[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 125 (Wednesday, July 24, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5038-S5043]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
ALLOWING THE DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR OF THE FEDERAL AVIATION
ADMINISTRATION ON THE DATE OF ENACTMENT OF THIS ACT TO CONTINUE TO
SERVE AS SUCH DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR
Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, as in legislative session, I ask
unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate
consideration of S. 2249, introduced earlier today.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 2249) to allow the Deputy Administrator of the
Federal Aviation Administration on the date of enactment of
this Act to continue to serve as such Deputy Administrator.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
Mr. BARRASSO. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered
read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered
made and laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The bill (S. 2249) was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading,
was read the third time, and passed as follows:
S. 2249
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. AUTHORITY FOR CONTINUATION OF SERVICE OF THE
DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR OF THE FEDERAL AVIATION
ADMINISTRATION.
(a) In General.--An individual serving as Deputy
Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration on the
date of enactment of this Act may continue to serve as such
Deputy Administrator, without regard to the restrictions
specified in the 5th sentence of section 106(d)(1) of title
49, United States Code.
(b) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this Act shall be
construed as approval by Congress of any future appointments
of military persons to the Offices of Administrator and
Deputy Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration.
Healthcare
Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I come to the floor today again, as I
have week after week, to highlight the healthcare policy disaster the
Democrats have labeled as Medicare for All. This mislabeled, one-size-
fits-all approach takes health insurance away--takes it away--from 180
million Americans who have earned and who get their health insurance on
the job.
Still, many Democratic Members and many Presidential candidates
support this radical proposal, which would actually eliminate on-the-
job insurance. Offered originally by Senator Sanders, this so-called
Medicare for All bill would dramatically raise taxes. It would destroy
Medicare as we know it, and, of course, it would ration care.
Last week I discussed healthcare rationing in Britain and in Canada.
Today my focus is the plan's impact on medical innovation. As a doctor,
I continue to remain astonished at how far medical technology has come
in the 30 years since I started to practice medicine. Scientific
breakthroughs are saving lives all around the world. I know because my
wife Bobbi is a breast cancer survivor.
According to the American Cancer Society, the death rate for women
with breast cancer has fallen nearly 40 percent. More women are living
longer after being diagnosed and treated. The progress is due to
earlier detection as well as better treatment. It is a combination.
This is not limited to breast cancer alone. The death rate for all
cancer patients has steadily declined. The diagnosis of cancer is no
longer considered a death penalty. People survive and thrive. We have
made tremendous strides. U.S. brain power has led the way. According to
the New York Times, the United States is ``home to an outsize share of
global [healthcare] innovation.''
The innovation comes from America. Patients the world over depend
upon our medical breakthroughs.
What happens if we put Washington in charge of all of U.S.
healthcare? Washington bureaucrats--not you, not your family, not your
doctor, not scientists, but Washington bureaucrats--will call the
shots.
Let's look again at Britain, which has a government-run system. There
was a recent headline in the British
[[Page S5039]]
newspaper, the Guardian, and it is enlightening. It says this: ``NHS
cancer scans left unread for weeks.'' The cancer scans have been left
unread for weeks.
The Guardian reports: ``Cancer scans showing the presence or spread
of the disease are going unread for as long as six weeks.'' Think about
that. You are a patient. It is cancer. It is ongoing, and it is
spreading. You have had a scan and have been waiting 6 weeks to know
what is happening with your own body.
Cancer scan reports used to take a week; then, about a month and now,
6 weeks. As a result, according to one of the radiologists in Britain,
``[u]nexpected and critical findings are going unreported for weeks.''
As he said, ``We are now just firefighting.''
The patients are getting the scans, and they are waiting for results.
American patients simply would not tolerate this. They wouldn't in my
home State. They wouldn't in your home State, Mr. President.
American patients will not tolerate this. That is why we can't afford
to lose our competitive edge. The return of our investment in medical
research and development in this country is absolutely tremendous. It
is thanks to U.S. investment and innovation. That is why patient care
is improving not just in the United States but worldwide.
President Trump is asking Europe and other developed countries to
start paying their fair share. The President is right. American
patients shouldn't have to foot all of the bill for global cures.
Still, U.S. patients will surely suffer if Washington bureaucrats start
blocking new innovations.
As I said last week, the Congressional Budget Office came out and
talked about their report on what Medicare for All would mean, and they
said that there would be a delay--a delay in treatment, as well as a
delay in technology if we had a one-size-fits all healthcare system and
180 million Americans lost the insurance they get from work.
Patients in England have bureaucrats as judge and as jury weighing
the value of every advancement, seeing if they can even have it in that
country. What we see is that the bureaucrats are denying lifesaving
treatment, much of it invented in the United States.
British patients recently protested their National Health Service.
They protested because the National Health Service refused to permit
the use of a cutting-edge drug to treat cystic fibrosis. The protesters
ended up placing T-shirts in Parliament Square, representing the 255
people in England who have died as a result of the refusal of England
to approve the use of a drug that exists and that works.
Of course, we all agree the prices of medications need to come down.
In England, the government just says: No, we are not going to have that
treatment, that cure, to be used in our country.
We need to get the cost of care down. We also need to protect
innovation because that is the future of healthcare. Doctors and
scientists need the freedom to give us the next generation of
lifesaving drugs. That is why I am concerned that under the Democrats'
plan such medical progress is threatened.
Clearly, Democrats have taken a hard-left turn when it comes to
healthcare and when it comes to the role of imposing more government in
our lives. They want to take away your health insurance, the one you
get from work, and in place of on-the-job insurance, they want one
expensive, new, government-run program for everyone.
Democrats' extreme scheme is expected to cost $32 trillion. It is so
expensive, in fact, that even doubling everyone's taxes wouldn't cover
it. That means Washington bureaucrats will be restricting your care.
You will lose the freedom to choose your doctor. You will lose the
freedom to choose your hospital. You will have the freedom to make
choices about your own life, and bureaucrats will limit your access to
new treatments as well as cutting-edge technologies.
It is hard to know how many months you will have to wait for urgently
needed care. We have seen it in Canada. We have seen it in England. We
do not want to see it here in the United States. Delayed care becomes
denied care.
Why should you pay more, which is what this so-called Medicare for
All does? You will be paying more to wait longer for worse care. Why
would America want that? That is exactly what the Democrats are
proposing.
Meanwhile, Republicans are focused on real reforms--reforms that
lower costs without lowering standards. That is the key difference. We
want to lower costs but not standards.
In England, they say: Well, it is free, but you are going to have to
wait for a long time for your free care. As I reported last week,
people have actually gone blind while waiting and others have died
while waiting.
The Democrats' proposal actually lowers standards while limiting your
choices and raising your costs. It is time to reject the Democrats'
one-size-fits-all healthcare scheme. Instead, let's ensure our patients
get the innovative care they need from a doctor they choose at lower
costs.
Thank you.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SASSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SASSE. Mr. President, today is a good day for this body, for the
State of Nebraska, and for every American who is committed to the rule
of law, including our first freedom, which is religious liberty.
In a few minutes, we will be voting to confirm Brian Buescher to be
the U.S. Federal district judge for the District of Nebraska. Brian is
a born-and-raised Nebraskan. He is a husband, a father of five, and for
nearly two decades he has served his home State admirably in the legal
profession. His nomination is an honor for our State, and it is a
testament to his integrity and to his tireless service. At the same
time, Brian's confirmation process has been an occasion for one of the
most baffling displays of constitutional confusion and prejudice I have
seen in my time here.
Brian is a Catholic, and he is a member of the Knights of Columbus.
The Knights of Columbus is the largest Catholic fraternal organization
in the world. The organization has 1.6 million members. It raises
millions and millions of dollars every year for charity, and they
contribute millions--literally millions and millions--of hours of
volunteer and charitable service for their neighbors.
Like a lot of Catholic men in Nebraska, Brian joined the Knights of
Columbus as a way to give back to his community. This is not a scandal.
This is actually just really basic--sometimes really boring--love of
neighbor, but it is the kind of stuff that makes communities work.
According to some of my colleagues on the Senate Judiciary Committee,
Brian's association with this extraordinary charitable organization--
again, really mundane, the Knights of Columbus, the largest Catholic
fraternal organization in the world--according to some of my
colleagues, the Knights of Columbus is an extremist outfit. One of my
colleagues suggested that Brian needs to resign his membership in the
Knights if he were confirmed to the Federal bench to avoid the
appearance of conflict and bias--really bizarre stuff.
To be clear, the Knights of Columbus is not some shadowy organization
from a Dan Brown novel. The Knights is a bunch of guys who organize
fish fries, and sometimes they sell Tootsie Rolls, but basically what
they are doing is helping to fund organizations like the Special
Olympics. That is what they do in Omaha, in Lincoln, across Nebraska,
and across the country. It is really weird that we are talking about
the Knights of Columbus as an extremist organization.
In this weird rebirth of McCarthyism, it seems that the Catholics are
to replace the Communists. This isn't just Brian. We have had other
nominees come before the Senate Judiciary Committee this year being
asked questions laughably close to: Are you now or have you ever been
involved in the organization of a fish fry?
We have people asked questions that sound like they are going to be
called to account for what their prayer may have been at the last
pancake feed: Have you or your colleagues ever been
[[Page S5040]]
involved in any plot to overthrow the government at a fish fry?
One of our nominees was asked: How long has the dogma lived loudly
within you, and if you had to rank the dogma on a volume scale from 1
to 10, just how loud is the dogma?
This stuff seems almost laughable, unless you pause and recognize
that the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee is asking nominees questions
like this. This shouldn't be happening.
Again, just so we are clear, a U.S. Senator, who has taken an oath to
uphold and defend the Constitution, asked Brian, as a faithful
Catholic, to resign his membership in the Knights of Columbus to
``avoid the appearance of bias.''
The implication in these questions is really straightforward. It is
that Brian's religious beliefs and his affiliation with his Catholic
religious fraternal organization might make him unfit for service.
Let's put it bluntly: This is plain, unadulterated anti-Catholic
bigotry. This isn't a new thing in U.S history; it is just a new, new
thing. John F. Kennedy, 60 years ago, was asked, as he was running for
President, some really similar questions.
It is also plainly unconstitutional. Every Member of this body, all
100 of us, has raised our hands and took an oath to defend the
Constitution, which in article VI states in language so clear that even
a politician has to acknowledge that it does what it says: ``No
religious test shall ever be required as qualification to any office or
public trust under the United States.''
I just want to say this again. This is just straight out of the
Constitution, article VI. ``No religious test shall ever be required as
qualification to any public office or public trust under the United
States.''
That is why--because this was happening in the Senate Judiciary
Committee--in January, I led a charge on the floor to push through a
resolution to reaffirm our oath of office to the Constitution that
rejects religious bigotry. I called on every Member of this body to
affirm that we respect the freedom of every American to worship as he
or she sees fit and to live out their faith in the public square.
Fortunately, the Federal Government and politics, more broadly, is
not in the business of trying to resolve questions of Heaven and Hell.
That is not what we use politics for in this country. Here, we are only
in this worldly business of trying to maintain the peace and the public
order necessary so every individual can make their own decisions about
ultimate matters, about last things for themselves under the dictates
of conscience, not trying to submit to the whims of politicians or
political movements. This is a great American blessing and we need to
reaffirm it and we need to reteach it every occasion we have that
opportunity.
Happily, the unanimous support for that resolution was an encouraging
step. Today, in a few minutes, when Brian Buescher is going to be
confirmed as a U.S. district judge for the District of Nebraska, we
will see another important step, which is a reaffirmation and a
confirmation to the American people that people of every faith and of
no faith--to Protestants and Catholics, Jews and Muslims, Hindus and
Buddhists, agnostics, atheists, and otherwise--that in America, you
have a place in the life of this Nation.
We don't have to resolve every conflict, even conflicts and arguments
and debates about things more important than politics. We don't have to
resolve every conflict to agree that we will live peaceably today in
this colony. This should be a reaffirmation of the basic American
belief that there is room in this country to disagree.
In fact, so much of what makes this country exceptional is that we do
disagree about some of the most important things and some of the
ultimate things. Yet we do it without severing all the temporal bonds
that bring us together as friends, neighbors, citizens, and patriots.
Brian is a good man, and I am convinced Brian is going to be a great
judge. I suspect that he and many of his other fellow Knights of
Columbus in Omaha are going to be organizing fish fries together again
next spring, and I look forward to joining them at those fish fries.
So today I am pleased to celebrate with Brian and his family and the
whole State of Nebraska his confirmation to the Federal bench, and I
celebrate, too, this victory for our principled American commitment to
religious liberty for each and every American.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Perdue). The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. PERDUE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sasse). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Budget Agreement
Mr. PERDUE. Mr. President, thank you for your accommodation today. I
rise to talk about another responsibility we have in the Senate; that
is, to fund the Federal Government.
Our Nation was built on debate and compromise. If you read what the
Founding Mothers and Founding Fathers debated in Chambers just like
this and then later in this Chamber through the first 100 years of our
existence, there was hot debate and many disagreements, but somehow
they found a way to find a compromise.
Our Founding Mothers and Founding Fathers believed rightly that to
get the best results, both sides had to come to the table to make a
deal. This week, the Trump administration and congressional leaders,
including Speaker Pelosi, reached a critical 2-year compromise on
spending levels and the debt ceiling.
Like any compromise, this funding agreement is not perfect. Neither
side got everything it wanted. It accomplishes three important things,
however.
First, it will provide certainty to our military. This is critical
after the last decade, when 2 years ago, two-thirds of our F/A teams
couldn't fly. Only 3 of our Army brigades could fight that night out of
the 58 Army brigades we have. Our readiness was terrible. This deal
will continue to reestablish readiness for our military, provide our
troops with the compensation and benefits they deserve, and take care
of our veterans here at home.
Before this, three Democratic Presidents disinvested in the military.
That is just historic fact. It was done in the seventies, it was done
in the nineties, and it was done by the prior administration.
Second, none of the liberal poison pills or riders actually ended up
in this final bill. Going forward, President Trump and congressional
Republicans will ensure that we keep those out but in the spirit of
compromise and hard negotiation.
Third, and most importantly, this deal keeps the ball moving on the
process of funding the government on time to avoid another devastating
shutdown or continuing resolution. However, despite these benefits,
this deal highlights two significant problems. These are not new.
First, Washington's funding process is broken. The current system is
inefficient and time-consuming. It has actually only funded the
government on time four times in the last 45 years since the 1974
Congressional Budget Act was put into place. We now have just 13
working days between now and the end of this fiscal year. We are
supposed to have 12 appropriations bills and $1.3 trillion of funding
appropriated by the end of that time, by September 30. Good luck with
that.
So here we are in the eleventh hour. We just made a big agreement,
and I believe now the pressure is on to get defense and some of the
domestic spending appropriations done certainly by September 30 so we
can avoid the draconian impact of continuing resolutions on our
military.
The lack of time means that for the second year in a row, Congress
has had to rush in order to fund the government in the last moments of
the fiscal year. Last year, we stayed here in August during the work
period, and we went from 12 percent funding to 75 percent funding, and
this year we have the opportunity to do that.
I believe the plan is in place, when we come back this September,
that we can actually get upward of two-thirds done by the end of
September, which would include the military, which would avoid this CR
issue we have been talking about.
This process has been the norm in Washington for decades, however.
This
[[Page S5041]]
is nothing new. Since the Budget Act of 1974 was put in place, we have
only done this four times, as I said. We cannot allow this process to
continue this way.
Last year, we had a joint select committee, as you know. I believe we
have four things that we can move on this year in terms of bills and
possibly change this going forward. The American people sent us here to
get this job done. It is time we break through all this--the logjam of
politics--and face the fact next year that our No. 1 priority is to
fund the government.
The second problem this budget deal has highlighted is the most
important issue facing our country, in my opinion--the $22 trillion
debt crisis. While this deal provides for all discretionary spending,
the current budget deal does not include mandatory spending, nor does
any other prior spending bill include mandatory.
By law, all the budget does and all the appropriations do is deal
with the discretionary budget, which is only $1.3 trillion of $4.6
trillion in total money that we spend as the Federal Government. So you
say: Well, what is the difference? Well, we spent $1.3 trillion. Well,
what is in that? That is military, Veterans' Administration, and all
domestic discretionary spending. Well, what is in mandatory? Social
Security, Medicare, Medicaid, pension benefits, and the interest on the
debt, which, by the way, has gone up over $450 billion in the last 2\1/
2\ years.
Let me put this into perspective. This budget deal only increases
discretionary spending from last year's level over the next 2 years by
$54 billion. That is 2 percent per year for the next 2 years. That is
lower growth in spending on discretionary items than the growth of our
economy at the moment. That means that in 2 years, the spending on
discretionary spending items will be less as a percentage of our
economy than it is today.
This is an incredibly important point and was a major goal of
President Trump's going into this process. The problem is, the CBO
projects that mandatory spending and interest payments will grow in
that same period over the next 2 years by $420 billion. That is our
problem. This is what is driving the huge increases on our debt over
the next two decades. In these 2 years, ironically, half the increase
in the mandatory spending is in interest expense. Even with interest
rates being historically low, that is the case. Imagine what we would
have if interest rates were at their 30-year average of 5 to 6 percent.
Right now, 70 percent of what the government spends is made up of
mandatory spending, as I said: Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid,
pension benefits for Federal employees, and the interest on the debt.
Many of these programs are in dire need of reform. The Social Security
Trust Fund goes to zero in 16 years. The Medicare trust fund goes to
zero in 7 years. It is imperative that we save these important
programs. Yet nothing is being done when we deal with the discretionary
part of this budget.
Instead, Congress has been wrangling over the discretionary budget,
which makes up just 30 percent of all spending. The whole situation
shows just how shortsighted Washington is. Rather than address the
long-term problems facing the country, Congress keeps kicking the can
down the road. Fortunately, there are five steps, ultimately, we can
take to address this long-term fiscal problem.
First is we have to grow the economy. Check that box because the
economy is moving. Regulatory work, energy, taxes, and Dodd-Frank have
kick-started this economy, creating 6 million new jobs. The economy is
growing at about twice the rate it did under the prior administration,
so the economy is growing.
Second is to root out redundant spending; third, fix the funding
process; fourth, save Social Security and Medicare; and lastly, we have
to finally address the underlying drivers of our healthcare costs.
Thanks to President Trump's leadership, we already have the first
part covered. Unemployment is the lowest it has been in 50 years. Our
energy potential has been unleashed. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act has
brought new investment to our country.
I want to highlight again the driver here. I am going to show a chart
just as I close. Mandatory spending is the No. 1 problem we have with
our debt crisis. The bottom line here is discretionary spending. The
vertical dotted line is today, 2019. You can see, over the last decade
or so, that discretionary spending has been relatively quiet. We have
had some increase. The green line is total spending, but the orange
line is the total mandatory line. You can see the explosive nature of
growth from today forward.
That is why this conversation today is so timely because, in the
past, while it was going up, it is going up geometrically in the next
20 years compared to what it has been. That is a function of the growth
of the size of the debt itself and also because of the aging
demographic of our population. As more and more people retire and go
into Medicare and Medicaid, you will see these numbers continue to
rise. These are Congressional Budget Office numbers. This highlights
how serious this is and why all the drama is on the 30 percent down
here and why we have to change the rhetoric here, change the predicate
of discussion and start talking about the mandatory expenditures and
how we save them.
Solving the debt crisis is the right thing to do and the only thing
to do. The world needs us to do this, and the time is right now. Given
that, this budget deal is a reasonable compromise, and we now need to
make sure we appropriate to avoid any continuing resolution for our
defense funding.
Going into the next year, now that we have an agreement on a topline
for discretionary spending for 2020, we need to expedite appropriations
to ensure we avoid the unnecessary drama next year. This is one reason
why I ran for the Senate. We have to get serious about the long-term
implications of our debt. The world knows that. Our people know that.
The problem is the political will has been missing in Washington.
We passed one milestone, hopefully, with this agreement on the
topline, and we will move to appropriations, but we have to move,
starting immediately, to change the process so we don't have this drama
next year and we begin the dialogue about how to save Social Security
and Medicare.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Perdue). The Senator from Nebraska.
Nomination of Brian C. Buescher
Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I rise today to voice my support for
Brian Buescher, President Trump's nominee to serve on the U.S. District
Court for the District of Nebraska.
Near the end of 2017, both Senator Sasse and I were given notice that
Chief Judge Laurie Smith Camp would assume senior status on Nebraska's
Federal bench. Many people may not know this, but the case docket for
the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska is among the
busiest dockets in the Nation. In recent years, the district has
carried some of the highest per-judge criminal caseloads in the
country, which surpasses judicial districts that include New York City,
Chicago, and Los Angeles. That is why it is critical to both Nebraska
and our Nation that the Senate delivers an exceptional judge to fill
this vacancy without further delay.
In this spirit, both Senator Sasse and I worked quickly to begin the
open-application process. Nebraska is the proud home of many brilliant
legal minds, and we thoroughly studied every application and
interviewed qualified candidates. After an extensive search spanning
the course of a few months, Senator Sasse and I came to a conclusion.
We would recommend to President Trump that Brian Buescher be nominated
as the next judge on Nebraska's Federal district court.
Mr. Buescher is a proud husband and father of five children who have
been his biggest cheerleaders throughout this long confirmation
process. He grew up in Clay County, NE. There he learned the importance
of hard work at a young age on his family's farm, where they raised
corn, milo, wheat, alfalfa, hogs and cattle. It is also from this
upbringing that he developed a keen appreciation for how the law
directly affects the everyday lives of Americans and even more so for
those who live and work in America's heartland.
After receiving his undergraduate degree from the University of
Nebraska-
[[Page S5042]]
Lincoln, Brian was accepted into law school at Georgetown University.
He thrived both in and out of the classroom. He was editor-in-chief of
the Georgetown Journal of Ethics and vice president of the Georgetown
Law Student Bar Association.
Mr. Buescher is currently a partner at Nebraska's largest law firm,
Kutak Rock. He is chairman of the firm's agribusiness litigation team
and oversees large, complex commercial litigation, which includes
environmental law, food law, real estate, class actions, product
liability, and banking.
He has gained invaluable experience as a litigator, and his resume
speaks for itself. His success includes favorable rulings in cases
heard by Nebraska and Iowa's State and Federal courts, the U.S. Court
of Federal Claims, and the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of
Nebraska. Time after time, case after case, he has demonstrated his
commitment to upholding the Constitution and the rule of law.
In 2017, the American Agricultural Law Association awarded him the
award for Excellence in Agricultural Law in Private Practice. The
American Bar Association rated Mr. Buescher as ``qualified'' by an
overwhelming majority. His 20 years of litigation experience has
unquestionably prepared him for his next life chapter as a U.S.
district court judge.
Nebraska's former secretary of State, John Gale, recruited Brian to
serve on the Nebraska State Records Board. Secretary Gale noted that
``Mr. Buescher reflects the highest level for the qualities needed for
a district judge, ranging from intelligence, integrity,
professionalism, attentiveness, character, and skillful articulation to
a deep understanding of the rules and procedures of the courtroom.''
While everyone who has worked with him praises his legal acumen,
those who know him on a personal level speak to his integrity and his
character. One of his friends from college who has known Brian for a
quarter of a century praised his commitment to serving the community
and his qualities as a husband and father. His friend concluded: ``I
can say with complete confidence what kind of person Brian is and that
there is nothing that should give you hesitation about his
confirmation.''
By all accounts Brian Buescher has enthusiastic support in Nebraska
for his superb legal work and fairminded disposition.
I was proud to introduce Mr. Buescher at his confirmation hearing
before the Senate Judiciary Committee last November. I sincerely hoped
that my Democratic colleagues would see Mr. Buescher for who he was--a
sharp legal mind and a man of high character. However, my Democratic
friends on the Judiciary Committee deployed unjust, bigoted attacks
instead of using reason and open-mindedness. They could not criticize
his solid record nor his judicial philosophy. So they reverted to
attacking his personal religious beliefs. Both the junior Senator from
California and the junior Senator from Hawaii questioned Mr. Buescher's
membership in the Knights of Columbus.
For anyone who may be unaware, the Knights of Columbus is not a
radical interest group. It is not political at all. The Knights of
Columbus is the world's largest Roman Catholic fraternal organization.
Their motto is ``In service to one, service to all,'' and they are
founded on the core principles of charity, unity, and patriotism.
Over the last decade, the Knights of Columbus have donated $1.1
billion to charities and performed more than 68 million hours of
volunteer service. In 2017 alone, local councils donated and
distributed over 105,000 winter coats for underprivileged children
through their ``Coats for Kids'' program. They have raised more than
$382 million in the past three decades to help groups and programs that
support the intellectually and physically disabled. Whether it is
providing food and shelter for refugees, rebuilding homes for families
that are struck by natural disasters, volunteering at veterans medical
facilities, or simply having pancake breakfasts to raise money for
local schools, the acts of charity and kindness of the Knights of
Columbus are truly inspiring.
That is why I was shocked to hear that Mr. Buescher received a letter
from the junior Senator from Hawaii following his confirmation hearing
that suggested he leave the Knights of Columbus to ``avoid an
appearance of bias.'' The notion that being a Knights of Columbus
member is disqualifying to serve on the Federal bench is disturbing on
its own, but holding religious tests for our judicial nominees
blatantly ignores the Constitution and tears at the fabric of our core
American values--the freedom to worship and pray as we choose.
Fortunately, the Senate passed a resolution earlier this year that
condemned unconstitutional religious tests for nominees.
President Kennedy endured anti-Catholic attacks throughout his 1960
campaign, and for me it was exceptionally troubling to see that
rhetoric return to the Senate in 2019. Now we will have another chance
here in the Senate to send a clear message that we share our Founding
Fathers' contempt for religious tests for public office by confirming
Brian Buescher to the Federal bench.
In closing, I think it is important to reiterate that reverence for
our Constitution and our laws is part of what it means to be an
American. My friend Peggy Noonan characterized this best a few weeks
ago in her Wall Street Journal column. She described a young politician
in 1838 who gave a speech to a Midwestern youth group about public
policy and the political events at the time. The last of our Founding
Fathers had recently died, and in their absence, our Nation felt lost.
The Founders were a visual representation of American values and
modeled our first principles in their behavior. After their deaths,
these core values were being forgotten and mob rule began to rise,
threatening our Republic. The young politician had a solution: Our
people should transfer reverence for our Founders to reverence to the
laws that they created. He said: ``Only reverence for our Constitution
and laws'' will protect our Nation's political institutions and retain
the ``attachment of the people.''
The speaker that day, in 1838, was Abraham Lincoln, who was 28 years
old at the time. He understood the delicate nature of our laws--that
when our laws collapse, everything else in our Nation can crumble with
it.
I believe that to love our country we must respect our Constitution
and apply the laws fairly to all. When we do so, we not only honor our
past, but we protect the future generations of this great Nation. We
can do that here in the Senate by appointing exceptional judges to the
Federal bench, and I can say with great confidence that Mr. Buescher
will be one of them. He is a well-qualified nominee and a man who
possesses high ethical standards. I have no doubt that Brian Buescher
will honor his family, our State, and our Nation with his service on
the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska.
I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote in favor of
his nomination.
I yield the floor.
Nomination of Wendy Williams Berger
Mr. SCOTT of Florida. Mr. President, Judge Wendy Williams Berger has
honorably served the State of Florida for several years, and I proudly
support her confirmation as a district judge for the Middle District of
Florida today. Throughout her distinguished legal career, she has
remained committed to upholding the rule of law, prosecuting criminal
offenses as an Assistant State Attorney for Florida's Seventh Judicial
Circuit, and subsequently presiding as a circuit court judge for that
same judicial circuit. As Governor of Florida, I was honored to appoint
Judge Berger to the Fifth District Court of Appeal in 2012, and I am
proud to support her confirmation to the Federal bench, where she will
continue her exemplary service to our State and Nation.
Mrs. FISCHER. 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.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
[[Page S5043]]
____________________