John Cornyn

Mr. CORNYN

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

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, let me just say while the Senator is on the floor that I express my admiration once again for the distinguished Senator from Utah, who is my good friend and in many ways is a mentor as the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee. I am privileged to be a member of that committee and to work with him and, of course, on the Judiciary Committee as well. I thank the Senator in particular for his leadership on this resolution of disapproval, and I support his position 100 percent. Nomination of Neil Gorsuch As we all know now, Mr. President, this Chamber will consider the nomination of Neil Gorsuch to serve as the next Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court. Yesterday I spoke a little bit about his qualifications, his background, and his temperament. During the 20 hours of hearings we held before the Judiciary Committee, I think people saw the real Neil Gorsuch--somebody who, again, by virtue of his qualifications, his education, his training, and his experience is supremely qualified to serve on the Supreme Court. He did pass every single test with flying colors, even as my colleagues and some activist groups have done their best to find ways to object to what may be one of the most qualified candidates for the Court in our Nation's history. One argument we have heard from the opponents of the nominee in 3 days of grueling hearings was that he failed to convey his approach to judging--how he would approach the job. I would like to point out that that is simply not the case. Judge Gorsuch made clear that the text of the statute, the text of the Constitution, and the text of a precedent would guide his judging and would be the place where he starts in deciding any case. As he has repeatedly written and stated publicly, the job of a good judge is to understand what the law means and to interpret what lawmakers have done. I know some of our colleagues and some of the activist groups who are critical of Judge Gorsuch are upset that he doesn't believe in a living Constitution--in other words, that the Constitution, as written and ratified by the States, does not mean what it says, and that judges have a license to interpret the words in a way to pursue some other purpose, some other agenda, political or personal or the like. Judge Gorsuch rejects that approach, and rightly so. Indeed, how can a judge claim to bear allegiance to the Constitution if he doesn't actually start in interpreting the Constitution by reading the text of the words? What would a judge decide on if not the text and the original meaning? To that effect, I received a letter from a friend of mine and an expert in this area, Bryan Garner, last week. Bryan is a well-known lawyer and writer and, among many impressive accomplishments, he is a distinguished research professor of law at Southern Methodist University in Dallas, TX. Bryan has written extensively on judging, appellate advocacy, and the law generally. He was in attendance at the hearings last week. As I said, he has written a number of books, including with Judge Gorsuch, on judicial precedent, and with Justice Scalia, on reading laws. In a recent letter, Bryan echoed the same point made by both of these men at different times--that adherence to the text is essential to our system of government. He said: ``The very fact of having a written constitution meant that we had fixed its meaning in permanent form.'' Now, that seems so obvious, but, apparently, it is not obvious to some of the critics. He said: ``The very fact of having a written constitution meant that we had fixed its meaning in permanent form.'' In other words, our Constitution is not meant to float on the whims of judges over time, bound only by precedent. It is actually written down, so that even judges have to start with the very text. If we think about it, there is the independence that we have given to the judiciary--lifetime tenure. They don't have to stand for election, and they are not accountable to the voters or the people. The reason why the Founders created such an important role for the judiciary is because they believed there ought to be an umpire who calls balls and strikes when Congress passes laws or when lawsuits are filed and who could determine the fidelity of those laws to the text of the Constitution, which had a fixed meaning. Well, sometimes this is called originalism, but it is not a political doctrine or an excuse to get certain outcomes. Mr. Garner makes the point that although his personal politics are different, dramatically, from those of Justice Scalia, those personal politics are irrelevant because the job of a judge is to apply a fair reading of the law. If you can't do that, then, maybe you ought to run for the Senate or Congress and get involved in politics rather than judging, because a failure to apply the law as fairly read is essential in any good judge. Judges aren't given lifetime tenure--the sort of independence that nobody else in our government is given--just to enact their own visions of policy. Judge Gorsuch confirmed time and again that he will not do that--that he will only interpret the law as he has throughout his career as an independent judge, with faithfulness and fidelity to the text and the original understanding of the Constitution. The letter I have been quoting in part is here in my hand, and I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record following my remarks. Now, I know there are some on the other side of the aisle who have indicated that adherence to originalism is a liability or who claim that it is somehow a radical doctrine out of the mainstream, but that is just a scare tactic. It is completely wrong. Let me remind my colleagues that during her confirmation hearings, now-Justice Elena Kagan told the same committee that ``we are all Originalists''--hardly a radical position, if Justice Kagan and Judge Gorsuch agree with originalism. It is certainly not a methodology of interpreting law that should stir any concern. Yesterday, some of our Democratic colleagues continued to reinforce my view that they don't really have any legitimate objection and reason to filibuster Judge Neil Gorsuch. This is about Judge Gorsuch. This is not about President Trump. This is not about Merrick Garland. This is not about anything else. We will have a chance to vote on the nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch for the U.S Supreme Court. That is the question that will be presented to the Senate for an up-or-down vote. Any fairminded person would have to conclude that he is an independent legal mind and that he will not legislate from the bench. He has the intelligence, experience, and character to be a good judge, as he has been for 10 years on the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals out of Denver. He has an unflinching commitment to upholding a faithful interpretation of the Constitution and our laws. I look forward to confirming him next week. The question for our Democratic friends is whether they are going to launch the very first partisan filibuster of a Supreme Court nominee in the history of the United States. It really is unprecedented, what the Democratic leader, Senator Schumer, has suggested--that for the first time in the history of the Senate, a partisan filibuster will be used to attempt to defeat the nomination of a Supreme Court Justice and to deny the Senate the opportunity to have an up-or-down vote. Now, just to be clear, there are two votes we are talking about. One is the so-called cloture vote, where we close off debate. That takes 60 votes. Then, once that passes, it is clearly a majority vote, and 51 votes will carry the day. But the Democratic leader has suggested that he would deny the Senate the opportunity to get to that second up-or-down vote, and that is simply unprecedented. It is unprecedented for a very good reason. To believe that 60 votes would be required to confirm a nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court would be to suggest that the Founding Fathers, when the Constitution was written and when it was ratified, somehow believed that the Senate rules were incorporated in the Constitution, when that is clearly not the case--clearly not the case. The Constitution is a separate document. The Senate rules are a different thing. But, again, never have they been conflated to suggest that somehow, in order to confirm a nominee to the Supreme Court, we need 60 votes. I understand the pressure that our friend the Democratic leader is under, because after this last election, he has now had to straddle two competing camps within the Democratic Party--traditional Democrats versus the Democrats lead by the wing of Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. I understand the pressures that he must feel and the reason why he would do something that is unprecedented and suggest that we filibuster this nomination. We already know that some Members of his conference have said they will agree to an up-or-down vote. Our friend from West Virginia, Senator Manchin, has said he opposes the filibuster. Senator Leahy, the former chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has said he is not inclined to go along with it, either. Senator Cardin, our colleague and friend from Maryland, has stopped short of agreeing with the minority leader's strategy. Senator Heitkamp from North Dakota has said that she believes the nominee deserves an up-or-down vote. If the Democratic leader follows through, as I said, it would be unprecedented. Never before has there been a successful partisan filibuster of a Supreme Court nominee. I would just say to our friends across the aisle that time and again Democrats have accelerated the arms race on judges, and every single time, it has come back to bite them. We remember in 2013, when Senator Harry Reid, then the majority leader, broke the Senate rules in order to change the rules, in order to lower the threshold for circuit court and district court nominations. He did that because of the desire to pack the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, because that was the court that had primary jurisdiction over cases coming out of the Obama White House--its regulations and the like. In order to get a court that would be more likely to rubberstamp and approve of Obama policies, Senator Reid felt it was imperative to pack the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. Unfortunately, he was able to do so with the votes of the Democrats across the aisle--to break the Senate rules to change the rules for the sole purpose of rubberstamping Obama administration policies. The question before the Senate this time is very different. Those who would break precedent are those who would filibuster a Supreme Court nominee like Judge Gorsuch because it has never been done before. But I would ask our Democratic colleagues this: If Judge Gorsuch is not acceptable to them, is there ever going to be a nominee from a Trump administration whom they would find acceptable? They have tried to find fault with Judge Gorsuch, and they have simply been unable to do so. So they keep moving the goalpost and raising different issues because they, frankly, are desperate to find some reason to justify this unprecedented filibuster. But if they do--if Democrats block Judge Gorsuch from receiving an up-or- down vote--then, there is simply no Republican nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court they won't filibuster. If Judge Gorsuch isn't good enough, I dare say there will never be another nominee who is good enough to allow an up-or-down vote if this unprecedented filibuster is allowed to stand. So I hope our colleagues will reconsider, and that, on cooler reflection, the will not be driven by the radical elements in their own party but rather by their good judgment and their sense of responsibility to not only their constituents but to the Constitution itself and to the important role that the Senate plays in the advice and consent function to the nominee of the U.S. Supreme Court. I hope they reconsider, and I hope that when the rollcall vote is held, our colleagues will provide the 60 votes we need to get cloture, so we can have that up-or-down vote on Judge Gorsuch's nomination.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I see our friend from West Virginia and others here, so I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I came to the floor to talk about the nomination of Judge Gorsuch to serve as the next Supreme Court Justice, and I happened to walk in while the Democratic leader was speaking. In the brief time I heard him comment this morning, I concluded that basically the Democrats are against everything. They are against everything. He knows as well as anybody that when the President sends over a budget, it is a proposal by the President that Congress routinely changes, arriving at its own budget priorities, working with the White House.

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, earlier today in the Senate Judiciary Committee, we considered the nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch to serve as the next Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court. According to Judiciary Committee practice, that nomination was held over for a week, which means that Judge Gorsuch will be voted out of the Senate Judiciary Committee on April 3, and it will be available for floor action thereafter. As the Nation--and perhaps even the world--knows, we held lengthy hearings last week to review his qualifications, his experience, and his approach to judging. I have to say that he really impressed everybody who approached this whole issue with an open mind about whether he was qualified to serve on the High Court. But unfortunately, as those of us who work in the Senate know, there has already been a threat by the Democratic leader to filibuster his nomination. It is really important for the country to recall that there has never been a successful partisan filibuster of a nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court. Sometimes people want to talk about Abe Fortas in 1968, but ultimately Abe Fortas, who was nominated to be Chief Justice of the Supreme Court by his friend and mentor, Lyndon Johnson, asked to withdraw his nomination after one failed cloture vote and ultimately ended up resigning from the Supreme Court of the United States in disgrace. It is hardly a precedent for what Democrats have said they are going to do with regard to this good man and this good judge, Neil Gorsuch. I understand my friend the Democratic leader has a tough job. He has a split caucus--those who want to take Democrats over the ledge and those who would like to try to find some way to work out a reasonable accommodation. Unfortunately, he is under a lot of pressure from the radical groups on the left to do whatever he can to tank this superb nominee. Again, this would be unprecedented in American history. It is true that Democrats in 2013 did the so-called nuclear option, which has established a new precedent in the Senate with regard to lower court judges--circuit court judges and district court judges-- along with Cabinet nominees. Ironically, the so-called Reid precedent of 2013 has kind of come back to bite them a little bit, as President Trump now has been able to see all of his Cabinet members confirmed with 51 votes, or, in the case of one, 50 plus the Vice President. I was glad to see a quote from a report in a Vermont publication from our friend the senior Senator from Vermont, the former chairman of the Judiciary Committee, in which he said he wasn't inclined to filibuster the nomination of Judge Gorsuch and that he deserves a minimum of an up-or-down vote. So I hope others will follow the lead of Senator Leahy, who has been in the Senate a long time in the majority and in the minority. He realizes it is important to maintain a certain level of tradition and decorum here in the Senate, because usually what goes around comes around. Unfortunately, this new precedent of filibustering Supreme Court Justices, if allowed to happen, is going to continue to be very damaging to the Senate and even to the country. I hope he is still of that same mind--that he is not inclined to filibuster the nomination of Judge Gorsuch. If he takes that position, I know he will influence a lot of colleagues on the other side of the aisle because of his distinguished record of service in the Senate and in the Judiciary Committee. I look forward to the committee approving Judge Gorsuch's nomination next week and then taking that nomination up on the Senate floor and confirming the nomination of Neil Gorsuch to serve as the next Associate Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, speaking of the vote that we will be having in just a few minutes, for the last several weeks, this Chamber has worked very hard to undo harmful rules and regulations that had been put forward by the Obama administration, at the last moment, as he was headed out the door. These are rules that hurt job creators and stifle economic growth. The FCC privacy rules are just another example of burdensome rules that hurt more than they help and serve as another example of the government's picking winners and losers. They unnecessarily target internet service providers and, ultimately, make our internet ecosystem less efficient by adding more redtape. The bottom line is that the FCC privacy rules are bad regulations that need to be repealed. I should also note that this Congressional Review Act vote will not change the entire online privacy protections that consumers currently enjoy, and it will not change statutory privacy protections under the Communications Act. It will repeal something that was done unilaterally by President Obama and his administration, as I said, following the ending of his term, as they were headed out the door. I thank the junior Senator from Arizona, Senator Flake, for his work on this CRA and moving it forward. I urge all of my colleagues to support this resolution of disapproval. Madam President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. CORNYN

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

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, I have 7 requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority leaders. Pursuant to Rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate: committee on agriculture, nutrition, and forestry The Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, March 23, 2017 at 10 a.m. in 325 Russell Senate Office Building. committee on armed services The Committee on Armed Services is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, March 23, 2017, at 9:30 a.m., in open session. committee on banking, housing, and urban affairs The Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, March 23, 2017 at 9:30 a.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``Nomination of Mr. Jay Clayton to be a Member of the Securities and Exchange Commission.'' committee on the judiciary The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on March 23, 2017, at 9:30 a.m., in room SH-216 of the Hart Senate Office Building, to continue a hearing entitled ``The Nomination of the Honorable Neil M. Gorsuch.'' select committee on intelligence The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence is authorized to meet during the session of the 115th Congress of the U.S. Senate on Thursday, March 23, 2017 from 2 p.m., in room SH-219 of the Senate Hart Office Building. subcommittee on personnel The Subcommittee on Personnel of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, March 23, 2017, at 2:30 p.m., in open session. subcommittee on aviation operations, safety, and security The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation is authorized to hold a meeting during the session of the Senate on Thursday, March 23, 2017, at 10 a.m. in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building. The Committee will hold Subcommittee Hearing on ``FAA Reauthorization: Perspectives on Improving Airport Infrastructure and Aviation Manufacturing.''

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, this week the Judiciary Committee has been considering the nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court left by the death of the late Justice Antonin Scalia. I think it has been a remarkable opportunity for the country--indeed, the world--to see not only somebody who is obviously very intelligent but very articulate and very committed to the basic principles that created this country, which were shaped in the framework of the Constitution. Sometimes people forget that judges aren't legislators and legislators aren't judges and that we do have separate responsibilities. Indeed, the separation of powers between the President and the legislature and the judiciary is very important and for a good reason. Judge Gorsuch has done a tremendous job for the last 2 days handling questions from both sides of the aisle with humility and with clarity. I told him that I had hoped he would consider Chairman Grassley's proposal that we have a camera in the Supreme Court courtroom. Years ago, when I was on the Texas Supreme Court, we decided to have a single camera--which nobody, really, frankly noticed--in order to document and record the proceedings in the Supreme Court of Texas. It didn't turn into a sideshow. It wasn't the O.J. Simpson trial. People didn't misbehave because they were on camera. But it was a great opportunity for people to see their government and their elected officials in action. Given the performance of Judge Gorsuch over the last couple of days and the benefits that accrue to the country as a result of learning more about his qualifications, his temperament, and his principles when it comes to judging, I hope more people will want to see that. We could all learn from it. That would be good for our country, it would be good for the judiciary, and I think it would be good for America's standing in the world. We are in a vast minority of countries in the world when it comes to having an independent judiciary, and that is essential to our form of government and to who we are as Americans. The country has learned a lot about Judge Gorsuch in the last few days. His career has been marked by a dedication to the law. In his decade on the bench interpreting the law, he has developed quite a record. As a matter of fact, he said that he had decided to participate in the decision of about 2,700 cases, and he has been reversed once. I find that remarkable. It is really almost hard to believe. He is clearly no extremist. Some of our Democratic colleagues try to argue that he is not for the little guy but, as he so ably points out, he is for whoever the facts and the law say should win in a case. He doesn't view it as his role to put his thumb on the scales of justice and to predetermine a case or the outcome before the facts and the law have been applied. In short, he is not a politician. It would be totally inappropriate for a judge, given the fact that they are given lifetime tenure and they don't have to stand for election in front of the people--it would be entirely inappropriate for the judge to say: If I am confirmed, I will rule on this contentious issue this way or that way. That is not what judges do. That is what politicians do. That is why, when we stand for election, we go out and campaign and we tell people: This is what I believe in, and if you elect me, this is what I am going to do when I am elected into office. That is entirely appropriate for members of the legislative and executive branch because if the American people don't like what we are doing, they can fire us in the next election or, conversely and hopefully, if they like what we are doing, they will return us to office. So as the judge pointed out, he said that judges actually would make ``rotten legislators,'' those are his words, not mine, because their job isn't to write the laws, it is to interpret them. They don't stand for election. They are not in intimate contact with the constituencies we all represent. Importantly, as I said at the outset, he did affirm his strong support of the separation of powers. Again, I think it is really important for everyone to acknowledge the different roles performed by different actors in our form of government. Legislators play one role, executive officers, the Presidents, and Governors in our State system play another role, and then the judiciary plays an entirely different, important but limited, role in our government. One of our colleagues was complaining about the judge's decision in a case and that the so-called little guy lost in the case. Well, the judge said, while he didn't necessarily like the outcome, he felt bound by the facts and the law that Congress had actually passed to render a judgment as he did in that case. I pointed out, were it otherwise--were the judge untethered to any sort of deference to precedent, that he would basically be a loose cannon and making political decisions or deciding what the outcome would be before he worked through the facts and laws to determine what the appropriate outcomes should be. I pointed out, and the judge confirmed, that if in interpreting a statute, which the court did in that case, if Congress doesn't like the outcome, then it is within Congress's power to change the law, to change the statute which would mandate a different outcome in a future case. He pointed out, appropriately, that the role of the judiciary is for neutral and independent judges to apply the law in the people's disputes. So he is aware of the limits and the important role of the judiciary in our form of government. He also made clear his judicial philosophy is based on nothing more and nothing less than a faithful interpretation of the text of our Constitution and laws. Now, sometimes you hear people talking about, well, we have a living Constitution. To me, that suggests there is something wrong with applying the text of our existing Constitution, which was passed through constitutional amendment or originally when the Constitution was ratified by the States. It kind of raises an interesting question. If a judge isn't bound by the text of the Constitution or of a statute, what can he use? Does he use his own value judgments? Does he use his own policy preferences? Does he use his political agenda in order to do his or her job? Obviously, I hope we would all agree that would be inappropriate. Judge Gorsuch has also talked about the role of judicial courage, meaning following the law and the facts wherever they may lead, even though the judge, as a personal matter, may not agree with that or that may not be his personal preference. I know it sounds hard for those of us living in a political world, but actually judges do every day put their personal policy preferences aside and decide cases on the facts and the law. I believe it would be wrong of them and I believe a violation of their oath of office for them to do otherwise. What happens when there is a nominee like this who is so outstanding, so articulate, and so principled? Some of our colleagues across the aisle said: We are going to ask him some hypothetical questions. We are going to smoke him out and see if he will take the bait and prejudge some of these cases on controversial areas that will come before his Court or some other court. The judge--and I would expect nothing less--said it would compromise the independence of the judiciary and would be unethical for him to prejudge the outcome of some future case that might come before the Supreme Court. If you can imagine this, how would you feel if in a case before a court, the judge had already made a commitment to the outcome and you ended up on the short end of the stick? You wouldn't feel that was justice at all. You wouldn't feel that was fair at all. That is what the judge was doing in declining to head down that path to prejudge cases. In doing so, he followed the example of a number of previous nominees, people such as Justice Ginsburg and Justice Kagan, both nominated by Democratic Presidents. Knowing he can't answer, our colleagues have claimed they have no clue how Judge Gorsuch would perform his job and have used that as a pretext to oppose someone who is eminently qualified, but Judge Gorsuch has given them all they need. They have all the information they need in order to make an informed decision. He pledged to hear all sides of the case, to look at the merits, based on the law in question, and then and only then to come up with an unbiased and fair, impartial decision. Can he do it? Well, the best evidence of ``can he do it'' is ``has he done it'' and the answer to that is yes. He has a decade of time on the bench, with hundreds of decisions, filled with millions of words, done in exactly the way he said he would do, to decide cases, based on the merits, in an unbiased and independent fashion. So we have his record to judge him by, and his record is impeccable, which is the reason some of the critics have to go down this path of asking him hypothetical questions he can't ethically answer or otherwise claiming to be in the dark about his qualifications, temperament, and philosophy of judging. It should come as no surprise that lawyers and academics and judges all across the political spectrum have spoken out in favor of the confirmation of Judge Gorsuch, agreeing that he is an independent jurist, with integrity and the right temperament, intellect, and experience to serve on the Supreme Court. He was introduced to the committee by both of his home State Senators, the junior Senator, a Republican, and the senior Senator, a Democrat, who called Judge Gorsuch a man with ``a distinguished record of public service'' and ``outstanding integrity and intellect.'' I couldn't agree more. Neal Katyal, a Solicitor General under President Obama, also spoke glowingly of Judge Gorsuch and provided a strong endorsement of his qualifications to serve on the bench. He was one of the first on the other side of the aisle to urge the Senate confirmation of Judge Gorsuch, citing his independence, his integrity, and his superb qualifications. The bipartisan recognition of Judge Gorsuch's fitness for this high office is nothing new because a decade ago, 10 years ago, he was confirmed by the U.S. Senate by voice vote, essentially unanimously. Not one Member of the Senate opposed his confirmation, and the truth is, nothing has really changed since then. So you would think that if some of our colleagues across the aisle thought he was good enough to be confirmed as a circuit judge to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, that they could have something they could point to if they were inclined to vote no, something that happened within the intervening 10 years, but I have to tell you, there is not much there for them, if anything. In fact, his opinions have rarely elicited dissent, and he has a rare record of reversal which I think is remarkable. In truth, he is a great jurist, and that is clear by the evolving reasons coming from our friends on the other side of the aisle as to why they had some concern. First, we heard some Senate Democrats would fight a nominee who isn't in the mainstream. Well, Judge Gorsuch passed that test with flying colors so they moved on. Next, they said they would oppose him because of his refusal to answer questions about issues that would come before the Court. As I said, not only do the ethics rules prohibit him from doing that, but the tradition set by Justices Ginsburg and Kagan rightfully dictated that he refuse to do so during the hearing. Now we hear from our Democratic colleagues that his vote must be delayed because of an ongoing FBI investigation that is completely unrelated to him. I think that is just an indication of how desperate they are to come up with a reason, any reason, to oppose this judge's confirmation. Watching Judge Gorsuch this week, it is clear our Democratic friends are finding it hard to come up with a reason to oppose his nomination. Indeed, they are struggling to do so, and they are desperate for an excuse to oppose him, but they are not going to find a good excuse or a good reason. I hope our colleagues will help us confirm this good man, this good judge for this office. I know our politics, when it comes to judicial confirmation, have become very contentious, but it wasn't always that way. Back when President Clinton was in office, before President Bush 43, judges were confirmed routinely by an up-or-down vote of the majority of the U.S. Senate. Indeed, Justice Scalia, whose seat will be filled by Judge Gorsuch, was confirmed overwhelmingly. I think it was by 97 votes, if I am not mistaken. Justice Ginsberg, somebody from the opposite end of the ideological spectrum, was confirmed with 96 votes or thereabouts. So I hope it is a time we can get back to the traditions of the past, which means not filibustering mainstream nominees, as some of our colleagues across the aisle have threatened to do even before the hearing began. I would ask them this. If you can't vote for somebody like Judge Gorsuch, you are not going to be able to vote for any nominee from a Republican President because there simply isn't anybody better qualified by virtue of his experience, his education, his training, and his temperament for this job. I hope they will reconsider. I am happy to support his confirmation and urge all my colleagues to do so as well. If they can't vote for his confirmation, at least allow us to have an up-or-down vote, without setting the bar at 60 votes, but making it a majority vote in the U.S. Senate, which has been the tradition in this body for many, many, many years, excepting the last 8 years during the George W. Bush administration. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I have 9 requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority leaders. Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate: Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation is authorized to hold a meeting during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, March 22, 2017, at 10 a.m. in room 106 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing on ``The Promises and Perils of Emerging Technologies for Cybersecurity.'' Committee on Environment and Public Works The Committee on Environment and Public Works is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 22, 2017, at 10 a.m. in room 406 of the Dirksen Senate office building. Committee on Foreign Relations The Committee on Foreign Relations is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, March 22, 2017 at 10 a.m., to hold a hearing entitled ``Flashing Red: The State of Global Humanitarian Affairs.'' Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions The Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions is authorized to meet, during the session of the Senate, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Nomination of Alex Acosta to serve as Secretary of Labor'' on Wednesday, March 22, 2017, at 9 a.m., in room 430 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. Committee on Homeland Security The Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, March 22, 2017, at 10 a.m. to conduct a hearing titled ``Perspectives from the DHS Frontline: Evaluating Staffing Resources and Requirements.'' Committee on the Judiciary The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on March 22, 2017, at 9:30 a.m., in room SH-216 of the Hart Senate Office Building, to continue a hearing entitled ``The Nomination of the Honorable Neil M. Gorsuch.'' Committee on Veterans' Affairs The Committee on Veterans' Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, March 22, 2017, at 10 a.m., in room SD-G50 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. Subcommittee on Airland The Subcommittee on Airland of the Committee on Armed Services is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, March 22, 2017, at 3:30 p.m. Subcommittee on Ocean, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation is authorized to hold a meeting during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, March 22, 2017, at 2:30 p.m. in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I came to speak on the nomination of Neil Gorsuch as Associate Justice for the United States Supreme Court, but in listening to my colleague from Florida, I feel like I am missing something because he has described the Affordable Care Act in a way that I do not recognize, and he has talked about a bill that has not even passed the House of Representatives as a fait accompli. ObamaCare was sold under false pretenses. The President himself said: If you like what you have, you can keep it. If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. Oh, yes, by the way, a family of four will see a reduction of its premiums by $2,500. None of those have proven to be true. So we are going to repeal and replace ObamaCare. I have to tell my friend from Florida to please join us. If he does not like the product that is working its way through Congress, please join us and help us make it better because, right now, all I see from our Democratic friends is sort of like a Pontius Pilate moment--a washing of their hands and letting the Republicans alone do the heavy lifting. We invite them to work with us in a bipartisan way, which is something that did not happen, by the way, in ObamaCare, which was passed on a purely party-line vote, and I think it has proven to be a terrible mistake.

Mr. CORNYN

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