low-income areas? and if we can't address these two employment and economic incentives, how are we going to deal with too much larger ones that expire at the end of this year? the work opportunity tax credit and the new markets tax credit, all to create jobs. so i guess it must be somehow the final category, which i term general business incentives, that the house democrat majority must find objectionable because it falls into that category that we're only trying to help big business or big corporations. that's their accusation. these provisions make a whopping 4.5% of the total cost of the extending provisions that expired at the end of 2017. most of these provisions have been very minimal cost as they

only accelerate when a business may deduct certain deductions and not whether the costs are deductible in the first place. however, the most costly of what i term general business incentives is also likely the most popular. i'm going to show you in just a minute. the most popular because it has such an overwhelming number of cosponsors in both bodies. that is the short-line tax credit. this provision offers a tax ched to shortline railroads for qualified maintenance expenditures. this credit isn't available to the largest railroads, what we call the class one railroads. this credit benefits smaller railroads that are critically important for farmers and many manufacturers to get their

products to the global markets. for example, in my state of iowa, according to a recent data from the american short line and regional railroad association, there are nine short lines and regional railroads. this credit isn't just supported by an -- and important to the railroads themselves. it's also supported by the users of short line railroads who depend on these railroads to get their products to market around the world. for example, midwest soybean farmers selling to the asian market typically must ship their crop by rail to the port of seattle. and the short line railroads are part of that railroad system, and they are critical to that transportation network. the fact is that this provision is far more than some sort of giveaway to business. it's a provision that's

important to the whole community. this is probably a big reason why legislation making this short line tax credit permanent currently has 50 cosponsors in this body in the senate, and 228 cosponsors in the house of representatives. i hope i have been able to clear up some of the misunderstanding regarding tax extenders for the new democratic majority in the house. not only on the substance of these tax extenders, but the fact that extending these tax credits has been both bicameral and bipartisan for at least a couple decades. extenders are then not just about businesses or corporations.

this overwhelmingly benefits individuals. individuals. it benefits clean energy. promote job creation in urban and rural communities alike. in order to provide certainty -- and you need certainty in tax law. if you want to provide certainty to the people who relied on these provisions in 2018 and potentially this year, we should extend them, at least through 2019, as quickly as possible. now, this could have been done as far as the bipartisan agreement on budget and debt limits announced monday. unfortunately, i fear a misunderstanding of what extenders really are by the new members in the house of representatives and who they benefit on the part of the same democrat house majority, that

this misunderstanding contributed to these extenders being left out of the deal announced monday. i know that there are those who question the need to extend these provisions in perpetuity, and it happens that i agree with those points of view. that's why the finance committee that i chair created a serious of task forces to examine these policies for the long term. the task forces were charged with examining each of these provisions to determine if we can reach a consensus on a long-term resolution so we don't have to have every two years an extended -- and debate about extending extenders or tax credits. so i look forward to receiving the submissions of the task forces that i have appointed later this week.

hopefully, these submissions will provide a basis for the finance committee to put together an extenders package before the end of the year that includes longer term solutions for as many of these temporary provisions as possible. this is important so that we can stop the annual exercise of kicking the can down the road. however, in the meantime, i remain committed to acting as soon as possible so that taxpayers who relied on these provisions in 2018 don't end up feeling like charlie brown after lucy pulls the football away. i yield the floor.

mr. barrasso: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso: thank you, mr. president. as if 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 clerk: s. 2249, a bill to allow the deputy administrator of the federal aviation administration on the date of enactment of this act to continue to serve as the deputy administrator. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. barrasso: i ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. barrasso: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i come to the floor today again, as i have week after week, to highlight

the health care policy disaster that 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 democrat members, many presidential candidates support this radical proposal which would actually eliminate on-the-job insurance. it's been offered originally by senator sanders, this so-called medicare for all bill would also dramatically raise taxes. it would destroy medicare as we know it, and of course it would ration care. last week, i discussed health care rationing in britain and in canada. today my focus is the plan's impact on medical innovation.

now, as a doctor, i continue to remain astonished at how far medical technology has come in the 30 years that i have -- from the time 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%. more women are living longer after being diagnosed and treated. and the progress is due to earlier detection as well as better treatment. it's a combination. and 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.

and u.s. brainpower has led the way. according to the "new york times," the united states is, as they quote, home to an outsized share of global health care innovation. the innovation comes from america. patients the world over depend upon our medical breakthroughs. so what happens if we put washington in charge of all of u.s. health care? well, then washington bureaucrats, not you, not your family, not your doctor, not scientists, but washington bureaucrats will call the shots. so let's look again at britain, which has a government-run system. there's a recent newspaper headline in the british newspaper, "the guardian." it's enlightening. the headline says this -- quote, national health service, 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, they say, as six weeks. think of that. you're a patient. it's cancer. so it's going and it's spreading. you have had a scan. it's waiting six weeks to know what's happening with your own body. cancer scan reports used to take a week. then about a month. and now six weeks. as a result, according to one of the radiologists in britain, unexpected and critical findings are going unreported for weeks, and as he said we are now just firefighting. patients are getting the scans and they are waiting for results. american patients would simply 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's 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. and it's thanks to u.s. investment and innovation. that's why patients and patient care is improving, not just in the united states but worldwide. and so president trump is asking europe and other developed countries to start paying their fair share. the president's right. american patients shouldn't have to foot all of the bill for global cures. still, u.s. patients are surely -- will surely suffer if washington bureaucrats start blocking new inowe vaigz. as i -- new innovations. as i said last week, the congressional budget office, they came out, talked about their report on what medicare for all would mean. they said there would be a delay, a delay in treatment, as well as a delay in technology. if we had a one-size-fits-all health care 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. and what we see is the bureaucrats are denying lifesaving treatment, much of it invented in the united states. british patients recently protested their national health service. they have 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 u.s. -- use of a drug that exists and that works. mr. president, of course we all agree the prices of medications need to come down. in england, the government just

says no, we're not going to have that treatment, that cure to be used in our country. so we need to get down the cost of care. we also need to protect innovation because that is the future of health care. doctors and scientists need the freedom to give us the next generation of lifesaving drugs. that's why i'm concerned that under the democrats' plan, such medical progress is threatened. clearly, democrats have taken a hard left turn when it comes to health care 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's so expensive, in fact, that

even doubling everyone's taxes wouldn't cover it. and that means washington bureaucrats will be restricting your care. you'll lose the freedom to choose your doctor. you'll lose the freedom to choose your hospital. you'll 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's hard to know how many months you will have to wait for urgently needed care. we've seen it in canada. we've seen it in england. and we do not want to see it here in the united states. because 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's exactly what the democrats are proposing.

republicans, meanwhile, are focused on real reforms, reforms that lower costs without lowering standards. that's the key difference. we want to lower costs but not standards. in england, they say well, it's free but you're going to have to wait a long time for your free care. as reported last week, people actually have gone blind while waiting. others died while waiting. the democratic proposal actually lowers the standards while limiting your choices and raising your costs. mr. president, it's time to reject the democrats' one-size-fits-all health care scheme,instead let's ensure that our patients get the innovative care they need from a doctor they choose at a lower cost. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor, and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from nebraska. a senator: thank you, mr. president. the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum call. a senator: i ask unanimous consent to suspend the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sasse: thank you, mr. president. today is a good day for this body, the state of nebraska, and for every american who is committed to the rule of law, including our first freedom

which ises religious free -- which is religious freedom. we will be voting for brian buescher. he is a born and raised nebraskan, husband, and father of five and for nearly two decades has served his home state admirably. this is a testament to his integrity and title of service. at the same time brian's confirmation process has been an occasion for one of the most baffling displays of constitutional confusion and for prejudice i've seen in my time here. brian is a catholic, and he's a member of the knights of columbus. the knights of columbus is the largest fraternal catholic organization in the world, the organization has 1.6 million members, raises millions of dollars for charity, and contribute literally millions and millions of hours of

volunteer service and volunteer charity for their neighbors. like a lot of catholic men in nebraska, brian joined the knights of columbus as a way to give back toes his community. this is not a scandal. this is actually just really basic, sometimes really boring love of neighbor, but it's the kind of stuff that makes communities work. but, 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 organization in the world, but according to some of my colleagues, the knights of columbus is an extremist outfit. someone said that he should not be on the bench because of appearing to be bias. the knights of columbus is not

some shadowy organization from a dan brown novel, it's a bunch of guys who organize fish fries, sometimes they sell tootsie rolls, but basically they are funding the special olympics and that's what they do across nebraska and across the country. it is really weird we're talking about the knights of columbus as an extremist organization. it seems that catholics are to replace the communist. and this isn't just brian. we've 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've had 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,, how long has

the dogma lived loudly within you, and if you had to rank the doing ma, -- dogma, on a scale of one to ten, how loud is the dogma. this seems laughable until you pause and recognize that the united states judiciary committee is asking nominees questions like this. this shouldn't be happening. again, just so we're clear. a united states 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, quote, avoid the appearance of bias, close quote. the implications 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, unadult rated

anti-catholic bigotry and this isn't a new thing in u.s. history, it's just a new new thing. 60 years ago in this body john f. kennedy was asked, as he was running for president, some similar questions. it is plainly unconstitutional, every member of this body, all 100 of us, have raised our hands to defend the constitution, which the language states, so clear that a politician has to say it says what it says, no religious test shall ever be required as qualification to any office of public trust in the united states. this is straight out of the constitution. no religious test shall ever be required as qualification to any public office or public trust under the united states. that's 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's not what we use politics for in this country. here we're only in the very this worldly business of trying to maintain the peace and the public order necessary so that every individual can make their own decisions about ultimate matters, 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. and 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 catholic, jew, muslims, hindus, buddhists 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 together. 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, some of the ultimate things and yet we do it without serverring all the temporal bonds that brings us together as friends, neighbor, citizens, and patriots. brian is a good man and i'm 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 okaying fish fries together again next spring, and i look forward to joining them at those fish fries. so i'm pleased today to celebrate with brian and his family and the whole state of nebraska on his confirmation to the federal bench and i celebrate, too, this victory for a principled american commitment, to religious liberty for each and every american. thank you, mr. president. i would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from georgia due i ask the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. a senator: thank you for your accommodation. i rise today to talk about another responsibility we have here in the united states senate. it is to fund the federal government. mr. perdue: our nation was built on debate and compromise. you read what the founding mothers and founding fathers

debated in chambers just like this and then later in this chamber through the first hundred years of our existence, there was hot debate. many disagreements. but somehow they found a way to find 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 two-year compromise on spending levels and the debt ceiling. like any compromise, this funding agreement is not perfect, mr. president. neither side got everything it wanted. and it accomplishes three important things, however. first, it will provide certainty to our military. this is critical after the last decade when two years ago two-thirds of our f-18's couldn't fly. only three of our army brigades could night of the 58 army

brigades we have. our readiness was terrible. this deal will continue to reestablish readiness for our military, provide troops with a compensation and benefits they deserve and take care of our veterans here at home. before this, three democratic presidents disinvested in the military. that's a historic fact. it was done in the 1970's. was done in the 1990's and done by the prior administration. second, none of the liberal poison pills or riders actually ended up in this final bill, mr. president. going forward, president trump and congressional republicans will ensure that we keep those out, but in the spirit of compromise and hard negotiation, thirpd 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, these benefits -- 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's actually only funded the government on time four times in the last 45 years since the 74 budget act was put in place. we now have just 13 working days, mr. president, between now and the end of this fiscal year. we're supposed to 12 appropriation bills and $1.3 trillion of funding appropriated by the end of this time. by september 30. good luck with that. so here we are in the 11th 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 went from 12% funding to 75%

funding and this year we have the opportunity to do that. i believe the plan is in place when we come back in september that we can actually get upwards of two-thirds done by the end of september which would include the military, which would avoid the c.r. issue we've been talking about. this process has been the norm in washington for decades, however. this is nothing new. since the budget act of 1974 was put in place, we've 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 that we've got four things that we can move on this year in terms of bills and possible change this going forward. the american people sent us here to get this job done. it's time that we break through all this -- the logjam of politics and face the fact next year that this is our number one priority is fund the government. the second problem that 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 more 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, the total money we spent as the federal government. so what's the difference? well, we spend $1.3 trillion. what's in that? that's military, veterans administration, and all domestic discretionary spending. what's 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 two and a half years. let me put this into perspective. this budget deal increases discretionary spending if last year's level over the next two years by $54 billion. that's 2% per year for the next two years. that's lower growth in spending on disyetion near -- discretionary items than the growth of our economy at the

moment. that means in two years, the spending on discretionary spending will -- 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 c.b.o. projects that mandatory spending and interest payments will grow in the same period over the next two years by $420 billion. that's our problem. this is what's driving the huge increases in our debt over the next two decades and in these two years, ironically, the half the increase in the mandatory spending is in interest expense. even with interest rates being historically low, that's the case. imagine what we would have if interest rates were at their 30-year average of 5% to 6%. right now 70% of what the government spends is made up of mandatory spending, as i said. social security, medicare, medicaid, pension benefits on

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's imperative that we save these important programs, mr. president. 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% 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. unfortunately, there are five steps ultimately that we can do to address this long-term fiscal problem. first, is we've got 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 six million new jobs.

the economy is growing about twice the rate as it did on the prior administration. so the economy is growing. second, root out redundant spending. third, fix the funding process. fourth, save social security and medicare. and lastly, we've got to finally address the underlying drivers of our health care costs. thanks to president trump's leadership, we already have the first part covered. unemployment is the lowest it's 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 against the driver here -- and i'm going to show a chart just as i close, mr. president. mandatory spending is the number one 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 the discretionary spending has been relatively flat. we've had some increase in the green line here is total

mandatory spending or total spending. but the orange line here is the total mandatory. you can see the explosive nature of growth from today forward. that's why this conversation today is so timely, mr. president, because in the past while it was going up, it's going up geo metrically in the next 20 years compared to what it has been. that's 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 on to medicare and medicaid, you'll see these numbers continue to rise. these are congressional budget office numbers, mr. president. this highlights how serious this is and why all the drama is on the 30% down here and while we've got 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, the only thing we can do, mr. president. the world neelds us to do this -- needs us to do this.

the time is right now. it 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 next year, now that we have an agreement on the top line for discretionary spending for 2019 -- 2020, we need to expedite appropriation to ensure we avoid the unnecessary drama next year. mr. president, this is one reason why i ran for the senate. we have got to get serious about the long-term implications of our debt. the world knows that. our people know that. the problem is here in washington. we passed one milestone hopefully with this top line. we move to appropriations. but we've got to start in moving immediately to change the process so we don't have this problem again next year and begin the dialogue on how to save social security and medicare. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. thank you.

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from nebraska. mrs. fischer: thank you, mr. president. i rise today to voice my support for brian c. buescher, president trump's nominee to serve on the united states district court for the district of nebraska. near the end of 2017, both myself and senator sasse were given notice that chief judge

laurie smithcam 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. this 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, nebraska. there he learned the importance of hard work at a young age on his family 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 in 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 student bar association. mr. buescher is currently a partner at nebraska's largest law firm, kutac 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 firm awarded him the excellence in agricultural law award for 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 united states 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, quote, 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. close quote. 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 a 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 fair-minded disposition. i was proud to introduce mr. buescher at his confirmation hearing before the senate judiciary committee last november. i sincerely hoped that my democrat colleagues would see mr. buescher for who he was. a sharp legal mind and a man of high character. however, my democrat 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 complum bus is not a -- the knights of columbus is not a radical interest group. it's 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's providing food and shelter for refugees, rebuilding homes for families that are struck by natural disasters, volunteering at a veterans medical facility or simply a pancake feed to raise money for local schools, the acts of charity and kindness of the knights of columbus is truly inspiring. that is why i was shocked to hear 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 complum bus -- 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 it tears 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'll 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 toreiterate 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 l youth group about public policy and the political

events of the time. the last of our founding fathers has recently died, and in their absence our nation felt lost. the founders were a visual representation of american values and modeled our first principles and their behavior. after their death, their 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 for the laws that they created. he said only reverence for our constitution and laws will protect our nation's political institution and retain the attachment of the people. the speaker of that day in 1838 was abraham lincoln who was 28

years old at the time. he understood that the delicate nature of our laws, 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, 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 will honor his family, our state, and our nation with his service

on the united states district court for the district of nebraska. i urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote in favor of his nomination. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. i would suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. cotton: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from arkansas. mr. cotton: i ask unanimous consent to end the quorum call.

the presiding officer: without objection. the clerk will report the berger nomination. the clerk: nomination, the judiciary. william williams berger -- wendy williams berger of florida to be united states district judge for the middle district of florida. the presiding officer: the motion occurs on the nomination. the question occurs on the nomination. mr. cotton: i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote: