[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 58 (Tuesday, April 4, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2390-S2394]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                             Cloture Motion

  Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate the pending 
cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination 
     of Neil M. Gorsuch, of Colorado, to be an Associate Justice 
     of the Supreme Court of the United States.
         Mitch McConnell, Mike Crapo, John Kennedy, Jerry Moran, 
           Mike Rounds, Chuck Grassley, Jeff Flake, Todd Young, 
           John Cornyn, Cory Gardner, Thom Tillis, Marco Rubio, 
           John Thune, Michael B. Enzi, Orrin G. Hatch, Shelley 
           Moore Capito, Steve Daines.

  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the 
nomination of Neil M. Gorsuch, of Colorado, to be an Associate Justice 
of the Supreme Court of the United States shall be brought to a close, 
upon reconsideration?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 55, nays 45, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 110 Ex.]

                                YEAS--55

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Donnelly
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Flake
     Gardner
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Lankford
     Lee
     Manchin
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Perdue
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott
     Shelby
     Strange
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Wicker
     Young

                                NAYS--45

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coons
     Cortez Masto
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Harris
     Hassan
     Heinrich
     Hirono
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Markey
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Peters
     Reed
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. On this vote, the yeas are 55, the nays 
are 45.
  Upon reconsideration, the motion is agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Fischer). The majority whip.
  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

[[Page S2391]]

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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sasse). The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, over the next several hours, we will have 
the final opportunity to debate the confirmation of Supreme Court 
Justice nominee Neil Gorsuch. This has been a lengthy process this 
week, as we have heard from Senators on both sides of the aisle who 
have come to the floor and talked about their support or their 
opposition to Judge Gorsuch's nomination to the Supreme Court.
  I have had several opportunities over the past weeks and months to 
personally visit and speak with Judge Gorsuch, whom I have known from 
Colorado, the opportunity to listen to a number of my colleagues 
address the Chamber, to watch the Senate confirmation hearings in the 
Judiciary Committee--the day after day, it seemed, that that 
confirmation hearing proceeded--and of course we have gotten to know 
Judge Gorsuch over the past several years. We are proud that we have a 
Coloradan nominated to the Nation's highest Court and that he would be 
the second Coloradan to serve on the Supreme Court, the other one being 
Justice Byron White. Justice Byron White also led the NFL in rushing 
one year, and while Gorsuch will never live up to that part of the 
Supreme Court legacy for Coloradans, we know that Judge Gorsuch is an 
avid outdoorsman, a fly-fisher, expert-level skier, and somebody who 
understands public lands. I think having that kind of expertise and 
experience on our Nation's highest Court will serve this country well.
  I think it is important to understand that his roots represent the 
roots that built the West. He is a fourth-generation Coloradan, 
somebody who hails from a State that is independent, that takes great 
pride in its libertarian streak, its love of the outdoors, recreational 
opportunities, understanding agriculture, energy. It is a State that 
really does have it all. From the Eastern Plains to the Western Slope, 
there is great beauty in our State.

  Neil Gorsuch understands that. He served on a court, the Tenth 
Circuit Court, that is housed in Denver and represents 20 percent of 
the landmass of our State. Judge Gorsuch's family, as I mentioned, 
really does show the grit and determination of those who built the 
West. His grandfather was someone who worked in Union Station, someone 
who grew up driving trolleys back in the time when Denver was a trolley 
town. His other grandfather, of course, was a physician, and both were 
experts in their fields. One grandfather helped found a law firm, 
Gorsuch Kirgis, a very prestigious firm in Denver.
  But it is Judge Gorsuch's experience, his high qualifications of 
academics that he brings to the Court, having received his degrees from 
Columbia, Oxford, Harvard, as I mentioned previously--the most 
important academic experience being the University of Colorado, where I 
think he spent at least some time in the summer attending, and also 
teaching a course as a professor at my alma mater, the University of 
Colorado School of Law. This has all helped him build what he is today; 
that is, a very mainstream jurist, an incredibly exceptional legal 
mind, one of the brightest jurists this country has to offer, someone 
who is known as a feeder judge, providing clerks to the Supreme Court, 
and who has the respect of the Colorado legal community.
  I want to talk about some of these things because I have come to the 
floor multiple times, and I have talked about his qualifications. I 
have talked about the people who know him best,

[[Page S2392]]

not the people in Washington, DC, but the people who have practiced in 
front of his court in Denver, the people who know him personally out in 
Colorado.
  Here is what those individuals have said. They believe that Judge 
Gorsuch deserves an up-or-down vote. Bill Ritter, former Democratic 
Governor for the State of Colorado, believes that Judge Gorsuch 
deserves an up-or-down vote. Now we will have it. We have invoked 
cloture. We will have a final debate on Friday night and a final vote 
on whether or not he should be confirmed.
  People like Steve Farber, the cochair of the Democratic National 
Convention in 2008 in Colorado, have talked about the need to confirm 
Judge Gorsuch.
  So the debate that we enter now is not one of whether he will have an 
up-or-down vote. He is going to have an up-or-down vote. But it is 
whether we should confirm him, actually give him the ``yes'' vote.
  I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote in favor of 
Judge Gorsuch's confirmation. Some of the arguments that I have heard 
over the past several weeks on the floor, listening to some of the 
arguments on the floor--it is quite interesting to me that some of the 
arguments we hear seem to be at odds with each other.
  Presiding over the Senate yesterday, I heard people talk about how 
they don't think Neil Gorsuch will stand up to the President. They are 
concerned that he will not express the kind of independence the 
judiciary commands, that he will not be someone to stand up to the 
President of the United States. They often cite some of the comments or 
tweets that the President has made and then fail to mention the fact, 
though, that at the very time one of those tweets was mentioned, 
questioning the judiciary, Judge Gorsuch, in a meeting with one of our 
Democratic colleagues, actually had objections. He said he objected to 
the statements the President had made, expressing his independence, 
talking about how what he had heard was demoralizing--very much showing 
independence.
  But the second argument you often hear, for those who have decided to 
oppose this mainstream jurist, is that they are afraid he won't show 
enough independence from the President, and then they say they are 
concerned about his language as it relates to the Chevron doctrine--
whether Judge Gorsuch is going to be willing to overturn the Chevron 
doctrine.
  I find those two arguments kind of interesting because, on one hand, 
you have an argument saying we are afraid he is not going to stand up 
to the President of the United States, and then, on the other hand, you 
have an argument saying that we are afraid he is not going to stand up 
to the administrative state of the President of the United States--
because that is what the Chevron doctrine does; it gives great 
deference to the regulatory body, to the administrative state.
  Here is another irony. The Administrator of the EPA in 1984 was Neil 
Gorsuch's mother, Anne Burford--the Administrator of the EPA. She was 
the first woman to serve as EPA Administrator who was the subject of 
the Chevron doctrine.
  Not only is he willing to stand up to the President and the 
administrative state of the President, but he is willing to overturn a 
case that was a subject that his own mother was a subject to.
  I have also heard comments from colleagues on the aisle that Judge 
Gorsuch is not a mainstream jurist. This argument, I think, can be 
dealt with in a couple of ways because there are some pretty good 
statistics to refute these arguments.
  Ninety-seven. Ninety-seven percent is the number of times in the 
2,700 opinions that he was a part of--97 percent represents the times 
that the decisions were unanimous. Judge Gorsuch did not serve only 
with conservative-appointed judges. He didn't serve with only 
Republican nominees. Judge Gorsuch served with Republican and Democrat 
nominees, appointments approved by the Senate. In 97 percent of the 
cases, Judge Gorsuch ruled--decided--in unanimous decisions.
  The other statistic that I think is even more revealing, of course, 
as to whether Judge Gorsuch is a mainstream judge is 99 percent. 
Ninety-nine percent is the amount of times that Judge Gorsuch ruled 
with the majority of the court; he made decisions--opinions--with the 
majority of the court.
  I heard a comment yesterday from a colleague who said that Judge 
Gorsuch was never intended to be a mainstream nominee. If Judge Gorsuch 
was never intended to be a mainstream nominee, do you think we would 
see a judge before us that has support from the 2008 Democratic 
National Convention Chairman? If Judge Gorsuch was never intended to be 
mainstream nominee, do you think we would have decisions by the 
Democratic Governor of Colorado, former Democratic Governor of 
Colorado, to demand or ask for an up-or-down vote? If Judge Gorsuch was 
never intended to be a mainstream nominee, do you think that the 
President would have nominated somebody who agreed 99 percent of the 
time with his colleagues on the bench, colleagues who came 
from appointments given by Republican Presidents and Democrat 
Presidents?

  The arguments over whether Judge Gorsuch is going to be with the 
little guy or he spends too much time defending the big guy--well, let 
me again go back to the people who know Judge Gorsuch the best, who 
have practiced in front of his court. Here is a statement from a Denver 
attorney and Democrat on representing underdogs before Judge Gorsuch. 
This is from the Denver Post: ``He issued a decision that most 
certainly focused on the little guy.''
  Yet the story from the opposition here, out of 2,700 cases, is: Oh, 
my gosh, this is a person who has never defended the little guy. Well, 
here is somebody who has practiced in front of his court who absolutely 
believes he focused on the little guy.
  So we have a judge who agrees with the majority of the court most of 
the time--99 percent of the time; 97 percent of the time it is a 
unanimous decision, and lawyers practicing in front of him believe that 
he represents the little guy. We have heard from leading Democrat 
voices in Colorado who support him. The ABA gave him its highest 
qualification, rankings, ratings. They believe it.
  Then the question becomes, What are we looking for in a Justice? 
Maybe that is the biggest argument here. Maybe the argument should be 
about what are we looking for in terms of philosophy, ideology?
  Well, we have seen his ideology and his philosophy in what he has 
testified before the Judiciary Committee, what he has stated in the 
past through writings. He is someone who is going to follow the law. He 
is someone who is going to take a decision where the law leads him, not 
somebody who is going to take an opinion or decision where his personal 
beliefs or politics take him. That is the kind of judge we want on the 
highest Court. That is the kind of Justice we want--someone who is not 
going to decide a policy preference from the bench of the Supreme 
Court, not somebody who is going to take a look at a public opinion 
poll or someone who is going to take a look at a focus group and make a 
decision but someone who will rule by the law.
  I have heard colleagues come to the floor and talk about their 
experiences where they were given decisions to read without being given 
the law. They were given just the facts of the case. They said: How 
would you have decided this case? Then they showed him the actual 
ruling, the actual holding in the case.
  Some people believe, well, that is not the way we would have decided 
because we don't feel that was a good outcome; we don't feel that was 
the right policy.
  It is not the job of a Justice to put their thumb on the scale of 
policy; it is the job of a Justice to be a guardian of the 
Constitution, to defend the Constitution, to follow the law and to 
decide cases based on the law not on feelings, politics, polls, public 
opinion.
  We have a judge, nominated for Justice, who has said that a judge who 
agrees with every opinion that they have issued is probably a bad 
judge. He is paraphrasing other judges and Justices throughout our 
history. It is because he knows it is not his job to issue opinions or 
decisions or to decide a case based on being a Republican or Democrat. 
It is not his job to decide a case based on whether he was nominated by 
President Trump or President Obama or President Bush. It is his job to 
look at the law, to leave policy decisions to the legislative branch. 
That is what we have to do. That is what Judge Gorsuch has said he will 
do.

[[Page S2393]]

  So these arguments just don't hold water. It doesn't hold water that 
he is not looking out for the interests of our citizens, because here 
clearly he is. Democrats who have practiced before him in court have 
said as much. The argument that he will not stand up to Trump 
administration--we know it; he said in front of our Democratic 
colleagues that he would stand up to the President.
  He has said that he rejected attacks on the Court. We also know that 
when it comes to the Chevron doctrine, which seems to be sacred ground 
now, that there are these ironic arguments taking place, because you 
want someone who will stand up to the administration, but then you are 
concerned that he is interested in or concerned that we have taken the 
Chevron deference--the doctrine of Chevron deference too far.
  Now which is it? Do you want a judge who is going to stand up to the 
administration or do you want a judge who is not going to stand up to 
the administration? It sounds as though the arguments are trying to 
have it both ways.
  The bottom line is that we know Judge Gorsuch to be a person who is 
eminently qualified, a mainstream jurist who has the respect and 
admiration of judges around the country, who has the admiration and 
respect of fellow jurists and legal professionals throughout Colorado, 
and we know that he will make this country proud. He is certainly going 
to make Colorado proud as he receives his confirmation to the Nation's 
highest Court.
  I hope, as we spend these hours debating, that we can realize this 
Senate should operate in a bipartisan fashion, that we should confirm 
judges who are clearly mainstream.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. COONS. Mr. President, today is a day when many Senators are 
speaking about Judge Gorsuch and about the Supreme Court. As I think 
many know, in the last week, in the Judiciary Committee hearings and in 
other settings, I have announced that I will vote against Judge Gorsuch 
on the final vote tomorrow. I believe I have made my reasons for my 
opposition clear. I have thoroughly reviewed and considered Judge 
Gorsuch's record and where he fits within American jurisprudence, and I 
have no second thoughts about my decision.
  As I look around at what has just happened on this Senate floor, I am 
sick with regret. So I rise now to speak in defense of the Senate.
  The Senate has been hailed by many, including our nominee to the 
Supreme Court, Judge Gorsuch, as the world's greatest deliberative 
body. Yet today I think one more blow has been struck at that title and 
reality.
  The late Senator Robert Byrd, who served in this Chamber for 51 
years, would famously remind new Senators that ``in war and in peace, 
[the Senate] has been the sure refuge and protector of the rights of 
the states and of a political minority.''
  Of course, although Senator Byrd was the longest serving Senator, as 
a Delawarean, I grew up in the tradition of Senator Joe Biden, a 36-
year veteran of this body who left its ranks only to ascend to the Vice 
Presidency and spend 8 more years as its Presiding Officer.
  Since I have had the honor of assuming Senator Biden's former seat, I 
have committed to following his example of working across the aisle, 
through Republican and Democratic administrations, with whoever is 
willing to roll up their sleeves and get to work for the American 
people. I know my colleagues share in this foundational commitment to 
serve our constituents and country.
  As I look around at what just happened on this floor, with too little 
discussion of its lasting consequences and too little visible concern 
or even emotion, I must ask the question: Where are we headed?
  You can't see it, but around this Chamber are white marble statues, 
busts of former Presiding Officers, of former Vice Presidents of the 
United States. They are in the halls outside this Chamber. They are at 
the upper level of this Chamber, in the Galleries. All the former Vice 
Presidents are memorialized in white marble busts.
  Former Vice President Adlai Stevenson, the grandfather of the 
Illinois Governor who ran for President in the middle of the 20th 
century--former Vice President Adlai Stevenson, when he delivered his 
farewell address to the Senate on his last day in office as the 
Presiding Officer of the Senate in 1897, said:

       It must not be forgotten that the rules governing this body 
     are founded deep in human experience; that they are the 
     result of centuries of tireless effort . . . to conserve, to 
     render stable and secure, the rights and liberties which have 
     been achieved by conflict.
       By its rules, the Senate wisely fixes the limits to its own 
     power. Of those who clamor against the Senate and its mode of 
     procedure, it may be truly said, ``They know not what they 
     do.''
       In this Chamber alone are preserved, without restraint, two 
     essentials of wise legislation and of good government--the 
     right of amendment and of debate.

  It was exactly that right, those rules that were assaulted today, but 
they have been under assault for a long time.
  In recent days, I have reached out to my Republican and Democratic 
colleagues, trying to see if there was some way we could reach a 
reliable consensus agreement to safeguard these institutional values 
and avoid the events of today and tomorrow.
  I told my colleagues that I was not ready to end debate on Judge 
Gorsuch's nomination until we could chart a course for the Senate to 
move forward on a bipartisan basis when considering future Supreme 
Court nominations.
  I think for us to get to any constructive conversation about moving 
this Senate forward requires owning the role that all of us--each of us 
has played over our time here, whether a few years or decades, in 
bringing us to this point.
  I, for one, will say I have come over time to regret joining my 
Democratic colleagues in changing the rules for lower court nominations 
and confirmations in 2013. Of course, I could give an entire speech on 
the obstruction that led us to that point. I could document the 
Republican and Democratic deeds and misdeeds of the last Congress and 
the Congress before that and the decade before that.
  As my more seasoned and senior colleagues demonstrated in the 
Judiciary Committee deliberations, those who have served here longest 
know best the record of grievance of Congresses in decades past.
  I anticipate that many of my colleagues will come to regret the 
decisions and actions taken today in this Congress and in Congresses 
ahead. Instead of focusing on that shared regret, I want to work 
together not to continue to tear down the traditions and rules of the 
Senate but to find ways to strengthen and fortify and sustain them.
  I worked to try to find a solution to get past this moment on the 
brink. I wanted to ensure our next Supreme Court nominee would be the 
product of bipartisan consultation and consensus, as was safeguarded 
for years by the potential of the 60-vote margin. I wanted certainty 
that the voice of the minority would still be heard when the next 
vacancies arise. Among many, this effort to forge consensus was met 
with hopelessness or even hostility.
  Back home, thousands of constituents called my office, urging a vote 
against Gorsuch and urging I support the filibuster. Some even urged me 
to stop talking about any sort of deal. In fact, back home in Delaware, 
some national groups ran ads against me when there was even a rumor of 
a hint that there might be conversations about avoiding this outcome.
  There were even Senators on both sides of the aisle who told me that 
an agreement was impossible. They said any agreement is based on trust, 
and we simply do not trust each other anymore.
  Given the events of the last years, the disrespect and mistreatment 
of Merrick Garland, the course of the confirmation of Neil Gorsuch, I 
can understand how there is a raw wound right now in this Chamber, 
where each side feels the other has mistreated a good and honorable and 
capable nominee for the Supreme Court.
  Let me say my last point again. Senators on both sides told me we 
could not find a durable compromise because we do not trust each other 
anymore. If we cannot trust each other anymore, then are there any big 
problems facing this country which we can address and solve?
  This morning, I gave an address at the Brookings Institution about 
the

[[Page S2394]]

threat Russia poses to our democracy, to our allies, to our national 
security, and to the endurance of our Republic. If that threat is not 
something that deserves determined, bipartisan effort, I don't know 
what is.
  There are many threats to our future I could lay out today, but let 
me simply emphasize that in the absence of trust, this body cannot play 
its intended constitutional role, and without trust, we will not 
rebuild what is necessary to sustain this body.
  Everyone likes to point the finger at the other side as the source of 
this distrust. The reality is, there is abundant blame to go around.
  Folks like to remember the good old days when Justice Scalia was 
confirmed by this body 98 to 0, when Justice Ginsburg was confirmed 96 
to 3, but if we look at our five most recent nominees to the Supreme 
Court who got votes, you can see a clear trend: Nine Senators, all 
Republican, voted against Justice Breyer. Then 22 Senators voted 
against Justice Roberts. Then 42 Senators, mostly Democrats, voted 
against Justice Alito. For President Obama's nominees, Justices 
Sotomayor and Kagan, more than 30 Republican Senators opposed each one. 
Only nine Republican Senators voted for Sotomayor, and only five 
Republicans voted for Justice Kagan. We have been on this trajectory--
both parties--for some time.

  Then, of course, we have Chief Judge Merrick Garland, the first 
Supreme Court nominee in American history to be denied a hearing and a 
vote, and we have Judge Gorsuch, the first to be the object of a 
partisan filibuster on this floor.
  We did not get here overnight. We have become increasingly polarized. 
How can we work together to repair this lack of trust so we can face 
the very real challenges that face our Nation?
  My own attempts of recent days--although I was blessed to be joined 
by Senators of good will and good faith and great skill in both 
parties--were ultimately not successful. I wish I had engaged sooner 
and more forcefully. I wish I had been clearer with my colleagues how 
determined I was to seek a result, but this doesn't mean I am 
disappointed that I tried, and it also doesn't mean I am going to stop. 
I am not going to stop trying to fix the damage that has been done, 
trying to find a better pathway forward.
  I ask my colleagues: If you know what you have done today, then what 
will we do tomorrow? How could we avoid the further deepening, 
corrosive partisanship in this body? What past mistakes can each of us 
own up to? What steps can we take to mend these old wounds? What more 
can we do to move forward together?
  We sometimes talk about the dysfunction of this body as if it is 
external to us, as if we bear no accountability for it, but at the end 
of the day, here we are: 100 men and women sent to represent 50 States 
of this Republic and 325 million people. In many ways, we have all let 
them down today.
  I can tell you what I am going to do tomorrow. I commit to working 
with anyone who wants to join me to try to strengthen and save the 
rules and traditions of this body and its effectiveness as an 
absolutely essential part of the constitutional order for which so many 
have fought and died. It is what all of our predecessors would have 
wanted.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.