[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 58 (Tuesday, April 4, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2307-S2309]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                                 Syria

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, before I get into my remarks about the 
impending action of the Senate with regard to the so-called nuclear 
option, I would just point out that the attacks yesterday on innocent 
men, women, and children should not have come as a surprise. It was in 
2013 that the then-Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, and the 
head of the CIA recommended to the President that we arm the Free 
Syrian Army and bring Bashar Assad's barbarity to a halt. The President 
of the United States rejected that. Bashar Assad used chemical weapons, 
and the President called me and Senator Graham over to the White House 
and said: If they cross the redline, I am going to act. We are going to 
degrade Bashar Assad and upgrade the Free Syrian Army and have regime 
change.
  Then, of course, he backed down. You know, there is one thing worse 
than doing nothing: It is saying you are going to do something and then 
not doing it. That sent a signal everywhere in the world, not just 
Syria. The fact is, we knew it would happen again. So we have seen this 
movie before. Unless we act, we are going to see it again.
  I am encouraged, frankly, that General Mattis, General McMaster, and 
the President of the United States have said that this act of 
incredible barbarity and cruelty will not go unresponded to. But I can 
assure my colleagues this: If we don't respond to this, then there will 
be more use of these chemical weapons and weapons of mass destruction, 
and there will be more innocent people who will die.
  Eight years of Obama's failure is what led to the events that just 
took place that horrified all of us. That requires us to stand up to 
this barbarity, help the Free Syrian Army, establish safe zones, and 
make sure that Bashar Assad, propped up by the Russians and the 
Iranians and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard and Hezbollah, is no 
longer able to perpetrate these war crimes on innocent men, women, and 
children.
  Mr. President, it is also with some sorrow that I regret having to 
come to

[[Page S2308]]

the floor to speak once again on the issue of eliminating the 60-vote 
threshold on judicial nominations, specifically a nominee to the U.S. 
Supreme Court. It is particularly troubling to do so because the 
nominee in question, Judge Neil Gorsuch, has impeccable legal 
credentials and a strong reputation as a fair- and sharp-minded lawyer 
and jurist. The American Bar Association and many others of all 
political stripes agree that his distinguished career as a lawyer and a 
jurist makes him well qualified for the position of Associate Justice 
on the U.S. Supreme Court.
  Regrettably, very regrettably, my colleagues in the minority have 
decided to filibuster the nomination of this good, decent, highly 
qualified man.
  Numerous times over the years, the Senate has come to a standstill 
over nominees, whether they were judicial or executive branch. That 
gridlock has inevitably led to threats from the majority--whichever 
party was in the majority--to use the ``nuclear option,'' basically 
changing the rules of the Senate of 200 years to strip the minority 
party of their right to filibuster certain nominees.
  I have been privileged several times to be a part of a group of 
Senators who were able to come together and negotiate agreements to end 
the gridlock surrounding nominees, avert the nuclear option, and allow 
the Senate to move forward with our work on behalf of the American 
people. My work in these groups--often referred to as gangs--has won me 
both praise and condemnation and has often put me at odds with some in 
my own party.
  In 2005, I joined 13 of my colleagues in an agreement that allowed 
for votes on three of President Bush's judicial nominees who were being 
filibustered by the Democrats, who were in the minority at the time. 
Part of that agreement addressed future nominees. It stated:

       Signatories will exercise their responsibilities under the 
     Advice and Consent Clause of the United States Constitution 
     in good faith. Nominees should only be filibustered under 
     extraordinary circumstances, and each signatory must use his 
     or her own discretion and judgment in determining whether 
     such circumstances exist.

  In other words, if that nominee is so far out of the mainstream that 
it is extraordinary, only then would they seek to block the nomination 
and filibuster.
  I have had conversations with colleagues on both sides of the aisle 
in an attempt to once again come up with a way forward and avoid both a 
filibuster of Judge Gorsuch and the nuclear option. Sadly, I learned on 
Monday that those efforts had failed and that the Democrats had secured 
the necessary votes to successfully filibuster the highly qualified 
Supreme Court nominee for the first time in our history. In response, 
the majority leader has indicated that he will move to change the 
Senate rules and eliminate the ability of the minority to do so.
  We are in a terrible place. My colleagues should understand that this 
is a historic moment if we move forward with it.
  In 2013, then-Majority Leader Harry Reid changed the Senate rules to 
eliminate the 60-vote threshold on most judicial and executive branch 
nominees. Those in my party, including me, were enraged--rightly so. We 
warned that the Democrats would not be in control of the Senate or the 
White House forever and that they would come to regret their actions. 
We were right.

  Their actions came back to haunt them. I believe our actions will 
haunt us as well.
  In an op-ed on November 27, 2012, Senator McConnell, knowing of the 
Democrats' plans to change the Senate rules in their favor, wrote this:

       A serious threat has been quietly gathering against one of 
     the most cherished safeguards of liberty in our government--
     the right of a political minority to have a voice. Until now, 
     this has always been the defining characteristic of the 
     Senate. That's why all Senators have traditionally defended 
     the Senate as an institution, because they knew that the 
     Senate was the last legislative check for political 
     minorities and small states against the kind of raw exercise 
     of power large states and majority parties have always been 
     tempted to wield.
       The threat I'm referring to is the effort by some 
     Democrats, most of whom have never served a day in the 
     minority, to force a change in the Senate rules.

  How soon we forget.
  In fact, Chairman Grassley exactly predicted what is about to happen. 
In November 2013, he said:

       Not too many years ago, my colleagues on the other side 
     described their fight to preserve the filibuster with great 
     pride. Today the other side is willing to forever change the 
     Senate because the Republicans have the audacity to hold 
     them, the majority party of today, to their own standard.
       The silver lining is that there will come a day when roles 
     are reversed. When that happens, our side will likely 
     nominate and confirm lower court and Supreme Court nominees 
     with 51 votes regardless of whether the Democrats actually 
     buy into this fanciful notion that they can demolish the 
     filibuster on lower court nominees and still preserve it for 
     the Supreme Court.

  Senator Alexander, on November 21, 2013, when threatened with the 
nuclear option by the Democrats, said:

       This action today creates a perpetual opportunity for the 
     tyranny of the majority because it permits a majority in this 
     body to do whatever it wants to do any time it wants to do 
     it.

  Senator Alexander went on to say:

       In my view, this is the most important and most dangerous 
     restructuring of Senate rules since Thomas Jefferson wrote 
     them at the beginning of our country.

  On November 21, 2013, Senator Shelby said:

       Democrats won't be in power in perpetuity. This is a 
     mistake--a big one for the long run. Maybe not for the short 
     run. Short-term gains, but I think it changes the Senate 
     tremendously in a bad way.

  The same day, on the same issue, Senator Thune said:

       I think Democrats are playing with fire. This is very 
     dangerous in terms of what it means for the Senate. What goes 
     around comes around. And someday, they're going to be in the 
     minority.

  Senator Burr said on that same day:

       The American people know what they get when the minority 
     party is stripped of its filibuster rights: they get 
     unchecked power by the executive branch.

  He went on to say:

       If sweeping legislation and lifetime appointments cannot 
     muster 60 votes in the United States Senate, then it probably 
     is not a good idea to force either on the American people.

  My own colleagues on this side of the aisle need to remember our own 
words and heed our own warnings. We will not control this body forever. 
We will not hold the White House in perpetuity. What we are poised to 
do at the end of this week will have tremendous consequences, and I 
fear that someday, we will regret what we are about to do. In fact, I 
am confident we will.
  Having said that, it is hard for me to keep a straight face when I 
hear the current righteous indignation coming from the other side. 
After reading the comments some of my Democrat friends made in 2013, it 
is difficult to have much sympathy for where they find themselves 
today.
  Senator Merkley, who was perhaps the biggest proponent of changing 
the rules at that time, said this:

       Without the nuclear option, Republicans are going to 
     disable the executive branch.
       Ending the abusive filibuster on nominations is a big step 
     toward restoring the functionality of the Senate, and that 
     matters for all of us.
       This is a terrific vote for the U.S. Senate.

  Senator Udall said:

       I'm just so encouraged now that we're going to be able to--
     without filibusters--put people on the courts in an orderly 
     way.

  Senator Warren said on November 13, 2013:

       We need to call out these filibusters for what they are: 
     Naked attempts to nullify the results of the last election.
       If Republicans continue to filibuster these highly 
     qualified nominees for no reason other than to nullify the 
     President's constitutional authority, then Senators not only 
     have the right to change the filibuster, Senators have a duty 
     to change the filibuster rules. We cannot turn our backs on 
     the Constitution. We cannot abdicate our oath of office.

  Senator Sanders on May 14, 2013, said:

       If we bring this nomination to the floor and there is a 
     request for 60 votes, which we're not going to get, I think 
     it is time for the Democratic leadership to do what the 
     American people want, and that is to have a majority rule in 
     the United States Senate.

  I did not make up those last quotes. Those are actual quotes. This 
isn't fake news.
  Elections have consequences, my friends. Elections have consequences.
  I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle keep this in mind: 
Now that we are entering into an era where a simple majority decides 
all judicial nominations, we will see more and more nominees from the 
extremes of

[[Page S2309]]

both the left and the right. I do not see how that will ensure a fair 
and impartial judiciary. In fact, I think the opposite will be true, 
and Americans will no longer be confident of equal protection under the 
law.
  When then-Majority Leader Reid changed the Senate rules in 2013, 
there was no one more critical of his actions than the Senator who 
stands before you now. I fought hard to convince my colleagues of the 
damage those changes would do to this body. I did so because I love the 
Senate. I revere this institution and the place it holds in our system 
of government. It is imperative that we have a functioning Senate where 
the rights of the minority are protected, regardless of which party is 
in power at the time.
  While what happened in 2013 was infuriating to our side, it was also 
heartbreaking. It was heartbreaking because it seemed to me that the 
uniqueness of the Senate had been irreparably damaged and, along with 
it, any hope of restoring meaningful bipartisanship.
  The unprecedented nature of the Democrats' filibuster of a Supreme 
Court nominee has left me in the difficult position of having to decide 
whether to support finishing what Harry Reid and the Democrats started 
in 2013 and eliminate the 60-vote threshold on Supreme Court 
nominations. I find myself torn between protecting the traditions and 
practices of the Senate and the importance of having a full complement 
of Justices on the U.S. Supreme Court.
  I am left with no choice. I will vote to change the rules and allow 
Judge Gorsuch to be confirmed by a simple majority. I will do so with 
great reluctance, not because I have any doubts that Judge Gorsuch will 
be an excellent Justice but because of the further--and perhaps 
irreparable--damage that it will do to the Senate.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
                                 ______