[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]]

  

                          ____________________