[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 57 (Monday, April 3, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2159-S2163]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       OLD VESSELS EXEMPTION ACT

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will proceed to the consideration of S. 89, which the clerk will 
report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 89) to amend title 46, United States Code, to 
     exempt old vessels that only operate within inland waterways 
     from the fire-retardant materials requirement if the owners 
     of such vessels make annual structural alterations to at 
     least 10 percent of the areas of the vessels that are not 
     constructed of fire-retardant materials and for other 
     purposes.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the time 
until 5:30 p.m. will be equally divided in the usual form.
  If no one yields time, the time will be charged equally.
  The Senator from West Virginia.


                       Nomination of Neil Gorsuch

  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to express my 
strong support for the confirmation of Judge Neil Gorsuch to be the 
next Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Few individuals over 
the last century have impacted the American legal discourse as 
profoundly as the late Justice Antonin Scalia.
  In the wake of his untimely passing last February, Justice Scalia 
left behind a legacy of faithfully applying the law and upholding the 
principles of our Constitution. Judge Neil Gorsuch is a worthy 
successor to Judge Antonin Scalia.
  Judge Gorsuch understands the protections granted in the 
Constitution, including the separation of powers, federalism, and the 
Bill of Rights. He knows that the Constitution provides Americans with 
an indispensable safeguard against government overreach.
  His past opinions demonstrate that he will honor constitutional 
protections afforded through due process, the right to bear arms, equal 
protection under the law, and religious freedom.
  Legal experts from across the political spectrum are very much in 
agreement with the Gorsuch nomination. The American Bar Association's 
Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary unanimously gave Judge 
Gorsuch the highest possible rating of ``well qualified'' for the 
Supreme Court. I couldn't agree more.
  One of Judge Gorsuch's associates, the chief judge of the Tenth 
Circuit who served with Judge Gorsuch, has said about him:

       Judge Gorsuch brings to the bench a powerful intellect 
     combined with a probing and analytical approach to every 
     issue. He brings to each case a strong commitment to limit 
     his analysis to that case--its facts, the record, and the law 
     cited and applicable. He does not use his judicial role as a 
     vehicle for anything other than deciding the case before him.

  President Obama's former Solicitor General Neal Katyal penned an op-
ed in the New York Times supporting Judge Gorsuch and wrote:

       I have no doubt that if confirmed, Judge Gorsuch would help 
     restore confidence in the rule of law.
       His years on the bench reveal a commitment to judicial 
     independence--a record that should give the American people 
     confidence

[[Page S2160]]

     that he will not compromise principle to favor the president 
     who appointed him.

  Those are the words of the Solicitor General who argued on behalf of 
President Obama's administration in front of the Supreme Court.
  Judge Gorsuch has been through the confirmation process before--as we 
have heard many times on this floor--when Senators, some of them in 
this body today, approved his nomination to the Court of Appeals for 
the Tenth Circuit without opposition.
  I was privileged to meet with Judge Gorsuch several weeks ago, and it 
was clear to me through our conversation, a thorough examination of his 
record, and watching last week's hearing in the Judiciary Committee 
that Judge Gorsuch will decide cases fairly, based on our Constitution 
and laws. Isn't that the way it should be? This is what West Virginians 
expect from a Supreme Court Justice.
  Newspapers in my State have recognized this nominee's strong 
qualifications of independence and respect for the rule of law. The 
Charleston Daily Mail editorialized:

       Gorsuch has strong legal credentials and deserves to be 
     confirmed.
       He is the kind of pick that any president should make, 
     Democrat or Republican, because of his proven qualities 
     necessary for any justice: a strong understanding and respect 
     for the nation's founding document, the U.S. Constitution.

  The Wheeling Intelligencer and News Register wrote:

       During hearings last week, Gorsuch's suitability for a high 
     court post was made abundantly clear.
       He is precisely the type of judge--faithful to the 
     Constitution not ideology on specific issues--the nation 
     needs.

  And the Martinsburg Journal said:

       Gorsuch seems to believe in using the plain language of the 
     Constitution to decide cases, regardless of his own 
     preferences.
       That--someone who believes only the people not the courts 
     can change the Constitution--is precisely the type of Supreme 
     Court justice we Americans need.

  The American people benefited from an open and transparent Supreme 
Court process that led to Judge Gorsuch being nominated.
  During the 2016 Presidential election, both candidates were 
transparent about the type of Supreme Court Justice they would appoint 
if elected. President Trump released a list of 21 names, a list that 
included Judge Gorsuch, and promised voters that he would fill this 
Supreme Court vacancy with someone from that list. Voters paid 
attention.
  According to an NBC News exit poll, 70 percent of voters said the 
selection of a Supreme Court Justice was either the most important 
factor in their vote for President or an important factor. Let me state 
that again--70 percent.
  The American people weighed in, and President Trump acted wisely in 
selecting Judge Gorsuch. He is a mainstream judge who is well qualified 
for the U.S. Supreme Court.
  Unfortunately, the Democratic leader has indicated that his party 
intends to engage in an unprecedented partisan filibuster of this 
nomination. A filibuster of a nominee of this caliber would be a 
tremendous mistake, I believe, that would harm the Senate as an 
institution. There has never been a Supreme Court nomination that has 
been defeated by a partisan filibuster of the type that the Senate 
Democrats are telegraphing. It is one thing to vote against a nominee 
on whatever grounds a Senator may wish, but it is quite another to 
filibuster in an effort to block a nomination that has been submitted 
by a duly elected President who has the support of the majority of the 
Senate.

  Senators have always enjoyed the ability to filibuster nominations. 
That ability has remained available because Senators have shown 
restraint in applying the power that comes along with requiring 
unlimited debate. The clear tradition of the Senate--and this is a body 
of tradition, I have learned--over the course of its 230 years of 
history is a confirmation by a majority vote. That tradition has been 
demonstrated in recent Supreme Court nominations.
  President Obama nominated both Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan to the 
Supreme Court. Neither Justice Sotomayor nor Justice Kagan faced a 
filibuster in the Senate.
  President George W. Bush nominated John Roberts as Chief Justice. 
There was no filibuster attempt against that nomination.
  President Bill Clinton nominated Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen 
Breyer to the Supreme Court. Neither faced a filibuster.
  President George H.W. Bush nominated David Souter and Clarence Thomas 
to the Supreme Court. Neither Justice faced a filibuster even though 48 
Senators voted against the Thomas nomination.
  One recent Supreme Court nomination did require a cloture vote when a 
group of Democrat Senators attempted to block a vote on the nomination 
of Justice Alito's nomination, but a large majority of Senators--72, in 
fact--invoked cloture, which preserved the bipartisan practice of 
rejecting filibusters against Supreme Court nominees. Among those who 
rejected the Alito filibuster in 2006 were the two Democratic Senators 
from my State--Senator Robert C. Byrd and Senator Jay Rockefeller. 
There were 72 Senators who voted to invoke cloture on Justice Alito's 
nomination, but only 58 ended up voting for the final confirmation.
  The Senate has a very clear history of rejecting the use of the 
filibuster on Supreme Court nominations, but there is no justification 
for a filibuster on the Gorsuch nomination. Neil Gorsuch is a 
mainstream judge with the highest possible rating from the American Bar 
Association. He was confirmed by the Senate, without objection, in the 
year 2006. His service on the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals has earned 
him the respect of his judicial colleagues, and he has demonstrated the 
independence and respect for the law that the American people expect 
from a Supreme Court Justice. I hope that at least eight of my 
Democratic colleagues will join us regardless of how they, ultimately, 
will vote on Judge Gorsuch's confirmation. I hope they will recognize 
the need to invoke cloture on this nomination.
  The Senate will confirm Judge Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. For the 
good of the Nation and for the good of the Senate, there should be no 
filibuster of this well-qualified nominee.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                   Recognition of the Minority Leader

  The Democratic leader is recognized.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, first, let me thank my friend and 
colleague from Nebraska for her indulgence.


                 Explosion in Saint Petersburg, Russia

  Before I begin, Mr. President, I want to express our concern here in 
the United States for our friends in Saint Petersburg, Russia, in the 
wake of an explosion on their subway system this morning. Russia has 
been in the news a lot recently, typically in adversarial terms. Today 
is a time to remember that, whatever our differences, we wish no ill to 
the people of any nation. Our thoughts and prayers are with the 
families of the Russians who were killed this morning. We wish a swift 
recovery to the injured and hope the perpetrators are soon brought to 
justice.


                       Nomination of Neil Gorsuch

  Mr. President, I rise this afternoon on the nomination of Judge Neil 
Gorsuch to the Supreme Court, which was just advanced by the Judiciary 
Committee.
  This afternoon, it has become clear that Judge Gorsuch does not have 
the 60 votes that are necessary to end debate on his nomination. So now 
the focus is shifting away from the issue of whether Judge Gorsuch will 
get 60 votes on the cloture motion and toward the fundamental question 
before us: Will the majority leader break the rules of the Senate in 
order to get Judge Gorsuch on the bench?
  My friend, the majority leader, has said several times that Judge 
Gorsuch will be confirmed by the end of this week one way or another. 
What he really means when he says that is, if Judge Gorsuch does not 
earn 60 votes in the Senate, which is now the likely outcome, the 
Republicans must--underline ``must''--exercise the nuclear option to 
pass Judge Gorsuch on a simple majority vote.
  I think the majority leader reasons that if he says it enough times, 
folks

[[Page S2161]]

will start believing it--that he has no choice--but they should not. It 
is a premise no one should swallow. The majority leader is setting up a 
false choice of supporting Judge Gorsuch or he will have no choice but 
to break the rules. Maybe, to the majority leader, the nuclear option 
is the only option, but there are many alternatives. The majority 
leader makes up his mind independent of what Democrats do on issue 
after issue, but on this one, he says he has no choice. Maybe he has no 
choice because the rightwing of the Republican Party--organizations 
like the Heritage Foundation--will go after him if he does not, but he 
certainly has a choice to do the right and courageous thing.
  Instead, Republicans are playing the game of ``they started it.'' 
They say Democrats started this process by changing the rules for lower 
court nominees in 2013. They fail to mention the history that led to 
that change. The reason that Majority Leader Reid changed the rules was 
that Republicans had ramped up the use of the filibuster to historic 
proportions.
  They filibustered 79 nominees in the first 4 years of President 
Obama's Presidency. To put that in perspective, prior to President 
Obama, there were 68 filibusters on nominations under all other 
Presidents--from George Washington to George Bush. Under President 
Obama, exclusively, in the first 4 years of his administration, 
Republicans filibustered 79 nominees. They deliberately kept open the 
DC Court of Appeals because it has such influence over decisions that 
are made by the government.
  We all know the hard-right Federalist Society and the hard-right 
Heritage Foundation want to limit what government can do. The deal we 
made in 2005--a group of Senators, the so-called Gang of 14--allowed 
several of the most conservative jurists in the land to become judges 
and be confirmed to that circuit court. Yet, when President Obama came 
in, our Republican colleagues insisted on holding three seats of that 
court open. They, literally, said that they would not allow the seats 
to be filled at all by President Obama.
  Sound familiar? Merrick Garland knows it is.
  At the time, I pleaded several times with Senator Alexander, my dear 
friend from Tennessee, to let us vote on some of the judges for the DC 
Circuit. I asked him to go to Senator McConnell and say that the 
pressure on our side to change the rules after all of these filibusters 
was going to be large. Let's avoid it, I said. But Senator McConnell 
said no.
  Republicans had refused all of our overtures to break the deadlock 
that they had imposed. So if the majority leader wants to conduct this 
partisan ``they started it'' exercise, I am sure we could trace it all 
the way back to the Burr-Hamilton duel.
  The fact is that the Republicans blocked Merrick Garland by using the 
most unprecedented maneuvers. Now we are likely to block Judge Gorsuch, 
and that means neither party has gotten its party's choice in the last 
2 years.
  We can go back and forth and blame each other, but in the recent 
history of the vacancy caused by Justice Scalia's death, we have both 
lost. We lost Merrick Garland because of the majority leader's 
unprecedented blockade, and Republicans will lose on Judge Gorsuch 
because we are doing something we think is reasonable in asking that he 
be able to earn 60 votes as so many others have. We think the two are 
not equivalent, but in either case, we have both lost.
  We are back to square one, and Republicans have total freedom of 
choice in this situation. No one is forcing them to break the rules. 
They don't have to treat the nuclear option as if it were their first 
and only option. It is a false choice.
  To my friends on the other side, the answer isn't to change the 
rules; the answer is to change the nominee. Presidents of both parties 
have done so in the past when Supreme Court picks failed to merit 
confirmation. Again, the answer isn't to change the rules; the answer 
is to change the nominee.
  The majority leader should have the vision and courage to see past 
this impasse, and I believe he should seriously consider a different 
option. The President, Senate Republicans, and Democrats should sit 
down together to come up with a mainstream nominee who can earn 
bipartisan support. We are willing to meet with them anywhere, anytime 
to discuss a consensus nominee.
  Now, I know my colleagues on the other side will say Judge Gorsuch 
was a mainstream nominee and Democrats would never support any judge 
nominated by President Trump. We disagree. We probably can't support 
any nominee whose sole vetting is by the Heritage Foundation and the 
Federalist Society. They were the sole gatekeepers for the Scalia 
vacancy, and each is well known to be a rightwing, wealthy special 
interest group dedicated to moving the bench way to the right. Their 
selection of Judge Gorsuch shows it. Both the New York Times and the 
Washington Post did analyses done by experts that showed that Judge 
Gorsuch would be a very, very conservative--many would say rightwing--
Justice on the bench. The New York Times said he would be the second 
most conservative Justice on the bench--second only to Justice Thomas--
and more conservative than the late Justice Scalia. The Washington Post 
actually said he would be the most conservative Justice on the bench, 
based on his record--even more conservative than the very, very 
conservative Justice Thomas.
  In fact, we Democrats have never let special interest groups be the 
gatekeeper. We have never said to any special interest group, as 
President Trump did: Give us a list, and we will choose from that list. 
That is what Republicans did. We have never done it.
  In the past, Presidents have done just what we are suggesting for 
selecting Supreme Court Justices. President Bill Clinton sought and 
took the advice of Republican Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch 
in nominating Justices Ginsburg and Breyer instead of Bruce Babbitt. 
President Obama took the advice of Republican Senators when he picked 
Merrick Garland--a consensus, mainstream nominee.
  President Trump, on the other hand, ignored the Senate and only 
sought the advice and consent of rightwing special interest groups when 
making Supreme Court picks. He was running. He had to shore up his 
support on the hard right. So he said: I am outsourcing the entire 
selection process to two groups--which, again, are not consensus 
groups. They would admit that themselves--the Heritage Foundation and 
the Federalist Society. Lo and behold, the process didn't produce a 
nominee who could earn 60 votes. By contrast, Justice Ginsburg earned 
93 votes and Justice Breyer earned 87.
  So we are offering President Trump and our friends on the other side 
a way forward. They don't have to break the rules to get a Justice on 
the bench. They don't have to break the Senate confirmation process, 
fundamentally weakening the constitutional principle of advice and 
consent, to get a Justice on the bench. President Trump could simply 
consult with Members of both parties to try and come up with a 
consensus nominee who could get approved and meet a 60-vote threshold.
  The answer, again, isn't to change the rules. It is to change the 
nominee.
  We Democrats are not going to oppose every Republican nominee. Of 
course, we realize a nominee selected this way would not completely 
agree with our views, but Judge Gorsuch is so far out of the mainstream 
that he isn't able to earn votes to pass the Senate. Even Justices 
Roberts and Alito--two very conservative judges--earned a bunch of 
Democratic votes, and each got more than 60--one, in his nomination, 
and the other, 72 votes in the cloture process.
  So the Republicans are free actors. They can choose to go nuclear or 
they can sit down with Democrats and find a way forward that preserves 
the grand traditions of this body.
  The majority leader himself has said the one thing the two leaders 
have always agreed upon is to protect the integrity of this 
institution. He continued, and this is a direct quote: ``I think we can 
stipulate . . . that in the Senate, it takes 60 votes on controversial 
matters.''
  Mitch McConnell: In the Senate, it takes 60 votes on controversial 
matters. He has long stood for that proposition for the many years I 
have been here.
  A Supreme Court seat, I believe, meets the majority leader's standard

[[Page S2162]]

for 60 votes. I hope that instead of crippling the Senate in a partisan 
way--removing that 60-vote threshold for controversial matters like the 
Supreme Court--my Republican friends consider the option of working 
together to find a solution we can both accept. It may seem like a 
novel concept around here, but that option is always on the table.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Nebraska.


                       Workplace Advancement Act

  Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to discuss a true 
American value: equal pay for equal work. This is something that we all 
believe in, and tomorrow is National Equal Pay Day. It is a meaningful 
reminder that equal pay remains among the challenges before us.
  Women make the world work. We are breadwinners for our families. We 
are also financial planners, nurses, and teachers. We have always been 
a powerful force, and our progress has been hard-earned.
  Women today are managers, entrepreneurs, public servants, and CEOs, 
and our country is stronger for it. But despite these great strides, 
there is more work to do to encourage prosperity for America's 
families.
  For nearly 4 years in this body, I have led discussions about equal 
pay. I am encouraged by the interest from the White House on addressing 
the workplace challenges that women face today. To that end, I have 
reintroduced a proposal I believe will make a real difference for 
families. It is called the Workplace Advancement Act.
  The idea behind it is fairly universal and straightforward: equal pay 
through empowerment. The bill aims to empower employees--especially 
women--with information about wages so they can be informed advocates 
for their compensation. When it comes to discussing wages in the 
workplace, sometimes it can hurt to ask. A culture of silence and fear 
of retaliation can keep people in the dark about how their compensation 
compares to others. The Workplace Advancement Act would lift that fear, 
free up information, and create a more transparent workplace.
  A simple principle is at play here. When workers, especially women, 
have more information, they can more confidently pursue favorable work 
and wage arrangements. Knowledge is power. With this flexibility, women 
can better negotiate arrangements that make sense for them. For 
example, they might be willing to accept less pay if they can have 
Fridays free for doctors' appointments or family time or simply as a 
day for self-care.
  The Workplace Advancement Act contains language similar to an 
Executive order that President Obama issued in 2014. Many congressional 
Democrats requested this action, which is actually more limited in 
scope than my legislation. Some even praised it. Senator Heinrich 
called the action ``a critical step to ensure that every woman has a 
fair shot at fairness and economic success.'' Congresswoman Susan Davis 
of California said the action was a ``historic step forward.''
  Importantly, for employers, the Workplace Advancement Act would not 
impose new Federal regulations, and no employer would be compelled to 
disclose salary information. It simply prevents retaliatory action 
against employees who ask after it.
  Fifty-three Republicans and five Democrats in the Senate supported a 
version of the Workplace Advancement Act last Congress. With bipartisan 
support like this, this bill is possible.
  Let's take advantage of this rare moment when we have common ground 
on a commonsense and straightforward solution. Let's come together so 
we can look families in the eye and say: We heard you. We have heard 
you on this issue, and we are going to take action on it.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                   Recognition of the Majority Leader

  The majority leader is recognized.


                       Nomination of Neil Gorsuch

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, this week is an important one for the 
American people, for the Supreme Court, and for the Senate. The 
Judiciary Committee just reported out Judge Neil Gorsuch's nomination--
the next step in considering the Supreme Court nominee before the full 
Senate. It was unfortunate to see our Democratic colleagues on the 
committee break with recent precedent and not support this clearly 
well-qualified and widely respected Supreme Court nominee.
  I would remind colleagues that in addition to simply agreeing to an 
up-or-down vote on their nominations on the Senate floor, Republicans 
offered each of the last four first-term Supreme Court nominees of 
Democratic Presidents Clinton and Obama at least some bipartisan 
support in the committee votes. Judge Gorsuch is no less qualified than 
those four nominees of Presidents Clinton and Obama, and it is 
disappointing he didn't get the same bipartisan support in the 
committee today.
  It now seems apparent that this well-qualified and widely respected 
judge will be subject to the first successful partisan filibuster in 
the history of the Senate--the first successful partisan filibuster in 
the history of the Senate. This is a new low but not entirely 
surprising given that the Democratic leader announced before the 
nomination was even made that it was hard for him to imagine a nominee 
this President would nominate whom he could support. He even went so 
far as to say that he would be willing to fight the nomination ``tooth 
and nail'' and might even ``keep the seat open'' in perpetuity. It is 
not too late for our Democratic colleagues to make the right choice.
  This week, the Senate will continue to debate Judge Gorsuch's 
nomination here on the floor. This is a matter of great importance, 
which is why we are planning to dedicate this week's floor time almost 
entirely to continued robust debate of this nomination rather than 
double-tracking it with legislative items, as has been done in the 
past. Already, several Members from both sides of the aisle have come 
to the floor day after day to offer their viewpoints on Judge Gorsuch. 
I would encourage Members to take advantage of this time to continue 
discussing his excellent credentials, judicial background, and broad 
support from across the political spectrum in our country.
  Let me remind colleagues the many ways in which Judge Gorsuch has 
shown himself to be an outstanding nominee to serve on the High Court.
  Judge Gorsuch was unanimously confirmed to his current position as a 
Federal judge. Not a single Democrat opposed him then, including 
Senators Obama, Clinton, Biden, Leahy, and Schumer. He has participated 
in more than 2,700 cases since then. He has been in the majority 99 
percent of the time. He has enjoyed the unanimous support of his fellow 
judges 97 percent of the time.
  The American Bar Association--a group the Democratic leader called 
the ``gold standard'' for evaluating judicial nominations--awarded him 
its highest possible rating, unanimously ``well qualified.''
  He has amassed a wide array of supporters, including Democrats and 
Republicans, current and former colleagues, the legal community, and 
editorial boards all across our country. They say Gorsuch is eminently 
well-qualified. As Judge John Kane, a Carter appointee, put it, ``I'm 
not sure we could expect better [than Judge Gorsuch], or that better 
presently exists.''
  They say that Gorsuch is independent. Neal Katyal, President Obama's 
former Acting Solicitor General, said he has ``no doubt that if 
confirmed, Judge Gorsuch would help to restore confidence in the rule 
of law'' because Gorsuch's ``years on the bench reveal a commitment''--
a commitment--``to judicial independence.''
  They say Gorsuch is fair and impartial. The Denver Post editorial 
board noted that ``Gorsuch is a brilliant legal mind and talented 
writer whom observers praise for his ability to apply the law fairly 
and consistently.'' They went on: ``[W]e appreciate his desire to 
strictly interpret the Constitution,'' the paper continued, ``based on 
the intent of our nation's founders, even when those rulings might 
contradict his personal beliefs.''

[[Page S2163]]

  They say Gorsuch is highly revered by Democrats and Republicans. As 
USA TODAY noted in its editorial endorsing Gorsuch's confirmation just 
today, ``He has gotten an array of glowing references, including from 
some Democrats and liberals.'' I mentioned some this morning; there are 
many more.
  Here is just one additional example of how praise for Judge Gorsuch 
has bridged the political divide: Despite their ideological 
differences, former Colorado Governor Bill Ritter, a Democrat, and 
former Colorado attorney general John Suthers, a Republican, agree that 
Judge Gorsuch should be confirmed. They said:

       Gorsuch's temperament, personal decency and qualifications 
     are beyond dispute.
       It is time to use this confirmation process to examine and 
     exalt the characteristics of a judge who demonstrates that he 
     or she is scholarly, compassionate, committed to the law, and 
     will function as part of a truly independent, apolitical 
     judiciary. Judge Gorsuch fits that bill.

  It reminds us of what David Frederick, a board member of the left-
leaning American Constitution Society and longtime Democrat, recently 
said: ``The Senate should confirm [Gorsuch] because there is no 
principled reason to vote no.''
  ``There is no principled reason to vote no.'' He is absolutely right. 
So it goes without saying that there is no principled reason to block 
an up-or-down vote on this supremely qualified nominee, either.
  I look forward to joining my Senate colleagues in supporting Judge 
Gorsuch's nomination to the Supreme Court later this week.
  Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Ernst). The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. TESTER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________