Disapproving the rule submitted by the Department of Labor relating to savings arrangements established by qualified State political subdivisions for non-governmental employees.

Mr. President, we have come to a crisis in our country. My State of West Virginia has the highest drug overdose death rate in the Nation. West Virginia reported 818 overdose deaths last year--four times the number that occurred in 2001 and a nearly 13-percent increase over 2015. We lost more than 700 West Virginians who died from an opioid overdose last year. Some 42,000 people in West Virginia, including 4,000 youth, sought treatment for illegal drug use but failed to receive it because of a lack of treatment centers, which we have been trying to correct. In West Virginia, drug overdose deaths have soared by more than 700 percent since 1999.

West Virginia had the highest rate of prescription drug overdose deaths of any State last year--31 per 100,000 people. In West Virginia, providers wrote 138 painkiller prescriptions for every 100 people. Think about this. Doctors are prescribing and manufacturers are producing. They have written 138 painkiller prescriptions for every 100 people in my State--the highest rate in the country. I hope Arkansas is not facing the same dilemma we are.

Every day in our country, 91 Americans die from an opioid overdose. Opioids now kill more people than car accidents. In 2015, the number of heroin deaths nationwide surpassed the number of deaths from gun homicides. Since 1999, we have lost almost 200,000 Americans to prescription drug opioid abuse.

Mr. President, 2.1 million Americans abuse or are dependent on opioids. According to the CDC, three out of four new heroin users abused prescription opioids before moving to heroin. Heroin use has more than doubled among young adults ages 18 to 25 in the past decade. Forty-five percent of the people who used heroin were also addicted to prescription opioid painkillers. Between 2009 and 2013, only 22 percent of Americans suffering from opioid addiction participated in any form of addiction treatment.

Misuse and abuse of opioids cost the country an estimated $78.5 billion in 2013 in lost productivity, medical costs, and criminal justice costs.

Every week, I come to the Senate floor to read letters from West Virginians and those struggling all throughout our country with opioid abuse. The reason I do this is because it is a silent killer. We don't talk about it. There is not one of us in the Senate, not one of us in Congress, not one of us in any gathering who doesn't know someone in our immediate family, extended family, or a close friend who hasn't been affected, but we would never talk about it because it was so embarrassing--how did it ever break down in our family, whether you had a model family or you thought you did. This is a killer. Whether Democrat or Republican, conservative or liberal, this is a killer. It has no discretion. It has no partisan base. It goes after one and the other. So this is what we are dealing with.

The letters I read have a common theme: They all mention how hard it is to get themselves or loved ones into treatment. Sometimes it takes months, and sometimes it never happens. This problem stems from our lack of a system to help those who are looking for help. We need permanent funding to create and expand substance abuse treatment facilities to help people get clean and stay clean.

I know the Presiding Officer has heard this before, but that is why I introduced the LifeBOAT Act. The LifeBOAT Act puts one penny per milligram of opiates--basically, one penny for every milligram of opiates produced in America, consumed in America--into a fund that pays for treatment centers. In the Presiding Officer's beautiful State of Alaska and my State of West Virginia, people need treatment. This is an illness. I used to look at it 20 years ago as basically a criminal act, and we put them in jail. Guess what. They came out of jail just as addicted as they went in. Nothing changed, so I am willing to change. I have always said that if you can't change your mind, you can't change anything. This is an illness that needs treatment, and we are responsible for that. This lifeboat would establish a steady, sustainable funding stream to provide and expand access to substance abuse treatment.

Today I am going to read a letter from parents from West Virginia who lost their son to drug abuse. This is Renee and Criss's letter, which they want me to read. This fine-looking young man was a father, and this is such a tragic ending to this story.

Dear Senator Manchin,

I am writing to you in the hope of bringing to light the

devastating effects of heroin addiction, overdose death and

the difficulty in finding treatment for those afflicted with

the disease and their families.

On November 12th, 2016, we lost our 23-year-old son, Nick,

who died from what we thought at the time was a heroin

overdose. When Nick's autopsy report came back, we discovered

that his body contained no trace of heroin in his system. He

had died from a fatal dose of straight fentanyl.

Nick was a quiet, kind and inquisitive child. He learned to

speak and read at an early age and spent most of his time

absorbed in books and riding his bike and scooter. He also

loved playing in the woods and dreaming up adventures with

his sisters and neighborhood friends. He was a protective big

brother, and he had a natural way of connecting with kids who

were ``different'' and making them feel accepted.

Nick was always tall for his age. He came into this world

on July 5th, 1993, weighing in at 10 pounds and topped off at

6'8". He loved sports and excelled in basketball and soccer.

He even met you when you were Governor Manchin, after his

basketball team traveled to Charleston, WV, to celebrate

their A State Basketball Tournament Championship in 2011.

After high school he went on to play basketball for the

Glenville State College Pioneers. Nick wasn't able to keep

his grades up and had to drop out of Glenville after the

first semester of school. Shortly after that, he met a girl.

They instantly connected, and he soon became a father to her

daughter. After several years together, they had a son of

their own.

After having difficulty holding down jobs and providing for

his family, Nick came to me in November of 2015 and told me

that he was addicted to opiate prescription drugs. We had

suspected drug use for quite some time but didn't realize the

extent of it. He said that he could no longer live the life

he was leading and needed help. Nick and his girlfriend had

started using opiate-based prescription drugs after she was

prescribed them for her recovery from the birth of her

daughter in 2013. At first, they would make trips to the

doctor or quick care with fake ailments in order to get their

prescriptions. If they couldn't get prescriptions, then they

bought from drug dealers. The pills were easy to get up until

the time he came to me for help.

I told my husband about Nick's drug problem, and not

knowing what to do, we turned to the Internet as a source of

information. We found a lot of information and many treatment

centers across the country. I began calling a few of the ones

that looked reputable, but in each case, they required three

to five thousand dollars up front for a 28 to 30 day

treatment. The question now was: Were these treatment centers

as good as they appeared to be on their websites or were they

simply out to make a profit and marketing their centers to

bring in more patients?

While we researched and tried to make a decision, Nick, not

wanting to be away from his family, went through detox at

home and had convinced him and us that he could do this on

his own. Nick made it through his first round of self-detox

but started using again for a short while at the end of

January. We confronted him, and he immediately started his

second round of self-detox. He again swore that he could do

this himself and was finished with the life he was leading.

We were still trying to figure out what to do with him and

what would happen to his family while he was gone. We didn't

know that his girlfriend was also using and detoxing along

with Nick.

After speaking to several people at a local treatment

center and trying to arrange for him to be admitted, we were

told that they wouldn't take him because [of] our insurance.

My next course of action was to call local counseling centers

that offered addiction counseling, hoping that they would be

able to offer advice. Each one I called politely told me that

they couldn't help.

Nick's addiction, and our focus on him, was taking away

from our being able to celebrate and focus on our other

children, Nick's two sisters. We decided to put Nick on the

backburner while we prepared for our daughter's graduation

party and the school events that preceded it, thinking that a

few weeks wouldn't hurt. Were we ever wrong!

It is a sad scenario when a family has to hope that their child gets arrested

and gets a conviction record so they can go to a drug court to get treatment, that that is the only help they have.

One of our daughters had learned that Nick could get

treatment if we pressed charges against him for theft. He

would be charged, then court-ordered to be sent to an

addiction treatment center. She felt that this was the best

course of action to get Nick the help he needed, but Criss

and I were hesitant because of the negative impact a felony

charge would have on Nick's life if the charges weren't

expunged after completing his treatment.

Which is our what we call fresh start or last-chance bill, which the Presiding Officer has been so graciously looking at and hopefully will be a part of this. It is a shame they fall into this.

Our decision to not go this route caused even more anger.

Since they knew that, hindsight being 20/20, this was the only way to get Nick help.

Little did we know that, by late-March or early April, Nick

and his girlfriend had decided to celebrate their being clean

by using heroin ``just this once'' as a reward for staying

clean.

They were rewarding themselves by using heroin to celebrate being clean. Now, understand, that is not proper thinking. That is not rational common sense.

In the past, the two had snorted heroin but had never

injected it. When they went to buy from their dealer, he told

them that since they didn't have much money and there were

two of them, they could get a better high with less heroin if

they injected it. And that was the beginning of a rapid

decline.

On June 2, 2016, Nick had his first overdose. Without our

knowledge, his girlfriend had taken Nick, along with the

children, to the emergency room, where he was treated and

released within a few hours. Unbeknownst to us, this

initiated a call to CPS that would result in her daughter's

father taking custody of her and CPS involvement for Nick and

his girlfriend and their son.

At the hospital, Nick and his girlfriend talked with a

doctor out of Pittsburgh about Suboxone. They agreed to try

the program. I traveled with Nick, his girlfriend and her

mother for the first visit to Pittsburgh. They had a high

success rate, and it was decided that once the treatment was

established, the two would go to Pittsburgh once a month for

drug testing, counseling and their Suboxone prescriptions.

The clinic would line up additional support services in

Parkersburg or close by. We were very impressed with the

clinic, their staff and their program, which only took on 100

patients at a time.

Criss came to the next meeting two weeks later to speak

with the counselors and was now more comfortable with the

treatment plan. Unfortunately, when the counselors tried to

set up local support services, they were shocked to find the

small number of places that treated addiction and the fact

that the ones that were here would not provide services for

patients who were not in their program. The decision was made

to increase their sessions to twice a month and eventually

once a week when it became apparent through consistent

``dirty'' screens that the two were struggling with the

program [and still using].

In August, his girlfriend suffered an overdose. The

Pittsburgh Clinic called shortly after that and said that

they were releasing the two from the program, letting us know

that they needed a more intense treatment plan than they

could provide. I called the CPS case worker and addiction

counselor that were assigned to watch over the children and

monitor the two after Nick's overdose in June. We all met at

the house to determine the next course of action. After

numerous phone calls, we were able to find an ``open'' bed in

Las Vegas, Nevada, for Nick, while his girlfriend would

decide the following week to go to a treatment center in

Fairmont, WV.

In less than a week, Nick was on a plane to Vegas, eager to

begin a new, clean life. He was upbeat and positive before he

left, excited by the prospect of finally leaving behind the

life of addiction that he'd been living for so long. During

his phone calls home, he had positive things to say about his

treatment. He was staying in nice homes that were part of the

treatment center. Along with their daily treatment schedule,

they were taken on hikes and went go-cart racing. He even had

a manicure at the facility's salon. The purpose of these

activities was to teach the patients natural ways of

experiencing highs.

Nick's release date was scheduled for October 3rd. There

were longer-term treatment plans offered at the facility, but

Nick missed his son and worried about his girlfriend and

wanted to come home. The treatment center had set up group

sessions for him three times a week for a period of about six

weeks.

Nick came home on a beautiful, sunny day. I waited at home

for him with his son, who had been staying with me, and his

other grandmother.

I wish we had this picture of his son, a beautiful little boy.

When I saw Nick for the first time, he looked beautiful. He

looked and acted like the Nick that we had known before

addiction. He told us about his stay in Vegas and was

literally shining with hope! He told me, ``Mom, I will

never go back to that life!'' And I believed it was

possible.

That hope began to fade pretty quickly. Nick had started

working about six weeks before he left for rehab. It had

taken him a long time to get that job and he enjoyed it and

felt that he could actually provide for his family if he

could work his way up. However, after rehab he was unable to

secure a job. Nick was going to his scheduled group sessions

and going to nightly NA meetings for support. Nick finished

up his six weeks of group therapy. He was so proud when he

received his ``sixty day's clean'' chip at the NA meeting.

Seven days later he and I spent part of the afternoon

together. He wanted to look for a job and I had some errands

to run. He dropped me off where I needed to be and applied

for jobs. When I finished, he picked me up and I took him to

Sam's Club to show him cute toys for his son for Christmas.

We picked out a racetrack together and I showed him a few

other things I had bought for my grandson. I had mentioned

that Criss might get his son a basketball hoop for Christmas

and he told me, ``No Mom, I want to buy that for him with my

own money.''

We had a good afternoon together. He had made plans for the

evening, to meet up with some of his high school friends who

were in for the weekend. He left my house around eight

o'clock and I heard him return around 12:35 am. All of his

friends later said that he'd had a good night. He was happy

and smiling and there was nothing to indicate that there was

anything wrong. Shortly after I heard Nick come in, my

grandson's crying woke me up and I woke to change him, give

him a bottle. I headed back to bed and noticed the light on

in the bathroom and knocked and opened the door. It was

around 1:45 am and Nick was lying on the bathroom floor with

no pulse and not breathing. I called 911 and began CPR.

Within minutes the ambulance arrived. They worked on him for

some time while I spoke to the police officer then they took

him out to the ambulance. I assumed they had stabilized him

enough to transport him and waited for my in-laws to arrive

to watch our grandson.

When Criss and I were called back into the emergency room

we did not expect to hear that Nick had passed. We didn't

expect that we would have to call our daughters to tell them

that their brother was dead or that we would sit in a room

with him feeling him go cold while we waited for our daughter

to arrive from Morgantown. We weren't able to get in touch

with our other daughter and had to send my sister over the

following morning to tell her the news. We didn't expect that

in less than two days we'd be picking out a coffin and

cemetery plot for our son.

We expected that we would be sending him back to treatment

in the hope that the next round would be successful. We

expected another chance. And what we have now is the

knowledge that we failed our son in the worst way possible.

Sincerely,

Renee and Criss Fisher.

There is a picture that would be hard to show because it was the most moving picture I have ever seen. They sent me the picture of Nick, this wonderful young man, lying in a casket and his little boy tiptoed up holding on. That should move all of us to do the right thing here, to start finding treatment centers, to start working with this illness, to find ways to understand, and to start intervening. You have to intervene from inception, from birth and all the way through, educating children. It is destroying economies. It is destroying families. It is destroying, basically, communities all over this country.

It is something that I hope we all can fight. To lose a young man-- this was a terrific young man, and to lose him to drugs is uncalled for.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, I rise today to speak about the President's nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch to serve as Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Whenever great issues like the future of our Nation's highest Court come before the Senate, it is easy to get lost in the noise and the hyperbole. Listening to the commentary about Judge Gorsuch, I have found it instructive to ask whether critics have actually met him and listened to his philosophy of jurisprudence.

I have met him, and it is easy to guess that those who oppose him likely have not spoken to him, watched the hearings, or read any of the glowing testimonials from across the political spectrum. The invectives thrown at Judge Gorsuch seem really to be about something else entirely--about anger at the President, disappointment with the election outcome, or concern about holding certain hotly debated topics of the day. It appears that critics could substitute almost any name for Judge Gorsuch in their statements and give them with the same passion and the same concern.

That is too bad because Judge Gorsuch has been consistently regarded by his peers as pragmatic and among the most gifted legal minds on the Federal bench. The man is intelligent, courteous, and modest. He seeks readily the views of those around him. His approach will be a constructive addition to the U.S. Supreme Court and of benefit to our Nation. His judicial record as a Federal judge flows exactly from what he says, and his message and focus is abundantly clear: judicial modesty and fidelity to the law.

When our representative government was established in the United States, a heated debate emerged about the purposes and powers of our new Federal institutions. The Founders of our country understood that a system in which lawmaking was detached from accountability was the quickest path to despotism. A coequal judiciary could help temper tyranny and balance the powers of an executive and a legislature stepping over their constitutional powers. The phrase is ``checks and balances'' not ``usurpation.''

Alexander Hamilton, who has received much recently renewed attention, wrote at length about the newly imagined judicial branch of our government. In Federalist 78, Hamilton wrote that the judicial branch ``may truly be said to have neither force nor will, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.''

To the Founders, the division of responsibilities between the three branches of government was clear: Congress would make the laws. The executive would implement them. The judiciary would review the laws for their legality and consistency with the Constitution. Further, the independence of the judiciary would be enhanced through their distinctive selection process, so they could do their jobs without succumbing to swings in popular opinion. Put succinctly by Chief Justice Roberts during his confirmation hearings, a judge's proper role is ``to call balls and strikes.''

In his testimonial to the late Justice Antonin Scalia, Judge Gorsuch emphasized the importance of an independent judiciary. He writes:

Judges should . . . strive to apply the law as it is,

focusing backward, not forward, and looking to the text,

structure, and history . . . not decide cases on their own

moral convictions.

Judges ``take an oath to uphold'' the Constitution, not ``merely consider it.'' It is their duty to follow the law.

Jurisprudence is not supposed to be the popular arts. Judges are not vessels for moral causes. Judge Gorsuch repeats Justice Scalia's words:

[I]f you're going to be a good and faithful judge, you have

to resign yourself to the fact that you're not always going

to like the conclusions you reach. If you like them all the

time, you're probably doing something wrong.

Further, Judge Gorsuch states that rulings made in an attempt to optimize social utility introduces a question of moral relativism.

In criminal cases, for example, we often hear arguments

from the government that its view would promote public

security or finality. Meanwhile, the defense often tells us

that its view would promote personal liberty or procedural

fairness. How is a judge supposed to weigh or rank these very

different social goods?

The answer lies in the common points of reference for all judges, be they conservatives or progressives--the written law. Reading the law is difficult enough without introducing the element of uncertainty. Court- shopping for a pliant judge who will interpret the law the way a litigant believes it should read can be destructive to public confidence in the legal system.

In our democracy, the public expresses its will at the ballot box and empowers its duly-elected officials with the duty to advance that will. Changes in public attitudes can come quickly, and that can be reflected in the results of elections.

Congress is the body most closely connected to the American public because its accountability is directly to the people.

Some observers want judges to be legislators, discarding the black robes for populist impulses. But our system of checks and balances is predicated on the fact that change comes deliberately and incrementally, notwithstanding the wild swings in public mood.

The pace of change can understandably frustrate. However, congressional action is the spirit of the American electorate, exercised with its unique combination of majority rule, minority rights, and compromise. The imperfect caldron of the legislative process is how change happens carefully, purposefully, and properly.

Unfortunately, impatience can drive people to try to circumvent the constitutional power of Congress. The tendency of some to race to a courthouse, bypassing the will of the people expressed through Congress, to compel change is inherently destabilizing to representative government.

Without a direct say in how policy is decided and without the ability to hold people accountable, judges who reimagine the law undermine a fundamental cornerstone of representative democracy. Judges have a great responsibility to carefully exercise their judicial authority within the limits of the law. Judges who exercise independence from anchors of our law are dangerous to our liberties. Judge Gorsuch demonstrates that he clearly understands this concept when he writes:

Legislators may appeal to their own moral convictions and

to claims to reshape the law as they think it should be in

the future. But judges should do none of these things in a

democratic society.

Some jurists treat the Constitution like a speed bump as they hurdle down the road reinventing the law. Substituting ideology for the written law in jurisprudence is the equivalent of changing the law from what it says to what some wish it says.

Neil Gorsuch identified this very problem when he wrote in 2005 that ``the courtroom as the place to debate social policy is bad for the country and bad for the judiciary. In the legislative arena, especially when the country is closely divided, compromises tend to be the rule of the day. But when judges rule this or that policy unconstitutional, there's little room for compromise: One side must win, the other must lose. . . . As a society, we lose the benefit of the give-and-take of the political process and the flexibility of social experimentation that only the elected branches can provide.'' These words reflect a clear understanding of the importance of the separation of powers.

The Federal judiciary should not be a replacement for doing the hard work of persuading the public and enacting policy with accountability to the electorate.

Americans learn civics early in their upbringing. The Constitution guarantees certain civil liberties and restrains the powers of the central government. Our court system has the responsibility to preserve our constitutional rights, ensure a limited government, and provide speedy and fair justice when needed. The judiciary holds the sole constitutional power to interpret laws properly enacted by Congress. This authority is expressly distinct from the power bestowed to the legislature to write laws and the executive to enforce them. This separation of powers plays an important role in the system of checks and balances envisioned by the Founders.

Public confidence in our legal system is undermined when judges seek to reimagine Federal law beyond its clear meaning. Judges who substitute their personal views for the law can shake the public's faith in our legal system as an impartial protector of our rights and an upholder of justice. Judges must follow our Constitution in their decisionmaking and resist this temptation to make policy.

Moreover, without the public sanction of the ballot box, policy changes, particularly controversial ones, naturally divide people. If the judiciary cannot be seen as a neutral arbiter of facts and laws, even more people will see individual judges as ``one of mine'' or ``one of yours.''

The erosion of the humble judiciary began when the Senate confirmation process changed. In recent past, district and circuit court nominees used to be confirmed noncontroversially. Now, instead of looking at the qualifications of the judicial nominee, partisans hope to pre-bake court decisions through the use of litmus tests or demands on nominees to determine in advance what their rulings will be on cases before the matter is even argued to the court. Perhaps this is the logical extension of the overreliance on some to secure social gains they cannot achieve through the democratic process.

Change is hard, and patience is exceedingly rare, but the strongest building blocks to legitimacy are achieved though consensus and the give-and-take of politics.

Writing even before he was overwhelmingly approved by this body for his current seat on the Tenth Circuit, Judge Gorsuch wrote:

[In courts,] ideas are tested only in the abstract world of

legal briefs and lawyers' arguments. As a society, we lose

the benefit of the give-and-take of the political process and

the flexibility of social experimentation that only the

elected branches can provide. At the same time, the

politicalization of the judiciary undermines the only real

asset it has--its independence. Judges come to be seen as

politicians and their confirmations become just an avenue of

political warfare. Respect for the role of judges and the

legitimacy of the judiciary branch as a whole diminishes.

The judiciary's diminishing claim to neutrality and

independence is exemplified by a recent, historic shift in

the Senate's confirmation process. Where trial-court and

appeals-court nominees were once routinely confirmed on voice

vote--

Based on their credentials and their ability to serve--

they are now routinely subjected to ideological litmus tests,

filibusters, and vicious interest-group attacks. It is a

warning sign that our judiciary is losing its legitimacy when

trial and circuit-court judges are viewed and treated as

little more than politicians with robes.

This development puts a severe strain on our Republic. Particularly problematic is the increasing number of split court decisions. Rulings that are given with a one-vote margin further empower litigants to contest decisions, hoping for a more favorable outcome later or in a different court. Setting precedent, though, becomes so much more difficult for the public when a razor-thin decision is accompanied by a dramatic reinterpretation of the law.

One of the hallmarks of the Roberts Court is the drive to establish precedent not by finding the narrowest reading that can achieve a bare majority but its endeavor to ground seminal decisions in large majorities and unanimous findings. Public confidence in the legal system and the finality of the holding is ever greater when we do not see narrow decisions.

The Judiciary Committee just concluded a 4-day review of the nomination of Judge Gorsuch. In addition to hearing from Judge Gorsuch for over 20 hours, the committee received formal testimony from almost 30 outside witnesses. Thousands upon thousands of words were exchanged over the course of the hearing, all in front of the American public. What the people saw is a thoughtful, humble, and brilliant legal mind in the service of the people.

In response to a question of mine on Tuesday, Judge Gorsuch said the following:

I come here with no agenda but one, no promises but one: to

be as good and faithful a judge as I know how to be. That is

it. And I cannot promise or agree or pledge anything more

than that to this Congress.

That statement and the hearing as a whole confirmed Judge Gorsuch to be a man of great integrity, a mainstream, exemplary student of the law whose record shows that he is a part of unanimous decisions. On the Tenth Circuit, of all the decisions he has participated in in the last 10 years, 97 percent of the time, he was a part of a unanimous court, and 99 percent of the time, he was in the majority.

For days, my colleagues from the other side of the aisle raised the possibility that he might have secret intentions to try to subvert the law or shred the Constitution from the bench. They parsed single words for hidden meanings, imagined devious strategies emerging from concurring opinions, and searched for cloaked messages in his published writings.

Judge Gorsuch has over 10 years as a jurist, with 2,700 opinions to review; yet most of the debate was centered on just 4 or 5 cases. Some Senators were absolutely convinced they would find some problem. They did not.

Let's talk about what Judge Gorsuch testified to under oath. Despite repeated efforts to get him to make commitments about how he would rule or how he would reshape social policy, on his first day, he gave no fewer than eight assurances that he follows the law as a judge. By my count, on the second day, he gave at least 36 assurances that he looks to the law for his rulings. On the third day, it was 29 more times that he was asked and again repeated that he would look to the law for his rulings. That is right. He said at least 73 times that he is committed to the law when he hears a case as a sitting Federal judge. Still, several of my colleagues worried that he had a secret agenda to overturn longstanding legal precedence.

Just in case there are some confused, Judge Gorsuch mentioned no fewer than 97 times in these 3 days that he follows precedent as a judge, as he is bound to do. More than 160 times, Judge Gorsuch reminded the Senate and the American public what a proper jurist does: follows the law and the precedent. We even talked about the book he coauthored titled ``The Law of Judicial Precedent''--942 pages of dedication to following precedent. Maybe the title of the book was confusing to some.

During his oral testimony, he said he was dedicated to ``rul[ing] as the law requires,'' ``reading the language of the statute as a `reasonable person' would understand it,'' and ``respect[ing] precedent.''

Just to put all such questions to rest, he assured everyone that he is ``without secret agenda. None.''

In reviewing his record, it is clear that those who come before Judge Gorsuch receive equal treatment under the law. He said:

When I sit on the bench and someone comes to argue before

me, I treat each one of them equally. They do not come as

rich or poor, big guy or little guy. They come as a person.

And I put my ego aside when I put on that robe, and I open my

mind, and I open my heart, and I listen.

In Judge Gorsuch, we have a nominee who lives the American ideal of a modest jurist. He understands that his responsibility is not to suborn the powers of others but to help deliver the powers of justice.

Those who have encountered him as a legal advocate, an adversary in court, or a presiding judge all praise his fundamental fairness and subornation of his personal views.

His respect for the Constitution is not in question. His experience, wisdom, and judgment are not in question. His capability to serve is not in question. Commentators from both the left and the right overwhelmingly respect his legal mind and vouch for his commitment to fair jurisprudence.

Given Judge Gorsuch's judicial philosophy and his record as a judge, he

would be a welcome addition to a Supreme Court seeking cohesive decisions. His record on the Tenth Circuit is strong. Five of six of his decisions that did go to the Supreme Court for a review have been affirmed by the Supreme Court, including one which he wrote, and four out of five on which he joined the decision.

Not many judges have the experience, temperament, and stellar record to match Judge Gorsuch. Fewer still can garner overwhelming endorsement from colleagues, peers, and observers from across the political spectrum.

Some may try to distract from the central point that Judge Gorsuch is extraordinarily qualified and suited to serve as an Associate Justice. Others would like to discuss other issues or make his nomination a proxy fight about tangential matters. My colleagues and I will vote on his nomination, not on these other issues or distractions. I encourage all of us to remember that.

The Senate should be proud to add Judge Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.J. Res. 66.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise today in strong support of H.J. Res. 66, a resolution to protect retirement savers.

During the final days of the Obama administration--in fact, the final hours--the Department of Labor created a regulatory loophole that threatens the retirement security of working families. We are here today to use Congress' authority under the Congressional Review Act to close that loophole by blocking a misguided regulation from taking effect.

The regulation paves the way for States to force certain employers to automatically enroll their employees into government IRAs. States would be allowed to skirt Federal law and deny workers important protections designed to safeguard their retirement savings.

The Obama administration's action is somewhat perplexing. The Employee Retirement Income Security Act, ERISA, has enjoyed strong bipartisan support for decades. As President Ford said when he signed the law, the American people have ``greater assurances that retirement dollars will be there when they are needed.'' Yet, over 40 years later, the same administration that frequently touted the importance of consumer protections moved to exempt States from ERISA.

The question is why. To facilitate the creation of government-run plans that

would lack basic protections for retirement savers? As a result, workers and retirees would have nowhere to turn if their savings were mismanaged.

Let's be honest about what this regulation is really about. It is part of an assault on small business retirement plans that began under the Obama administration. First, small businesses were hit by the fiduciary rule that would make it harder for them to access the financial advice they need to set up retirement plans for their employees. Then the Obama administration created a last-minute regulatory loophole that could discourage small businesses from offering retirement plans in the first place. As a result, many families could soon realize, If you like your 401(k) plan, you may not be able to keep it.

Because of this loophole, taxpayers also are at risk. Many of the States leading the charge on these government-run plans have a long history of mismanaging public employee pensions. Today there is an estimated $5 trillion in unfunded State pension promises--$5 trillion. That figure is completely unsustainable. It begs the question: Will taxpayers or retirement savers foot the bill if these government-run IRAs are similarly mismanaged?

However, we are not here today to debate the merits of State policy. To be clear, States should be free to experiment with new retirement options, and more options are certainly needed. It is up to the voters in each State to hold their elected officials accountable. The point of this debate is that States should not be exempt from a law that has, for decades, provided important protections for retirement savers. If States want to come up with new ways to help workers save for retirement, they can. But they should follow the law in the process.

The goal of this resolution is simple. It is to uphold protections Congress--including Members of both parties--have long afforded retirement savers. Today we can close a regulatory loophole that would be detrimental to the retirement security of hardworking Americans, and we can ensure retirement savers in every State continue to have the same protections under Federal law. I urge my colleagues to support strong protections for retirement savers by voting in favor of H.J. Res. 66.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Roe), the immediate past chairman of the Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions.

Mr. Speaker, I guess the point that I would make again is not the fact that we are trying to stop States from doing this. In fact, this CRA does not do that at all. It just simply says we express our concern that States would be allowed as a result of what was put through in midnight fashion that exempted States from having to come under the same protections of ERISA that we would expect to be covered for all retirement plans. That is the challenge. We want to make sure that retirees' incomes are protected in a secure, safe way, and that is the value of ERISA. This proposal or the rule that was put through did not cover that, and that is our concern, again, protecting retirees.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I want to make note that, as we discuss this here today, there have been points made about businesses wanting this change, they want to work with the States, and they are concerned about liabilities. Well, if that were the case, we wouldn't have endorsements of this coming from the Chamber of Commerce, Air Conditioning Contractors of America, American Benefits Council, NFIB, just looking through, the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council, National Federation of Independent Business, National Electrical Contractors Association, National Black Chamber of Commerce, and I could go on and on, businesses and the business associations and groups that deal with this and have concern about their employees, their retirees, having a good and safe mechanism by which to have their retirement savings protected, supporting our efforts here to take back what took place under the cover of darkness, as it were, which took retiree savings off the benefit of ERISA. I just want that to be made clear.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

We are certainly willing to work with the States and would concur that there ought to be a laboratory.

But again, our concern, and basically the only concern, that this resolution deals with is that they be managed in such a way that they come under the protections given under ERISA. And why do we say that?

Well, we look at, for instance, Illinois' unfunded liability. We are looking at $114.8 billion at the end of fiscal year 2016--a State plan managed by, yes, an outside manager--but $114.8 billion under. We look at California Public Employees' Retirement System, CalPERS, which has a $228.2 billion shortfall in funding. Oregon's unfunded actuarial liability of the Oregon Public Employees Retirement Fund, again, managed by someone for Oregon, of $21.8 billion. If we looked at it all put together, we have over $5 trillion unfunded liability for State plans managed by some outside source.

That is where our concern comes from--this rule that was put through--that takes people out of the protections of ERISA. So we are saying: Have at it, States, but do it according to the rules and the protections that are there. That is all we are asking. We want retirees' savings to be protected for the purposes that they planned for and not come up short some day because of a lack of care and the coverage of ERISA on their plans.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, we are not opposing voluntary plans. We are not opposing States setting up plans that will encourage retirement. We are not opposing that. We are just saying we want to make sure they are protected under the same requirements of ERISA that all other plans are. We want to make sure that those dollars are there when the people need them. That is all we are saying. We are not opposed to voluntary or plans for retirement.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Roskam), my colleague and good friend, the chairman of the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Tax Policy.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter, undersigned, representing thousands of businesses, individual employees, and retirees from almost two dozen specific groups in support of H.J. Res. 66.

February 13, 2017.

To the Members of the United States Congress: The

undersigned organizations, representing thousands of

businesses, express our support for H.J. Res. 66 and H.J.

Res. 67, resolutions of disapproval under the Congressional

Review Act (``CRA'') to invalidate the Department of Labor's

(``DOL'') ``safe harbor'' regulations on Savings Arrangements

Established by State and Political Subdivisions for Non-

Governmental Employees.

These ``safe harbor'' regulations allow states and cities

to mandate private employer participation in state-sponsored

automatic IRA programs. It also provides that states that

offer these programs are not subject to ERISA despite

considerable opinions to the contrary. Thus the DOL is

encouraging state and local governments to provide private

sector employees retirement programs that do not have the

same high-level protections as other private employer-

sponsored plans.

Below we highlight a number of our concerns with the ``safe

harbor.''

Lost worker protections--States offering these plans to

private sector employees are not subject to ERISA, therefore

limiting the protections for workers in these plans.

Different standards from state to state result in an

administrative quagmire for employers--States can and will

have different rules for their programs, so employers

operating in multiple states, or just with workers from

multiple states, will have to track the complex web of

varying rules to ensure compliance.

Fewer employer plans, especially among small businesses--If

a state mandates auto-IRAs, some employers will decide to

avoid taking on the work of offering their own plans and let

the state take it on instead, resulting in the loss of

significant retirement savings opportunities for their

workers.

Mismanagement of state pension funds--Many states have

mismanaged their public employee retirement systems, and it's

not clear they'll do a better job controlling assets of

millions of small private sector savers. Also, some state

pension funds restrict investments to favor state initiatives

or engage in politically motivated investment and divestment

schemes instead of investing in the economic interest of the

workers.

Imposes a mandate on private employers--The ``safe harbor''

requires that the state program mandate employer

participation even though retirement savings plans are

traditionally voluntary.

We urge Congress to take timely action under the CRA to

vitiate these misguided regulations. We thank you for

addressing this important issue.

Sincerely,

Air Conditioning Contractors of America, American Benefits

Council, American Composites Manufacturers Association,

Financial Services Institute, Financial Services Roundtable,

Heating Air-conditioning & Refrigeration Distributors

International (HARDI), Insured Retirement Institute,

International Franchise Association, Investment Company

Institute, National Association of Insurance and Financial

Advisors (NAIFA), National Black Chamber of Commerce.

National Electrical Contractors Association, National

Federation of Independent Business, National Retail

Federation, Secondary Materials and Recycled Textiles

Association (SMART), Small Business & Entrepreneurship

Council, Small Business Council of America, Small Business

Legislative Council, Society for Human Resource Management,

The ESOP Association, The Latino Coalition, U.S. Chamber of

Commerce.

State Chapters of NAIFA

NAIFA--Alabama, NAIFA--Alaska, NAIFA--Arizona, NAIFA--

Arkansas, NAIFA--California, NAIFA--Colorado, NAIFA--

Connecticut, NAIFA--Delaware, NAIFA--Florida, NAIFA--Georgia,

NAIFA Greater Washington D.C., NAIFA--Guam, NAIFA--Hawaii,

NAIFA--Idaho.

NAIFA--Illinois, NAIFA--Indiana, NAIFA--Iowa, NAIFA--

Kansas, NAIFA--Kentucky, NAIFA--Louisiana, NAIFA--Maine,

NAIFA--Maryland, NAIFA--Massachusetts, NAIFA--Michigan,

NAIFA--Minnesota, NAIFA--Mississippi, NAIFA--Missouri,

NAIFA--Montana.

NAIFA--Nebraska, NAIFA--Nevada, NAIFA--New Hampshire,

NAIFA--New Jersey, NAIFA--New Mexico, NAIFA--New

York, NAIFA--North Carolina, NAIFA--North Dakota, NAIFA--

Ohio, NAIFA--Oklahoma, NAIFA--Oregon, NAIFA--Pennsylvania,

NAIFA--Puerto Rico, NAIFA--Rhode Island.

NAIFA--South Carolina, NAIFA--South Dakota, NAIFA--

Tennessee, NAIFA--Texas, NAIFA--Utah, NAIFA--Vermont, NAIFA--

Virginia, NAIFA--Washington, NAIFA--West Virginia, NAIFA--

Wisconsin, NAIFA--Wyoming.

Mr. Speaker, I just make one comment that, when my colleagues on the other side of the aisle had both Houses and the White House and the opportunity to do these reforms, they weren't done. Yet, now, when we stand with great concern because of a midnight rule that was put through that takes away the security of retirees in programs that will be, as I said earlier, foisted upon employers to automatically enroll their employees into government-run IRAs--allowing the same States to skirt the Federal law of ERISA--and deny workers important protections, we are pushed back on.

I have some concern about that. When the opportunity to do what they say they want to be done could have been done with both Houses under control of the same party and the White House, this was not undertaken. Yet we are called out and told that we are hurting retirees when, in fact, we are giving assurances to retirees that you will come under the same protections regardless of where you go, and we expect that to be the case because it has worked. That is decried. I find that less than objective in its honesty.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

In response to the gentlewoman from California, I would just say that much of what we have been doing for the past 4 weeks on the floor, including today, is trying to give a shot in the arm to our economy, to our workers, our workforce, our retirees, and savers to take off some of the traps that have been put in place that have frustrated this economy and the growth of this economy for 8 years.

There is a reason for what took place at the ballot box. And the expectation is that we move to take some of the clamps of the Federal Government off the private sector, the States, the local communities, and, more importantly, the citizens of this country.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time, and I express appreciation for the full-throated debate that went on here. It is good to do that.

It is good for the opportunity to make it very clear that retirement security is a significant challenge facing this country. We have said that. I am glad that on the floor of the House today both sides of the aisle indicated concerns for that. Far too many men and women are struggling to save for their retirement years.

Unfortunately, in recent years, we have seen regulations like the fiduciary rule that will make it harder for low- and middle-income families to save for retirement. And we have seen a regulation that would strip away important protections for retirement savers.

As policymakers, we must do more to expand retirement options for workers. That is a given. That we can agree on. However, the regulatory loophole created by the Obama administration is clearly not the answer.

I want to remind my colleagues that this resolution does not prevent States from coming up with new retirement options for workers. That is not what this resolution is about, and simply reading it will assure you of that.

This resolution is about ensuring every American has strong protections for a secure retirement.

I urge my colleagues to protect retirement savers by voting in favor of H.J. Res. 66.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 116 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 116 provides for consideration of two joint resolutions designed to protect working families by blocking harmful regulations through the Congressional Review Act process.

In 1974, Congress passed and President Gerald Ford signed the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, or ERISA. This legislation, which has broad and bipartisan support, sets standards for employer- provided retirement plans to protect the workers of the United States of America. This regulatory framework for employer-provided retirement plans has been largely successful at helping working families save for retirement over the last 40 years.

Unfortunately, in the waning days of his administration, President Obama put forward regulations to uproot this system that has worked for decades. The Obama administration's rules would pave the way for government-run IRAs--for bureaucrat-run IRAs--managed by States and certain municipalities. Employees in several States would be forced to automatically enroll in these government- and bureaucrat-run IRAs that are not subject to the important protections established by ERISA.

In other words, in the waning days of the Obama administration, they sought to take back from workers the protections that were given to them when ERISA was passed 40 years ago. Let me say that again. Workers' ERISA protections will be out the window for those people in these government- and bureaucrat-run plans.

These regulations remove important protections for American workers as they relate to their retirement plans. American consumers would be directly hurt by this regulation were it to go forward.

Just as bad, workers would have less control over their retirement savings. Withdrawals or roll-over investments to a private-sector account could be restricted and even penalized.

These regulations would create disincentives for small businesses to offer their retirement plans and invest in their employees' retirement, resulting in fewer options for workers. Instead, smaller employers will likely simply shift their employees on to these government- and bureaucrat-run plans.

These regulations could also create a confusing patchwork of rules that vary State to State or, even worse, city to city. This confusion would directly hurt the consumer.

Another concern with pushing people on to government- and bureaucrat- run retirement plans is that taxpayers would end up footing the bill. We have seen how poorly managed many State and city pension plans have been all over this country. If these government-run IRAs are also mismanaged, taxpayers may be asked to pay and to honor the government's promises.

Ultimately, these regulations are simply another attempt to exert control over the American people with a ``government knows best'' policy.

Mr. Speaker, the American people are not children that need direction from their parents. They should not be forced by the heavy hand of the government and faceless bureaucrats to obtain certain plans the government

likes that they may not need or want. People are free today to decide whether they want their IRAs or not. This will put them in a position where they can be forced to have them whether they want them or not.

We have seen the problems caused when the government tries to tell the American people what to do or what the government thinks is best for them. These types of heavy-handed policies simply do not work and they are counter to the principles our country was founded on.

So these two bills would use the Congressional Review Act process to block these anti-consumer regulations from taking effect. By passing these two bills, we will protect working families, we will support our Nation's small businesses, and we will be shielding the taxpayers from potential liabilities.

As I pointed out last week on this floor, just because we pass these bills using the CRA does not mean we cannot continue working toward solutions that improve our Nation's retirement programs. Just as the CRA gives Congress power to block regulations, the legislative branch can also give agencies further instructions and directions if a regulation is needed at some point in the future.

As a member of the Education and the Workforce Committee, I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to find solutions to help Americans save for their retirement. Attempting to use the regulatory pen to skate around ERISA and its important protections is just not the right answer.

So I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this rule and these pro-consumer bills and protect American families, workers, and their retirement plans.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I appreciate the gentleman from Massachusetts' remarks. We are not here today to talk about Russia, but I do remember about a month ago when we were on this floor counting electoral college votes, my colleague from Massachusetts objected to the Electoral College votes from my home State of Alabama because of Russian interference.

I want to put his mind at rest. As a Representative of Alabama, I think I can say with complete confidence that the Russians had no influence over the Presidential vote in the State of Alabama last November. We get our electoral information like most people in America do: from watching FOX News or something like that.

But in the fall, in Alabama, we are also paying real close attention to college football. So far from letting Russian influence have anything to do with our vote in Alabama, we were doing what most people in America were doing and paying close attention to college football. We gave no more credence to what the Russians think about our political votes in Alabama than we do to what they think about our college football teams.

But let's get back to the substance of his remarks. He says that there is no debate. This rule provides for at least 2 hours of debate, perhaps more if we get into motions to recommit. And the truth of the matter is, under the Congressional Review Act, the actual form of these laws are prescribed by statute. We have no control over what can be in them. We can either vote for them or against them. And we are going to have clear debate--over 2 hours, maybe more--whether we are going to vote for or against it.

There are people who are going to vote for them, and there are people who are going to vote against them, and people are going to have reasons for doing each. That is standard order here in the House. I think the American people would agree, on these sorts of fundamental things when you know what is simply in them, that is plenty of debate.

He calls these regulations that we seek to overturn ``consumer protections.'' But remember what I said earlier: They take these employer plans, these IRA plans that are forced by the government, they take them out from the protections of ERISA. They take consumer protection away from the people that have these plans. So far from being consumer protection regulations, they are anticonsumer protection regulations. They are antiworker.

So what is really going on here is this is not some effort--or was some effort by the Obama administration--to protect workers. It is an effort to try to get government more involved in people's lives, and the people of America don't want the government more involved in their lives.

The gentleman mentioned that there are 55 million people in America today who don't have a retirement plan. Every one of those 55 million people have access, if they choose to get it, to an IRA. Anybody can set up an IRA. You don't need your employer to set it up for you. You sure don't need the government to set it up for you. There are plenty of people around the country that will help you set it up, and it is pretty easy, pretty simple.

Maybe some of these people, or a lot of these people that don't have them, don't want them. So why would the government come in and tell them you have got to have them unless your real interest here is in empowering government and not protecting consumers? I will leave it to you to make the decision what the real motive was here.

Now, the gentleman talked about the fact that these come to us without going through the committees of jurisdiction; but, as I said earlier, because the form of these bills are prescribed by statute, there is really nothing for the committees of jurisdiction to do. But he will be glad to know that I am informed that, after we come back from the Presidents Day week break, there will be a number of bills coming to the floor that will have, in fact, gone through the committees of jurisdiction, including bills, I predict, that will both repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act. So there is going to be plenty of things coming through regular order to this floor.

But as we go through the Congressional Review Act process, we are pretty constrained in what we can say and not say in these bills, and we are simply following that which is prescribed by statute. As I said earlier, we can all decide, based upon that statutorily prescribed form for what we do, whether we are for it or we are against it, whether we want to force workers in America to get some government-forced type IRA and take them out from the protections of ERISA, or

whether we want to let them have their freedom and keep the protections of ERISA.

We want to keep freedom for the American people. We want to keep freedom for the American workers, and we sure want them to keep the protections they have had for over 40 years under ERISA and not take those protections away from them so that we can force something down their throat from some government-bureaucrat-run plan.

Getting back to what we are here to talk about today, we are here to reverse ill-considered regulations in the waning days of the Obama administration that hurt the American workers. By adopting this rule and by adopting these two pieces of legislation, we protect the American workers. I hope all of us are here to do exactly that.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, when I was a young lawyer, an old lawyer one time gave me a piece of advice that I was fortunate to never have to follow. He said: Son, when you are strong on the facts, pound on the facts. When you are strong on the law, pound on the law. If you are weak on the facts and the law, pound on the table.

What we just heard is pounding on the table about Russia, and that has nothing to do with the two bills that are covered by this rule. Nothing in the bills that underlie this rule has anything to do with Russia. But because there is not a good argument against the rule, there is not a good argument against these bills, we are pulling up something else and pounding on the table. Let's get back to the rule and the underlying legislation.

This legislation will reverse two regulations that hurt working people in America, period, end of sentence. Far from being a press release, as my colleague from Massachusetts talked about, this bill is going to pass not only this House, it is going to pass the Senate, and, yes, it is going to be signed by the President of the United States. Two of the Congressional Review Act bills that have already come through this House have passed the Senate and, I am told, are going to be signed by the President this week. These aren't press releases. These aren't messaging bills. These are pieces of legislation that are going to become law and protect American workers after an attempt by the Obama administration, as it is going out the door, an attempt by them to take ERISA rights away from American workers through a regulation. I would think everybody in this body would be outraged, after 40 years of bipartisan support for ERISA, that we would think it is okay for anybody to take away workers' ERISA rights. It is not.

What we are doing today is the right thing to do, not if you are for Big Government. But if you are for the American worker, this is the right thing to do. Rather than pound on the table, let's work together, pass this rule, pass this underlying legislation, and do the right thing for the American worker.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I agree with my colleague from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) that this is, indeed, serious business. Looking out for the workers of America is perhaps the most serious business that we do.

We have heard a lot of speechifying about trying to do the right thing for the average person in America. On the way out the door, the Obama administration promulgated two regulations that attempt to force government-tight retirement on people when they don't want it and take away their consumer protection rights under ERISA. That is very serious business.

But instead of having a debate about that, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle tried to switch the subject to something else because they don't want to have to defend the indefensible. These two regulations that these two CRA bills would reverse would take away protections for American workers.

This debate is not closed. I completely disagree with that assertion. We had a full debate on this yesterday afternoon in the Rules Committee. We devoted an hour of debate to it right now. Of course, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have chosen to chew up most of their time, instead of talking about this rule and the underlying legislation, talking about something else; but that is their right if that is what they want to do.

If they had some serious debate that they wanted to have on this rule and the underlying legislation, we wouldn't be talking about Russia. We would be talking about these bills. We would be talking about these regulations.

If this rule is adopted, we will have at least 2 hours of debate here on the floor on the bills themselves, and perhaps more if there is a motion to recommit. There is plenty of debate here. There is plenty of time to decide that you are for the American workers and protecting their consumer protection rights under ERISA or you are against American workers--either/or. It doesn't have anything to do with Russia. It has nothing to do with the Presidential election. It has everything to do with whether you stand with the workers of America or not.

I stand with the workers of America. I think the vast majority of the people in this body want to stand with the workers of America. If they do, I hope that they will vote for this rule and vote for the underlying legislation so that we can reverse these two regulations.

Mr. Speaker, I again urge my colleagues to support H.R. 116 and the underlying joint resolutions.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to speak as in morning business.

Mr. President, I rise to express my grave concern about Russian aggression and interference in our political system. My concerns have been compounded over the last several weeks by the response to these allegations by President Trump and his administration.

First, let's step back for a moment. We know that the Russian Federation is an adversary of the United States. That is without question. Vladimir Putin is what I would like to call a 24-hour bad guy. There are a lot of other ways to express it, but that is one way. There is not a moment of the day when he isn't using his power to undermine our Nation's interests and the interests of freedom and democracy across the globe.

We know that the Russian regime kills journalists, jails and silences their critics, and commits war crimes in places like Syria and Ukraine. Russia meddles in elections throughout the Western world.

Mr. Putin has a warped world view. His view is that the freedom and democratic rights of tens of millions of people in Europe should be subject to the interests of a few in the Kremlin because those countries lie within Russia's supposed sphere of influence.

The work done by our intelligence agencies indicates that Russia meddled in our election with the intent of aiding President Trump. We know that now. In January, our intelligence agencies concluded:

We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an

influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the U.S. presidential

election. Russia's goals were to undermine public faith in

the U.S. democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and

harm her electability and potential presidency. We further

assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear

preference for President-elect Trump.

That is what our intelligence agencies tell us, and I am quoting verbatim from that basic finding.

President Trump's refusal to accept the assessment of our intelligence agencies was deeply concerning--and that is an understatement. My concerns were compounded by the fact that President Trump ran on the most pro-Russian platform in modern history. Since President Trump has taken

office, he has harshly criticized our allies, from Australia to Mexico, yet when it comes to Russia's provocations and war crimes, President Trump is silent.

This deference that President Trump shows to Mr. Putin is troubling and, when combined with Russia's meddling in our election, it raises profound questions that need answers. That is why I strongly support the establishment of an independent commission to investigate Russia's interference in our political system, and I believe that the Justice Department must appoint a special counsel to investigate this matter as well.

What the American people need to know, once and for all, is at least three things: No. 1, what specific actions Russia took to aid President Trump during the election; No. 2, whether U.S. persons had knowledge of or were involved in these actions; and, finally, No. 3, whether President Trump has financial entanglements with Russians associated with the Putin regime.

You could probably add other questions, but I think they are the three basic questions we have to answer.

So this is a grave problem with substantial national security implications. My constituents agree, as I am sure is the case in every other State. Just since January 1, more than 80,000 Pennsylvanians have written to my office about Russia. That is 80,000 Pennsylvanians. These are thoughtful letters from Pennsylvanians who are so concerned about this issue that they took the time to write.

A constituent from Cumberland County, right in the middle of our State, wrote:

I am bothered by the reports of Russia trying to interfere

with our democracy. I am particularly bothered by a lack of

transparency in the administration with news reports of AG

Sessions' undisclosed contact with Russia. Russia is having

the effect they wanted by shaking confidence in our system.

That is a constituent from Cumberland County.

Another constituent from Northampton County, along the eastern side of our State, just north of Philadelphia, wrote this:

All politics aside, the investigation about Russia's

actions is a concern to our republic. . . . Ultimately, it

does not matter whether our elected officials are democrats

or republicans, but it does matter that we all always put

America's best interests first.

If the warnings from the U.S. intelligence community and the pleas from 80,000-plus Pennsylvanians aren't enough, then let's look at the numerous credible reports of contact between Russian officials and the Trump team. This body of reporting grows every day.

On January 18, McClatchy reported that ``The FBI and five other law enforcement and intelligence agencies have collaborated for months in an investigation into Russian attempts to influence the November election, including whether money from the Kremlin covertly aided President-elect Donald Trump, two people familiar with the matter said.''

On January 19, the Washington Post reported, ``U.S. counterintelligence officials are sifting through intercepted communications and financial data as part of a wider look at possible ties between the Russian government and associates of President-elect Donald Trump, officials said.''

Then again on January 19, the New York Times reported, ``American law enforcement and intelligence agencies are examining intercepted communications and financial transactions as part of a broad investigation into possible links between Russian officials and associates of President-elect Donald J. Trump, including his former campaign chairman Paul Manafort, current and former senior American officials said.''

We know that Mr. Trump's former campaign manager, Paul Manafort, previously worked for the Russian-backed President of Ukraine, Victor Yanukovych. According to an August 2016 report by the New York Times, ``Handwritten ledgers show $12.7 million in undisclosed cash payments designated for Mr. Manafort from Mr. Yanukovych's pro-Russian political party from 2007 to 2012, according to Ukraine's newly formed National Anti-Corruption Bureau.''

In February 2017, when confronted by the New York Times about reports that Trump associates may have been in contact with Russian officials during the election, Mr. Manafort said, ``It's not like these people wear badges that say, `I'm a Russian intelligence officer.' ''

Then there is the case of a former member President Trump's foreign policy advisory committee, Carter Page. In September of 2016, Yahoo's Michael Isikoff reported, ``U.S. intelligence officials are seeking to determine whether an American businessman identified by Donald Trump as one of his foreign policy advisers has opened up private communications with senior Russian officials--including talks about the possible lifting of economic sanctions if the Republican nominee becomes president, according to multiple sources who have been briefed on the issue.''

In an interview with PBS's Judy Woodruff, Mr. Page was asked whether he met with Russian officials while he was on the Trump campaign. Ms. Woodruff asked, ``Did you have any meetings--I will ask again--did you have any meetings last year with Russian officials in Russia, outside Russia, anywhere?'' Mr. Page answered, ``I had no meetings, no meetings. I might have said hello to a few people as they were walking by me at my graduation--the graduation speech that I gave in July, but no meetings.''

Yet after USA Today reported that Mr. Page met with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak at the Republican National Convention, Mr. Page told MSNBC's Chris Hayes that he would ``not deny'' meeting with the Russian Ambassador.

Furthermore, reporting by both USA Today and CNN helped get to the bottom of one of the enduring mysteries of this summer's Republican National Convention: why was the effort to insert a provision into the party's platform supporting lethal aid for Ukraine defeated? Last summer, Mr. Manafort said that the decision to defeat the provision supporting lethal aid ``absolutely did not come from the Trump campaign.''

In January of 2017, the Washington Post's David Ignatius reported that President Trump's National Security Adviser, Michael Flynn, engaged in discussions with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak during the transition as then-President Obama was applying sanctions against Russia for its meddling in the U.S. elections. After the Russian Foreign Ministry vowed retaliation for the Obama administration sanctions, it was reported that several calls between Mr. Flynn and Ambassador Kislyak took place. The next day, President Putin announced he would not retaliate against the U.S. for the sanctions. The Nation was told by the Vice President that Mr. Flynn's contact with the Russian Ambassador was logistical in nature. Then it was revealed that the issue of sanctions may have been discussed. Subsequently, General Flynn resigned his position.

Then, there is the issue of President Trump's associate, Roger Stone, who demonstrated in tweets last summer that he may have had advance knowledge of some of the hacked material. In October 2016, Mr. Stone admitted to a Miami TV station that he had ``back-channel communications with WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange.'' Mr. Assange is the founder of Wikileaks, the website that Russian hackers appear to have used to deposit hacked documents during the 2016 campaign.

These revelations give credence to a February report by CNN: ``High- level advisers close to then-presidential nominee Donald Trump were in constant communication during the campaign with Russians known to US intelligence, multiple current and former intelligence, law enforcement and administration officials tell CNN.''

This summary is an illustrative list of many of the credible reports that are out there. Let's review just a few of the reports that have come to light since our intelligence agencies released their assessment.

In November of 2016, the President's spokesman at that time said: ``The campaign had no contact with Russian officials,'' yet the Russian Deputy Foreign Minister had stated that ``there were contacts during the campaign.'' On January 19, the New York Times reported that the communications of President Trump's former campaign manager, Paul Manafort, his former foreign policy adviser, Carter Page, and his longtime associate, Roger Stone, were under investigation for contacts

with the Russians. Yet despite that, President Trump continued to say for weeks that all of these reports about an investigation and contacts with Russian officials were so-called fake news.

We have learned that the Trump administration's dismissals of these investigations and reports do not align with the facts. It seems that the administration has a strategy for all of these allegations--dodge and deceive, dodge and deceive.

After all the dodging and deceiving, sometimes we finally get admissions of the truth. Again, the facts are disturbing and have meaningful national security implications.

Here is an example of how these contacts may have actually changed policy. This past summer, ABC's George Stephanopoulos asked President Trump:

Then why did you soften the GOP platform on Ukraine?

Candidate Donald Trump responded:

I wasn't involved in that. Honestly, I was not involved.

In early March, USA Today reported that then-Trump advisers Carter Page and J.D. Gordon met with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak at the Republican Convention. In an interview with CNN, Mr. Gordon said that the effort to remove support for lethal security assistance to Ukraine from the Republican Party platform was done expressly to fulfill the wishes of then-Candidate Trump.

Now it is not uncommon for foreign officials to attend conventions. It is uncommon and completely, totally inappropriate for them to use that platform to shape our Nation's policies by a change in a party platform.

The dodging and deception continues. After insisting during his confirmation hearing that he had no contacts with Russian officials, it was reported that Attorney General Sessions, who was a top leader in President Trump's campaign, did indeed meet with the Russian Ambassador. There is nothing to hide about meeting with a foreign ambassador. That is part of our job as Senators, and Attorney General Sessions was a Member of the U.S. Senate. For example, in 2013, I met with the Russian Ambassador to advocate for Pennsylvania families torn apart by the Russian Government's ban on international adoptions. I was there with a significant group of other Senators from both parties. But why would Mr. Sessions provide incorrect information to the Judiciary Committee, and why wouldn't he immediately correct the record? That is a question that we have to ask, and that is a question that deserves an answer.

Finally, there is the issue of President Trump himself. We know that for many years he has expressed an interest in doing business in Russia. In 2008, Mr. Trump's executive vice president for acquisitions and development in his business said:

Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of

a lot of our assets; say, in Dubai, and certainly with our

project in SoHo and anywhere in New York. We see a lot of

money pouring in from Russia.

So if one takes all of these reports together, plus the ones I have entered into the Record, one has to ask: What is going on? What is going on with all this information?

That is why my constituents and I have questions. That is why we need an independent commission and a special counsel appointed by the Justice Department. The administration owes the American people answers.

We cannot allow my constituent Pam's warning to come to fruition. We cannot allow Russia to exploit political differences to shake confidence in our democratic system. The United States has a proud tradition of rule of law and checks and balances. These are things that distinguish us from the autocratic and corrupt regimes around the world.

The longer it takes to get to the bottom of these questions, the longer it will be until we can get back to advancing meaningful policies to resist Russian aggression and stand with our European allies. We need to make a commitment to maintaining and expanding sanctions on Russia for a variety of malign activities: No. 1, the cyber attack on our elections; No. 2, their--the Russians'-- indiscriminate bombing of civilians in support of the Assad regime in Syria; No. 3, their unabated support for separatists in eastern Ukraine; No. 4, the Russians' continued illegal annexation of Crimea.

The American people and the people of Pennsylvania, as well, have had enough of dodge and deceive on these issues. They want answers, and the only way to get them is by way of an independent commission and a special counsel.

The President and every Republican and every Democrat in the House and the Senate in all of Congress need to say once and for all, clearly, definitively, unequivocally: We will never allow this to happen again, and then work together to make that a reality.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise in support of the nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch for the Supreme Court of the United States.

Last week the Judiciary Committee, on which I serve, held a week-long series of hearings concerning Judge Gorsuch's nomination. After listening to the judge's flawless testimony, after listening to him answer questions from my colleagues for days on end, I am even more convinced than ever that he is exactly the kind of jurist we need on the Supreme Court of the United States.

I want to briefly explain my support for the judge, and then respond to some of the criticisms that have been leveled against him.

First and foremost, Judge Gorsuch understands the proper and necessarily limited role of the judiciary in our constitutional Republic.

Last week, over and over, Judge Gorsuch affirmed--even against great criticism that at times can be difficult to understand in its entirety--but responded time and again to criticisms by pointing out that it is his job as a

judge to interpret and apply the law--not to make it, not to establish policy, but to apply that policy which has already been placed into law by the legislative branch.

When you are reading law, the text matters. Our laws consist of words and each word matters. If the law leads to an uncomfortable outcome for the parties, for politicians, or for anyone else in our society, then, it is our job as a Congress--or if it is State law at issue, it is the job of a State legislature--to get the policy right, to fix the policy problem at issue. The judge's job is to go where the law leads the judge, not to correct the law.

Over and over, Judge Gorsuch affirmed the importance of precedent in our system. It is clearly a topic that he takes very seriously, having coauthored a treatise on that very subject. While precedent is not always absolute, in so far as you have a clear conflict with the text, Judge Gorsuch testified that you start with the ``heavy presumption in favor of precedent.'' He described precedent as the ``anchor of the law.''

Over and over, Judge Gorsuch explained that judges are not partisans in robes. No, they are different. They are different from politicians. They are meaningfully different than the politicians who make the laws or the politicians in the executive branch who enforce and execute the laws. They are unfailingly independent when they are doing their jobs right. They are devoted to the rule of law. They do their best to decide cases on the basis of the law and the facts, rather than on the basis of achieving whatever outcome they or others might desire.

Some of my colleagues' views of Judge Gorsuch's record are different, and I want to address some of their concerns. First, some of my colleagues have questioned the independence of Judge Gorsuch and his ability to exercise judicial independence. This is a very serious accusation. In fact, it is probably one of the worst things you could say about a judge. So my colleagues who have raised this criticism would need to back that up against something. If you are going to raise a really serious accusation against someone, as you are whenever you are calling into question a judge's independence, you have to be able to back it up.

Let's look at that. Can they back it up? I don't think so. In fact, I am quite certain they can't because they haven't. The argument boils down to the complaint that Judge Gorsuch hasn't sufficiently criticized President Trump's comments about judges. But here is what Judge Gorsuch said about this topic last week. He said this in response to questions raised by Senator Blumenthal on the Judiciary Committee. He said:

Senator, I care deeply about the independence of the

judiciary. I cannot talk about the specific cases or

controversies that might come before me, and I cannot get

involved in politics.

But, Senator, when you attack the integrity or honesty or

independence of a judge, their motives, as we sometimes hear,

Senator, I know the men and women of the Federal judiciary, a

lot of them. I know how who hard their job is, how much they

often give up to do it, the difficult circumstances in which

they do it. It is a lonely job, too. I am not asking for

crocodile tears or anything like that. I am just saying I

know these people, and I know how decent they are. And when

anyone criticizes the honesty or integrity, the motives of a

Federal judge, well, I find that disheartening, I find that

demoralizing, because I know the truth.

Senator Blumenthal asked Judge Gorsuch whether, when he said ``anyone,'' that applied to the President of the United States. Judge Gorsuch responded simply: ``Anyone is anyone.'' It is true that Judge Gorsuch didn't use the magic words: I disagree with President Trump. But he can't get involved in politics. He said here what he can say. In fact, he said all he can say in this context.

Moreover, here are some additional parts of Judge Gorsuch's testimony, which shed light on this issue.

From Tuesday:

I have no difficulty ruling against or for any party other

than based on what the law and the facts in the particular

case require, and I'm heartened by the support I have

received from people who recognize that there's no such thing

as a Republican judge or a Democratic judge. We just have

judges in this country.

On Wednesday he said:

I do not see Republican judges, and I do not see Democrat

judges. I see judges.

So I think any fairminded person looking at this would have to agree that Judge Gorsuch's feelings about judicial independence in cases before the Federal judiciary are very clear. To my colleagues who might see the issue differently, I would ask simply: What should Judge Gorsuch have said without getting involved in politics, without miring himself in a debate that is within the political branches of government and, therefore, within the political rather than the judicial interpretive arena?

Second, some of my colleagues allege that Judge Gorsuch is somehow out of the mainstream. But consider these facts. Judge Gorsuch has decided roughly 2,700 cases. His decisions have been unanimous 97 percent of the time. Keep in mind that he is an appellate judge who sits on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. Appellate judges never sit alone in that capacity. They sit in panels--normally in panels of three and sometimes in panels of a dozen or so when they sit on the bench. And 97 percent of the time, all of the judges with whom Judge Gorsuch sits in any case agree with whatever decision he reaches. He is in the majority 99 percent of the time.

He is about as likely to dissent from a Republican-appointed judge as a Democratic-appointed judge. He has been reversed twice, and in both cases he was following circuit precedent. I want to make it clear that there is nothing wrong with a judge who dissents more than this. In fact, in many instances, dissents are necessary. In many instances, a dissent can be useful, even indispensable. There are judges out there who dissent more than this, and there wouldn't be anything wrong with Judge Gorsuch if he dissented any more. My point is that of all the arguments you can make against Judge Gorsuch, this is not a fair characterization. To say that he is out of the mainstream simply runs against mathematics. It runs against the bold statistics on their very face, which contradict this characterization.

Some of my colleagues respond that only a handful of cherry-picked cases matter. If you watched the hearing last week, you might recognize the names of some of these cases. They include TransAM Trucking, Hwang, Luke P., Hobby Lobby. What I find revealing is that my colleagues never mount much of a legal argument against any of these decisions. No, you are not going to find quibbling with the statutory construction in these cases. They don't parse the statutes at issue and then explain where it is that Judge Gorsuch somehow got it wrong, somehow departed from what the law actually says. No, they are looking at outcomes. They think Judge Gorsuch should have bent the law in order to go where they think the law should go. They want judges who have the right approach in mind, the right outcome in mind, and to decide the case according to what outcome they desire.

I flatly disagree with this view of judging. It is a view, frankly, that is way out of the mainstream in American law. To say it is out of the mainstream in American law does not mean out of the Republican mainstream or the conservative mainstream or the mainstream among members of the Federalist Society. No, I am talking about rank-and-file practitioners of the law, jurists from every conceivable point along the political and ideological spectrum. This is just not something that a judge would ever want to admit to doing. Certainly, it is never anything a judge would aspire to do--to choose an outcome and say: I am going to reach that outcome, and I don't really care that the law doesn't really authorize me to do it. I am just going to do it because I think, in some abstract sense, that outcome would achieve a greater degree of fairness than what the law actually requires me to do.

Third, I am distressed by a lot of the rhetoric that we heard during the confirmation hearing last week--rhetoric that I expect to continue and even mount over the next 10 days or so. One of my colleagues last week actually went so far as to describe the Supreme Court of the United States as an ``instrument of the Republican party.''

Other colleagues have complained about the so-called dark money campaign to support Judge Gorsuch's nomination, and still other colleagues complain that President Trump or Steve

Bannon or Reince Priebus or others are enthusiastic about Judge Gorsuch's nomination, as if the fact that someone is supported by someone they don't like means that the person in question is not qualified. This is unfair to Judge Gorsuch.

Judge Gorsuch didn't decide Citizens United. He didn't decide Hobby Lobby or any other case my colleagues dislike. He made clear in no uncertain terms that no one speaks on his behalf but him.

They may dislike some of the cases in which he offered opinions, but, again, in those cases, they are not quibbling with the way that he interpreted the law. No one has attacked his interpretation of a statute, his approach to statutory construction. They are quibbling with the outcome. They are quibbling with the fact that they wish it had turned out differently on policy grounds, policy grounds that have everything to do with the policymaking arms of the government and not with the jurisprudential arm of the government.

Even worse, these types of statements are damaging to our judiciary. If you don't like a judicial decision, engage the decision on its own terms, engage in a discussion of how that decision turned out wrong or where it is that it departed from what the law requires. Make a legal argument, in other words.

The courts announce reasons for their decisions. There is plenty of material to dig into, but don't impugn the judge's motives or independence. This is especially harmful when you impugn the judge's motives without actually getting into what the judge did or what the law says and explaining how those two things diverge.

Don't accuse the Supreme Court of functioning as an instrument of the Republican Party. In fact, you might as well call someone a so-called judge in a case where you disagree with the outcome. In fact, calling someone a so-called judge is probably no worse than calling the Supreme Court of the United States an instrument of the Republican Party.

Finally, I want to talk about the filibuster. The minority leader has urged his colleagues to filibuster. The minority whip has announced he will filibuster. Only two Democrats have said they will vote yes on cloture, so here we are.

I ask my colleagues: If Neil Gorsuch can't get 60 votes for cloture, which Republican nominee can?

Some of my colleagues have argued that if a nominee can't get 60 votes, the President should find a new nominee. I ask my colleagues: Was that the standard for several of President Obama's nominees at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit?

Well, yes, it was. Under rule XXII, that was the standard. That was the standard until, in November of 2013, the Democrats in the Senate went nuclear, and they created a new precedent, taking that threshold down from 60--by precedent--to 51. Through going nuclear, this is the result they achieved.

Their analysis, in its entirety, went in this direction. Their analysis nuked the Executive filibuster. It nuked the filibuster on the Executive Calendar.

Interestingly, although some were insisting at the time and went to the floor to explain at the time that they didn't intend for this to extend to Supreme Court nominees, when everyone thought Hillary Clinton would be President--Harry Reid admitted that the Democrats would extend this same precedent through which the Democrats had nuked the Executive filibuster to Supreme Court nominees.

So, look, I work with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle on a great number of important issues, issues that are very important to me, issues like criminal justice reform, reform of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, reform of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986, which is badly in need of reform, and a number of other issues, many of which involve privacy protections. These are A- plus legislative priorities for me. Nothing else is more important, and I stand ready to reform the law whenever I see the need to do so and will continue to work with my Democratic colleagues.

As we approach this discussion, I want to be clear that unilateral disarmament doesn't work. I hope the Democrats reverse course and do not filibuster this nominee, but if they do, I am confident Judge Gorsuch will be confirmed.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.J. Res. 66.

Working families in my home State of Oregon and across the country deserve the opportunity to retire with security and dignity. Unfortunately, that is not a reality for far too many Americans who face a growing retirement security crisis. In fact, nearly 40 million private sector workers, including an estimated 1 million in Oregon, do not have access to retirement savings plans at their jobs.

The AARP and others have noted that people who do not save for retirement risk becoming dependent on social safety net programs that increase costs for taxpayers.

Mr. Speaker, Congress has not stepped up to address our country's retirement security crisis, so several States, including my home State of Oregon, have developed and implemented innovative solutions that will help workers save for retirement.

Oregon's program is set to launch in just 5 months. Workers who do not have access to a retirement plan through their employer will have access to a plan facilitated by the State. It is not mandatory--workers can opt out--and there is minimal paperwork for employees. Oregon's plan is portable, so workers can keep their retirement savings when they change jobs.

Consider Oregonian Penny Wicklander, who has worked hard but hasn't had access to a good retirement plan. Penny managed an apartment complex for low-income seniors, and she saw the hardships that residents faced without retirement security. Some lived on $10 in the last 10 days of the month. She said, in support of Oregon's plan:

No one wants to retire into poverty and rely on public

services, but it's hard to plan for the future when there are

so many other financial challenges facing our families. We

need a simple retirement account that makes it easy for

everyone to save part of what they earn, regardless of where

they work.

Bobbie Sotin, a home care worker who cares for seniors and people with disabilities doesn't have access to a retirement savings plan through her employer. Bobbie said:

Working with seniors in poverty, many care providers see

their own future every day. Once they reach retirement age,

they have to make the decision to live in poverty or keep

working until they die. Even if it

means just $50 or $100 more per month, that kind of income

would make a huge difference to each and every one of us.

Penny, Bobbie, and people across the country need access to retirement savings plans. Oregon and several other States are working to fill that need. Congress should be supporting them and encouraging retirement savings programs like Oregon's and similar plans in California, Illinois, Connecticut, and Maryland. Instead, House Republicans are advancing a Congressional Review Act joint resolution of disapproval that would endanger these plans, discourage other States from taking action, and undermine states' rights.

Specifically, this resolution would nullify an important Department of Labor rule that simply clarifies that these State-based savings plans do not run afoul of ERISA, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. The safe harbor rule went into effect last October.

Now, my friends on the other side of the aisle may characterize this as ``closing regulatory loopholes'' and they may question whether more government is the answer, but that is not what this is about.

The National Conference of State Legislatures and the State treasurers of Oregon, Illinois, and California submitted letters in opposition to this resolution. They found the ``DOL safe harbor provides flexibility to states, codifies clear protections for employers who facilitate retirement savings arrangements for their employees, and enables innovative solutions to addressing the growing retirement crisis facing this country.''

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record these letters and several other letters in opposition to this resolution.

February 10, 2017.

Hon. Paul Ryan,

Speaker of the House,

Washington, DC.

Speaker Ryan: Earlier this week, Reps. Tim Walberg and

Francis Rooney introduced two resolutions of disapproval

(H.J. Res 66, H.J. Res 67) to roll-back key Department of

Labor (US DOL) rules. These resolutions will limit our

abilities as states to provide solutions to the growing

retirement savings crisis, and could make it harder for small

businesses to participate in state-run programs.

We are writing to ask that you defend our state's rights by

voting ``No'' on H.J. Res 66 and H.J. Res 67.

The rule in question gives clarity for states across the

country to provide access to retirement savings options for

millions of private-sector workers. California, Illinois, and

Oregon are all in the process of implementing legislatively

approved state-administered plans that will enable nearly 8

million private-sector workers to save their own money for

retirement.

As Treasurers, we chair the respective Boards governing our

state plans and have been actively working with employers,

employees, payroll providers, and financial service

organizations for the last two years. The reality is, that

without access to an easy and affordable savings vehicle, far

too many workers risk retiring into poverty and becoming

overly reliant on Social Security or state and federal safety

net programs.

The final rule from US DOL provides key protections for

employers who facilitate enrollment for their employees--

confirming a safe harbor from ERISA and protecting businesses

from litigation or liability related to state programs--while

maintaining key consumer protections for program

participants.

While this rule has been finalized, opponents are seeking

to repeal or weaken the rule through the Congressional Review

Act. We respectfully request that you oppose efforts to

repeal the rule and vote no on H.J. Res 66 and H.J. Res 67.

The US DOL safe harbor provides flexibility to states,

codifies clear protections for employers who facilitate

retirement savings arrangements for their employees, and

enables innovative solutions to addressing the growing

retirement crisis facing this country.

We are happy to provide additional information. Thank you

for your support.

Sincerely,

John Chiang,

California State Treasurer.

Michael Frerichs,

Illinois State Treasurer.

Tobias Read,

Oregon State Treasurer.

In summary, proponents of this Congressional Review Act resolution are rushing to nullify a rule that will make it easier for people save for retirement. That is unacceptable. Every American deserves to retire with dignity, and this resolution puts that fundamental American value at risk.

I ask my colleagues to join me in opposing H.J. Res. 66.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), the ranking member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), the ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis), a senior member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Mr. Speaker, just to clarify, there was a comment made that these are government-run plans. Under these plans, the States establish the framework for deducting the contributions, but these will be managed by investment professionals, not by the State.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr.

DeSaulnier), my colleague, and a leader on the Education and the Workforce Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I assure my colleague that, as someone with a consumer protection background, I would not be opposing this resolution if it had consumer protections. In fact, this rule applies when States have strict investor protections.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Maxine Waters), the ranking member of the Financial Services Committee.

May I inquire as to the remaining time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), a senior member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record additional letters in opposition to this resolution.

Service Employees

International Union,

Washington, DC, February 13, 2017.

Dear Representative: On behalf of the two million members

of the Service Employees International Union (SEID), I urge

you to vote against H.J. Res 66 and H.J. Res 67, resolutions

disapproving of the Department of Labor's rules relating to

retirement savings arrangements established by states and

qualified state political subdivisions. The Department of

Labor rules make it easier for small employers to offer their

workers access to programs for retirement savings and achieve

an essential component of the American dream.

There is a retirement savings crisis in our country. Fifty-

five million workers do not have access to a retirement

savings plan at work. As a result, nearly half of all workers

have no retirement assets--no pension, no 401(k), and no IRA.

States have stepped in to begin to address this crisis with

innovative legislation that gives workers the opportunity to

set aside their own money in low-fee, professionally managed

savings accounts. Importantly, private sector money managers

and administrators will be hired to run these programs on

behalf of the states, generating American jobs. The

Department of Labor issued rules that clarified that

employers would not be subject to the fiduciary

responsibilities and reporting requirements of the Employee

Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) under these state

initiatives.

In addition to helping workers achieve a dignified

retirement, the state initiatives provide small businesses

with easy, low-cost access to a retirement savings plan.

Small employers are the least likely to offer retirement

savings plans because the cost can be prohibitive and the

ERISA requirements can be onerous at the start. The state

initiatives also are fiscally prudent actions that will save

public spending. A new study by Segal Consulting estimated

that state Medicaid costs would be reduced by $5 billion

within the first ten years of implementation of the state

plans. Those savings would grow exponentially over time as

more workers retired with greater amounts of savings.

Five states--California, Connecticut, Illinois, Maryland

and Oregon--have enacted legislation and will soon begin

taking payroll contributions. About half of states have

studied or are studying this concept. Massachusetts and

Vermont are considering legislation that would also allow

employer contributions. Contrary to misinformation being

spread about these plans, the program funds are not

guaranteed by the state, and state and participating

employers will have no liability for the payment of

retirement funds earned by the participants. These state

plans are bipartisan public/private initiatives that

appropriately use states as laboratories for innovation. They

are a win for workers, for employers, and for governments at

all levels.

SEIU is also deeply concerned with efforts under the

Congressional Review Act (CRA) to circumvent the Executive

Branch process of rulemaking and issuing regulatory guidance.

Using the CRA authority to undo Agency regulations and

guidance crafted carefully and with public input strips away

the importance of the rulemaking process. Using this

authority could significantly weaken or undo past and future

rules that protect workers.

SEIU respectfully urges you to vote against resolutions

H.J. Res 66 and H.J. Res 67 disapproving of these important

rules. We may add votes on this legislation to our

legislative scorecard. If you have any questions please

contact John Gray, Legislative Director.

Sincerely,

Mary Kay Henry,

International President.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky), the co-chair of the Congressional Task Force on Seniors.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), a senior member of the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 10 seconds to the gentlewoman.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the Democratic leader of the U.S. House of Representatives.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire as to the remaining time, please.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I thank all of my colleagues who came this afternoon to speak in opposition to this resolution. It shows how important it is to the working people in our States and in our districts. These are people who do not have a retirement plan. That is who we are looking out for.

I urge all my colleagues today to stand up for workers who deserve that chance at saving for retirement and who will get that chance because Oregon and other States have stepped up and are taking action.

Again, the Department of Labor safe harbor rule applies to States that have strict investor protections. We wouldn't be here today if those strict investor protections were not maintained.

I especially urge my colleagues, particularly those of us who are concerned about states' rights, not to undermine States like Oregon and all the others that have stepped up to create these innovative solutions. There is a gap. That is why so many people today do not have retirement savings.

Colleagues, please join us in opposing H.J. Res. 66.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I am here on behalf of 55 million working Americans who lack access to retirement savings plans through their employers. These numbers underscore a very, very uncomfortable truth for many Americans--that there is a looming retirement crisis in our Nation.

Congress must do more to preserve, protect, and strengthen retirement savings for all Americans. I come to the floor to express my strong opposition to the legislation before us, which would do precisely the opposite.

H.J. Res. 67 would tear down ongoing efforts at the State and municipal levels to assist, not obstruct, hard-working Americans in preparing for financially stable and rewarding retirements.

I also want to express my very deep concern about efforts by my Republican colleagues to force a vote on H.J. Res. 66 in the very near future. I would advise my colleagues to reconsider their taking action on both of these misguided proposals right away.

While many private sector employers have the option to set up and their employees have the choice to contribute to their own retirement savings accounts, fewer than 10 percent of workers who are without access to a workplace plan contribute to retirement savings accounts outside of their employers.

To address this growing issue, in August of 2016, under the guidance of the Obama administration, the Department of Labor promulgated what has become known as the State-sponsored auto-IRA rule. This rule provides critical guidance for States on how to administer programs that are designed to improve access to retirement accounts among private sector employees. These State-facilitated retirement programs would allow State governments to provide automatic enrollment in State- sponsored IRA programs, with there being the opportunity to opt out at any time.

There are misguided and progressive proposals that seek to overturn the critical rulemaking that protects Americans in this process. If passed, these resolutions, very simply, will cripple ongoing efforts on the State level to ensure that retirement savings opportunities are more readily available for all workers.

In my home State of Connecticut, we have led efforts to find secure and innovative ways to address the growing retirement savings gap for nearly 600,000 working people in Connecticut who lack access to employer-based retirement savings. The Connecticut Retirement Security Authority has led this effort. It was created in 2016, and it is based on almost 2 years of market research, public hearings, meetings, and broad input from employers, potential participants, and representatives of the financial sector.

We are moving in the right direction in Connecticut. Programs that represent a strong step in the right direction have been fostered and built by encouraging State facilitation with private providers. These plans allow workers access to secure, low-cost retirement savings accounts in Connecticut. That effort would be set back by these proposals to undercut and reverse progress made at the Federal level. Incomprehensibly, these bills would severely undercut efforts to promote State and city auto-IRA programs. It is a blatant attack on these programs and

on working families in Connecticut and elsewhere.

I urge my colleagues who believe that Congress should spend time in expanding, not limiting, access to innovative solutions to the American savings crisis to join me in opposing these resolutions.

They have broad economic implications. They set back job creation as well as economic progress. There are 55 million individuals--many of them in Connecticut--who lack the ability to save for retirement directly from their paychecks. This gap is exacerbated by the fact that nearly 20 percent of people between the ages of 55 and 64 have, virtually, zero in retirement savings. That is true of Connecticut and every State in our country.

A lack of retirement savings leads to disastrous results and jeopardizes access to adequate meals, healthcare, and other necessities. Simply put, no American family and, certainly, no Connecticut family should be deterred or discouraged from planning for the future by saving responsibly.

I urge my colleagues to join me in voting no on H.J. Res. 66 and H.J. Res. 67 because States and municipalities should have the flexibility to implement proven strategies to support hard-working Americans who wish to prepare themselves for retirement.

Russia and Trump Campaign Investigation

Mr. President, I find in Connecticut--and, I am sure, my colleagues find around the country--that Americans are outraged and appalled by Russia's disinformation campaign that has been waged against our free and fair electoral process. There is no question now--the intelligence agencies have confirmed it--that Russia interfered in the campaign of this latest election.

Our electoral process is the bedrock of our democracy. Russian interference in our election is an attack on our democracy. Indeed, it is an attack on America. Some believe--and I join them in this concern--that it is an act of war.

As appalling as the Russians' actions have been, I am equally--if not more--concerned about the ``see no evil, hear no evil'' attitude of this administration. It was aided in its election by Russia's campaign of disinformation, malign theft, its dissemination of private data, propaganda, and cyber attack. That cyber attack was unconscionable and unprecedented in its scope and scale.

Our Nation's intelligence community has provided chilling and absolutely horrifying confirmation of this Russian interference in our democracy. Yet the White House continually dismisses these reports. This week, we are learning that they actually may be actively interfering with and trying to redirect efforts by Congress to discover the full extent of Russia's cyber intrusion.

The bottom line here is that only a special prosecutor at the Department of Justice can apply sunlight and conduct a vigorous, independent investigation. Only a special prosecutor can remove this stain on our democracy. Only a special prosecutor can provide our Nation with assurance that wrongdoing will be effectively investigated and then charged and prosecuted. Only a special prosecutor can give us the closure we need and deserve.

Every day, evidence mounts pointing to the need to investigate these Russian ties and contacts with the Trump campaign. The more we learn, the more troubled and outraged the American people become.

Just this week, revelations have surfaced that Representative Nunes, chairman of the Intelligence Committee in the House, met on White House grounds with a source who showed him secret American intelligence reports that he then used to defend President Trump's claims that his closest associates were under surveillance by the Obama administration. That this information actually came from a meeting at the White House has intensified questions about where the information actually originated and whether the President's team is actually meddling in the congressional investigation. Chairman Nunes's actions have fatally tainted the House Intelligence Committee investigation and infected it with the virus of partisan bias.

Just yesterday, we also learned, based on letters obtained by the Washington Post, that the Trump administration sought to block former Acting Attorney General Sally Yates from testifying to Congress in the House investigation, adding additional taint. We all recall she is the one who blew the whistle on the real risk of General Flynn being blackmailed by the Kremlin. Instead of thanking her, the President fired her. After firing her for doing her job, the administration is now intent on stopping her as a witness from revealing exactly what the President knew about his adviser's ties to foreign interests.

The House investigation is incontrovertibly compromised by having a Trump surrogate running and organizing it and the administration--at least in appearance and likely in reality--controlling its access to the facts.

There is a growing body of evidence that clearly and unmistakably indicates that the Trump campaign and his associates were in contact with Russia during the election, and these deeply troubling claims of coordination with a foreign government to influence an American election deserve exacting and aggressive investigation.

The declassified report from the intelligence community clearly identifies Russia Today as a state-sponsored propaganda source that was integral to Putin's campaign to interfere in that election, and it makes it equally clear, and deplorably so, that former National Security Advisor Flynn accepted $45,000 to praise Russia Today in Moscow and dine with Putin at the network's request.

We know as well that Attorney General Sessions and Jared Kushner, the President's son-in-law and now senior adviser, had unreported meetings with Russian officials, including the head of a Russian bank under U.S. sanctions. The President's former campaign manager, Paul Manafort, funneled millions of dollars into offshore accounts from a Russian oligarch through the Bank of Cyprus, which was owned at the time by Wilbur Ross, now serving as the President's Commerce Secretary.

These contacts form a network of facts and suspicion, but more than suspicion, there are real sources of information and facts. As Ronald Reagan said, ``Facts are stubborn things.''

These disclosures are all the more reason--indeed, compelling evidence--that a special prosecutor is necessary to investigate Russia's ties and contacts with the Trump campaign. Immediate, aggressive measures to hold Russia accountable and deter further aggression must be taken. Those actions must be based on facts as well, but we must acknowledge publicly that the need for deterrence requires effective responses, appropriate and necessary measures to send a message and inflict the kind of cost that is necessary to show Russia that we will never accept these kinds of attacks. At stake is not only Russia's view of this country and deterrence to further attacks but also the credibility and trust of the American people in the Department of Justice, and that is where a special prosecutor is absolutely vital.

I support the work of the Intelligence Committee in the Senate, and I trust the members of that committee to do their work responsibly. I believe as well that we should have a select committee--or, even better, an independent commission--that will make findings of fact, produce recommendations, have public proceedings, and then, in the interest of full transparency and disclosure, produce a report with recommendations that will help provide a path to avoid these kinds of attacks on our democracy in the future and potential collusion between Americans and those attacks.

I believe that an independent commission would serve a worthwhile purpose, but neither the Intelligence Committee, nor a select committee, nor an independent commission can do what is equally important, which is prosecute wrongdoers. None of these bodies, whether congressional or independent commission, can investigate criminal wrongdoing so as to assure an effective and successful prosecution. That work must be done with the FBI and supervision of an independent, special prosecutor who can investigate vigorously and independently and then take action and bring charges if they are warranted.

I support the investigation of the Intelligence Committee, which should do its work, the appointment of a select committee that can produce findings of fact and a report and recommendation,

and an independent commission that can do the same kind of public, transparent, open disclosure. A special prosecutor does not produce a report; they and the team will produce a prosecution, if it is warranted. They are the only ones who can prosecute.

We cannot stand idle while Russia interferes and threatens our political infrastructure, which now includes our electoral system. Neither can we stand idle while our Department of Justice is leaderless or, worse yet, has a prosecutor who also may be tainted by the fact that he reports to the Attorney General or to the President. The Attorney General has recused himself, with good reason, because he was implicated in allegations surrounding collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian interference.

The allegations of collusion are serious. They must be investigated, and the investigation and potential prosecution must be done by someone who is independent--a special prosecutor. Revelation upon revelation day after day leaves us with no choice. In fact, we had no choice well before now, but the disclosures that have surfaced just within the last hours and days confirm that justice will not be vindicated unless we have a special prosecutor. That is why I have chosen to block the nomination and confirmation of the Deputy Attorney General. I will consider doing it with other nominees as well. I feel so strongly--and I hope my colleagues do as well--that a special prosecutor is necessary to vindicate justice, to make sure that Americans have trust and confidence in our Department of Justice and in the ability of the United States to protect its democracy and the integrity of its electoral process.

Thank you, Mr. President.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.