the typical panel or in an en banc--basically that everyone agreed, whether they were nominated by a Republican or Democrat. So this whole idea of cherry-picking the judge's judicial report to try to find some straw, to grasp at some straw with which to disagree with his confirmation is pretty striking to me. But last night we saw the latest act of desperation to try to justify the unprecedented partisan filibuster of Judge Gorsuch. For example, it was reported that a handful of lines in a 2006 book were borrowed from other sources. Well, the timing of this says it all. This book has been published for 10 years. The only reason for this allegation is a last- minute attempt to try to make something, really anything stick to tarnish the character of someone who will soon serve on the Supreme Court. This kind of baseless attack is not only disingenuous, it is transparent and it has absolutely no merit. Even the author of the main article allegedly plagiarized has rejected that characterization. So this is the person who wrote the article who Judge Gorsuch was claimed to have plagiarized, in essence. Well, the author of the main article rejected the characterization of plagiarization. She said that under the circumstances, it would have been awkward and difficult for Judge Gorsuch to have used different language. Other academic experts have also rejected the claim and made clear that the preferred methodology for facts is to cite original sources, which is exactly what Judge Gorsuch did. Talk about an eleventh-hour baseless attack. The bottom line is this: Instead of evaluating the judge based on his qualifications, the sterling reputation he has among people across the political spectrum, our friends across the aisle are determined to attempt the first successful partisan filibuster of a Supreme Court nominee. That is disappointing, but it is also destined for failure. Yesterday, I pointed out how we actually got here. Back during President George W. Bush's first term, Senator Schumer and others laid the groundwork and then executed a strategy for unprecedented obstruction of judicial nominees. That was in response to the election of the last Republican President. This is in response to the election of a new Republican President. I think for him, following the election of the current one, obstruction of a perfectly qualified nominee to the Supreme Court is just the next step. It actually represents the ultimate escalation of this weaponization of the filibuster used in judicial confirmations. As I have said before, based on the merits of the nominee, the justifications for opposing Judge Gorsuch are paper thin. Our colleagues across the aisle unanimously supported Judge Gorsuch when he was confirmed to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals just 10 years ago. He got everybody's vote. It was a voice vote. This was to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, a lifetime tenured position. All of them agreed he should be confirmed. Well, that includes then-Senator Obama, Senator Clinton, and Senator Biden. So I would ask you, what has changed in the last 10 years that now cause them to reach deep into their bag of tricks and to filibuster this nominee for the Supreme Court? Well, it is not his track record as a judge, that is for sure. As I mentioned, of the 2,700 cases he has participated in, 97 percent were unanimous-- 97 percent. One recent analysis put him in the middle of the circuit ideologically speaking, and for a decade he has done good, fair work as a judge on the Tenth Circuit--really outstanding work, to be honest. That should tell you something about this judge and this man, but it should also tell you something about the opponents of this nominee, many of whom, like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, as I mentioned, supported his nomination just 10 years ago. The only thing that has changed, the only thing that explains the radical shift of Democrats in opposition to this good judge, is that now President Trump is in the White House. I honestly believe that every excuse they have come up with to engage in this unprecedented filibuster is completely without merit. What they are really upset about is what happened on November 8. I don't believe--if they won't confirm Judge Gorsuch, they will never vote to confirm any nominee of this President, period. What we are talking about and all we are asking for is an up-or-down vote. If they want to vote against the nomination, that is their right, but, as everybody knows, to get to that, we first have to get 60 votes to close off debate and then get to the majority up-or-down vote. But they will not even allow us to move to a vote. I hope our Democratic friends who are obstructing will reconsider. I believe there are four Democrats who are going to join all of the Republicans in voting to confirm this nominee, so he will enjoy bipartisan support, as he should. This judge is a faithful interpreter of the law. He believes in an independent judiciary and enjoys support across the ideological spectrum. He will be confirmed as the next Supreme Court justice, but it is up to our Democratic friends to determine just how that occurs. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, the Senate has just restored itself to an almost unbroken tradition of never filibustering judges. We have actually restored the status quo before the administration of President George W. Bush. It was during that administration when some of our friends across the aisle, along with some of their liberal law professor allies, dreamed up a way of blocking President George W. Bush's judicial nominees, and that was by suggesting that 60 votes was really the threshold for confirming judges, rather than the constitutional requirement of a majority vote. It has been a long journey back to the normal functioning of the United States Senate, and it is amazing that it has taken a nominee like Judge Gorsuch to bring us back to where we were back around 2001. We have been debating and discussing this nominee for a long time now, and the opponents of Judge Gorsuch have tried time and time again to raise objections to this outstanding nominee--a nomination that no one in the Senate opposed 10 years ago when he was confirmed to a position on the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. They claimed he wasn't mainstream enough. They said this was a seat that really should have gone to Merrick Garland. They have even accused him of plagiarism. All of these arguments have no merit whatsoever and really represent desperate attempts to try to block this outstanding nominee. Their claims were simply baseless, and that much became even clearer as folks from across the political spectrum and newspapers from across the country urged our Democratic colleagues to drop their pointless filibuster and allow an up-or-down vote. What also came to light is the type of man Judge Gorsuch is--a man of integrity, a man of strong independence; in other words, exactly the kind of person you would want to serve on the Supreme Court. They even claimed that Judge Gorsuch went out of his way to side with the big guy against the little guy, ignoring the fact that during his 10 years on the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, where these judges sit on multi-judge panels, he was part of the majority decision 99 percent of the time, and 97 percent of those cases were unanimous in multi- judge panel decisions on the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals--hardly radical. It actually is a remarkable record of a consensus-builder, someone who uses his great intellect, his education, and his training to build consensus on a multi-judge court--exactly the kinds of skills that are going to be so important for him to use on the Supreme Court of the United States. As I said, ultimately today was the culmination of years of obstruction by our Democratic colleagues when it came to judicial nominees. When I came to the Senate in 2003, the Democratic strategy was well underway to obstruct lower court judicial nominees from the George W. Bush administration. Later, in 2013, when there was a Democrat in the White House and it suited them to do so, they decided to do away with the same tool they used and went nuclear, lowering the threshold from 60 to 51 majority vote for circuit court nominees and district court nominees. It took a Gang of 14--7 Democrats and 7 Republicans--to try to work through the differences back around the 2006 timeframe, which resulted in half of President George W. Bush's nominees to the circuit court getting confirmed and half not being confirmed. The standard was adopted by the so-called Gang of 14 that only under extraordinary circumstances would the filibuster be used, but that agreement expired in 2013. Well, the minority leader and his colleagues like to say that back then it was necessary to restore a majority vote. He did that just last Sunday. He said: ``Our Republican colleagues had been holding back on just about all of so many lower-court judges, including the very important DC circuit'' court, that they were forced to engage in the nuclear option back in 2013. But the facts really belie what the Democratic leader claimed in terms of the necessity of going nuclear back then. In fact, prior to 2013, the Senate had confirmed more than 200 of President Obama's judicial nominees and it rejected just 2--more than 200 confirmed, 2 rejected. That hardly rises to a level of extreme obstruction or partisanship. That is a 99-percent confirmation rate for President Obama. So let's make it clear just how this began. It started with Democratic obstruction under a Republican administration in 2001, and it is been continuing now under a new Republican administration in 2017. So we really have come full circle to restore the status quo before 2001, when our Democratic friends started down this path. President Trump has, by all accounts, selected a judge with impeccable qualifications and the highest integrity. Not one of our Democratic colleagues has been able to offer a convincing argument against him, and that is why several of our Democratic colleagues have crossed the aisle to support his nomination, and I thank them for that. I think more would join if they didn't fear retribution from the radical elements in their own political party. So today Republicans in the Chamber are following through on what we said we would do. We said we would let the American people decide who would select the next Supreme Court nominee and then we would vote to confirm that nominee. The American people, on November 8, selected President Trump. President Trump nominated Judge Neil Gorsuch. And tomorrow we will confirm that nominee and deliver on that promise. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Isakson) and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I wanted to come to the floor to talk about the important work for the Senate this week, now that the Judiciary Committee has voted on the Judge Neil Gorsuch nomination and he is available for floor consideration. But I wanted, first, to extend my deepest condolences to the families and friends of those tragically killed in an automobile crash near New Valley, TX, last week. A bus carrying a group of 14 members of the First Baptist Church in New Braunfels collided with a pickup truck on Highway 83. Thirteen people were killed and two others, including the driver of the other vehicle, were injured. You can imagine how heartbreaking this has been to everyone involved. I can't begin to imagine the pain and the grief felt by their loved ones, their church family, and their entire close-knit community of New Braunfels, TX, just north of San Antonio. I had the opportunity to speak with the pastor of First Baptist of New Braunfels, Pastor McLean, the day after the accident. He is leading his congregation and that community during this very difficult time. He is shepherding his flock, though, with grace and strength. There is a phrase I am reminded off in times like this. After the terrible explosion in West Texas, I had a county commissioner from that area tell me: Being a Texan doesn't describe where you are from, it describes who your family is. Today, our family is mourning. But I know Pastor McLean and all of my fellow Texans and all Americans really lift up this community in prayer, along with the families and friends of those we lost. I am grateful to the first responders and medical professionals who were first to arrive at the scene of the accident and lent a hand to those in need. Nomination of Neil Gorsuch Separately, Madam President, as I have indicated, this is an important week for the American people. Earlier today, the Judiciary Committee voted to send Judge Gorsuch's nomination to the Senate floor for full consideration. Later this week, he will be confirmed as the next Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. For the past several weeks and through 20 grueling hours of questioning before the Judiciary Committee, Judge Gorsuch has proven to be one of the most qualified nominees to the Court in modern history. Republicans in the Senate said we would give the American people a voice in who would select the next Supreme Court Justice. In a sense, we had a referendum of whether it would be a nominee selected by Donald Trump or by Hillary Clinton. On November 8, we saw the outcome of that election. This week, that referendum will be answered when the country will have its ninth Justice on the Supreme Court. Unfortunately, our Democratic colleagues are doing their very best to decide that they should mount the first partisan filibuster of a Supreme Court nominee in American history. This is truly unprecedented. I know sometimes people want to talk about 1968 and the Abe Fortas nomination, but not even then was there a partisan filibuster that successfully blocked the confirmation of a Supreme Court Justice. What I am talking about is blocking the ability to have an up-or-down vote. I am not talking about how people vote on the confirmation vote. I am talking about allowing us to have a vote--that up-or-down vote--or denying it by virtue of the filibuster. I, for one, have been encouraged to see people from across the country speaking out and urging our colleagues to drop their obstruction and to allow such an up-or-down vote on an incredibly qualified, upstanding, and brilliant judge. Editorials from all over the country have registered their opposition to the idea of a filibuster and have done so rather bluntly. The Chicago Tribune, for example, said: ``Neil Gorsuch earns his Supreme Court seat.'' The Boston Herald says: ``Shame on Senate Dems.'' The Boston Herald specifically said that those going along with the strategy were ``blindly partisan for whom any nomination made by President Trump would never be qualified.'' The Denver Post, in the home State of Judge Gorsuch, urged Senators to confirm Judge Gorsuch to the Supreme Court and specifically urged the senior Senator from Colorado, Senator Bennet, not to cooperate with this blind partisanship and this filibuster but rather to allow the judge an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor. Their editorial title made that much clearer. They said: ``Michael Bennet should buck Democrats and speak up for Neil Gorsuch.'' The Billings Gazette in Montana had this to say: ``Democrats refuse to rise above petty partisan politics.'' The Richmond Times-Dispatch took the junior Senator from Virginia to task and said: His opposition to Judge Gorsuch, ``suggests he can't come up with a defensible reason to oppose the nomination.'' Finally in New Hampshire, the New Hampshire Union Leader editorial last week was titled: ``Confirm Gorsuch: Dems plan pointless filibuster.'' ``Pointless'' about sums it up. There is no doubt that Judge Gorsuch is qualified. He has received the highest rating from the American Bar Association, which reportedly interviewed 500 leading lawyers and practitioners in the country, and the ratings system of the American Bar Association has been called by many of our Senate Democratic colleagues the ``gold standard'' when it comes to confirmations. Among the legal and local communities, Judge Gorsuch enjoys broad bipartisan support, but that seems to make no difference to our friends across the aisle who voted on a party-line vote not to send his nomination from the Judiciary Committee. Of course, their minority position lost when the majority of the committee voted today to send that nomination to the floor. I can't help but think that they are in an unenviable position, torn by their desire to do what they know is the right thing when it comes to confirming a good judge, and, on the other hand, being attacked by their own party's political base, telling them that if they vote to confirm this judge, they are somehow going to suffer some political damage. Of these newspapers I mentioned, not one of them endorsed Donald Trump for President--not one. But unlike some of our Senate colleagues, they are able to distinguish between President Trump and Judge Neil Gorsuch, instead of using Donald Trump as a proxy not to vote to confirm Neil Gorsuch. These newspapers are urging Senate Democrats to drop this pointless filibuster because they understand that it will not be President Trump we will be voting on next week. It is Judge Neil Gorsuch. Now, after repeatedly moving the goalposts for this nominee, my Democratic friends are saying that he has to pass the ``traditional'' threshold of 60 votes. Well, that is a made-up standard. Throughout our Nation's history, the Senate has not had a tradition of filibustering judges. It was a strategy cooked up by Senator Schumer, Laurence Tribe from Harvard Law School, and other liberal activists to try to block President George W. Bush's judges when he was President of the United States. So there is no 60-vote threshold in Senate tradition. Actually, there have only been four cloture votes for a Supreme Court nominee--only four--and none of them for a partisan filibuster that actually succeeded in blocking an up-or-down vote for a nominee. One of the newspaper fact checks concluded with this. They said: ``There is no traditional 60-vote `standard' or `rule' for Supreme Court nominations, no matter how much or how often Democrats claim otherwise.'' This should be a time when the Senate should come together in a bipartisan fashion and do what it is supposed to do when we receive the nomination of such a highly qualified person. Judge Gorsuch has won bipartisan approval. People across the country understand that, as do a number of independent Democrats here in the Senate, and they understand the dangerous path the minority leader is setting us and them on. Unfortunately, the Democratic leader wants to mount the first successful partisan filibuster of a Supreme Court nominee in our history. But I would point out that no Republican Senator in the Senate has ever voted to filibuster a Supreme Court nominee, including those nominated by Democratic Presidents. As a matter of fact, Justice Clarence Thomas was confirmed with 52 votes. If the threshold were really 60, then he would not currently be serving on the Supreme Court of the United States. Even such polar opposites as Justice Scalia and Justice Ginsburg were confirmed by virtually unanimous votes because people understood that once the President was elected, that the President's choice should matter, and the Senate should not artificially try to lift up a 60-vote threshold in order to block, effectively, the will of the voters in choosing the president. A few years ago, when we considered the nominations of Justice Sotomayor and Justice Kagan, we gave both nominees a simple up-or-down vote. So our friends across the aisle have a simple but very important decision to make. They can listen to the extremist groups on the left that are urging them to resist at all costs or they can assert some of their independence. As of today, several of our Democratic colleagues have done exactly that. I congratulate them. I am glad Senator Heitkamp, Senator Manchin, and Senator Donnelly have said they will assert their prerogative, as Senators, to allow an up-or-down vote for this nominee and actually vote for them. I hope they stand firm, but I hope, more importantly, more of their colleagues will demonstrate the same sort of independence from the radical base of the Democratic Party that says no to everything this President does. I hope they at least afford Judge Gorsuch an up-or-down vote because, if the Democrats successfully block Judge Gorsuch, there is literally no nominee from this President who they will not block--plain and simple. So as we have been saying, Judge Gorsuch will be confirmed at the end of this week, but it is up to the Democrats as to how that happens. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN

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