Clean Air, Healthy Kids Act

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, here in America we hope that families will have the opportunity to build successful lives in preparation for a beautiful retirement. That involves many different factors. It involves the solvency of Social Security. It involves the foundation of a good, living-wage job. It involves, certainly, the question of whether, through one's life, they are able to save for retirement.

This has become more and more important over time because fewer and fewer jobs have a retirement pension plan. Without that, it is really incumbent on the individual to be able to succeed to put money aside, and we know how difficult it is for an ordinary working family to have the extra funds to be able to put into a retirement account. Certainly, we want to make that as simple and as easy as possible. But what we know is that the simplest strategy--which is to be able to save through your work, to be able to have funds automatically deducted from your paycheck so you never actually get it in your hands--is often unavailable.

According to one 2013 study, 40 percent of small business owners themselves had no retirement savings, 75 percent had no plan to fund their own retirement, and of those who are working for employers who hire and have 100 or fewer employees, more than 60 percent--62 percent of the workers--do not have access to a work-based retirement plan.

We can imagine the difference between going to work at a job where the employer says: Hey, we have a retirement plan. You just need to sign this document, and you will be part of it. Please sign up. After a few months, if you feel you can't afford to keep setting those funds aside, you can change what you are doing. You have that flexibility. You can choose between options for different types of investments. But it is all right there. It is all very easily accessible. All you have to do is do it. The difference between that and a situation where there is nothing in the workplace--no benefit in the workplace, no retirement structure--is that in that situation it becomes a much more complicated undertaking.

Fifty-five million Americans--nearly half of private sector workers-- work for employers that do not offer any form of workplace retirement saving or pension plan. Roughly 45 percent of working-age households, half of which are headed by someone between 45 and 65 years old, lack any type of retirement account asset.

So if there is no structure to make it simple to plan for retirement, it is more likely that one goes into those golden years without any form of gold; that is, without the resources in the bank to back up Social Security.

We know that more than half of the folks who are on Social Security depend on it for more than 90 percent of their income. Or, more simply stated, for more than half of Americans in retirement, Social Security is essentially their only source of support, and it is often not enough to maintain even the minimal essentials of life.

Why is it that so many businesses don't set up a workplace plan? What it

really boils down to is complexity for the employer. A lot of small businesses don't have a human resources person. They don't have an extra individual who can do the administrative work to set it up. Maybe the plan requires a match, and the employer isn't sure they will be able to afford a match. There are all sorts of reasons that this is complicated. It is difficult either financially or just in terms of additive overhead for a small business. So they don't set up the plan.

We know that if they had a plan, employers would participate. We know that because in States that have plans, the employers participate. In addition, the General Accounting Office did a study in 2015 which found that the overwhelming majority of workers would participate in an employer-sponsored retirement plan if they had the opportunity to do so.

So this brings us to the fact that many States are saying: Let's make it easier for employees. There are 30 States that are looking at the possibility of the State setting up a retirement plan that wouldn't be attached to a single employer, so that an individual could carry it with them. For example, imagine that your teenager has their first job serving yogurt--one of the jobs that my daughter had--or as a lifeguard at a local swimming pool or serving coffee--those first service jobs they get. What would happen if, from that first job, 3 percent of their income was placed automatically into a retirement account--a retirement account that they could control the options of, a retirement account where they could increase the amount of their income to go into it if they wanted, or a retirement account that they could always opt out of if they chose to do so. But if they were automatically enrolled, we know the vast majority of individuals stay in the plan. If you go, then, automatically from job to job to job--and in our economy that is the way it works; people don't sign up with one company and serve there for 30 or 40 years--in every job 3 percent was being automatically deducted. Then when you actually went into retirement, you would have a sizable nest egg to complement Social Security.

That is what States are looking at. That is what they are pursuing. In more than half of the country, States are considering legislation to create a retirement savings opportunity for small business employees who do not have a work-based plan. Seven States, including my home State of Oregon, are already working at implementing these plans. On July 1 of this year, Oregon is going to launch its plan with a voluntary pilot group, and then it is going to expand to employers with 10 or more workers in 2018 and finally to all employers in the State in 2019.

Under this plan, employees who do not have an employer-provided savings account will be allowed to save part of their paycheck in their own personally managed accounts, and it will be automatically deducted unless the employee decides to opt out. Once it expands to all employers, 800,000 Oregon workers are expected to have access to a State-sponsored retirement savings program. Again, this will be an automatic-in, opt-out strategy to make it really simple.

In Oregon, 95 percent of our businesses are made up of small businesses. More than half of our workers are employed by those small businesses. So this is a pretty good arrangement to facilitate this opportunity.

Now, here is something that we may not immediately think about. When an employee saves for their retirement and is, therefore, financially better off in retirement, it reduces the cost of government programs. Within the first decade after these plans are established, total State spending on Medicaid could drop by $5 billion. In Utah, a recent study found that the State would save $3.7 billion for five essential government support programs--not just Medicaid--over the course of 15 years.

When I first read about Medicaid costs dropping because of a retirement plan, I said: How does that work?

It turns out to be very simple. If you have saved money and are financially better off, you are not in a position where you would be in the Medicaid Program, thus reducing the number of people who are in it. This study found that over 10 years, for the States that are already working to implement plans, California would save more than half a billion dollars; Maryland would save more than $100 million; Connecticut and Oregon, about $60 million a piece; and Illinois, a quarter of a billion dollars. So that is just an interesting piece that we should be recognizing--that when families do better, not only do they do better, but they lower the cost of government programs, which I think many folks here, on both sides of the aisle, would say would be a terrific thing.

Then there is this principle of experimentation at the State level. Why would we in this Chamber, having failed to provide an automatic-in, opt-out opportunity as people move around the country to various jobs, having failed to do a Federal version of this, stop our municipalities and our States from experimenting to see if this is something that will increase the success of our families? Why would we stop a State from experimenting?

Now, I hear all the time here about States' rights. I hear all the time about how States are the place for experimentation, to see what works and what doesn't work, innovation. Give them the opportunity to try things. Well, this Congressional Review Act proposal says the opposite. It says: Let's stomp out experiments by our municipalities. Let's devastate and decree that you cannot experiment and innovate at the State level on a very significant challenge facing America. So whether you want families to succeed or whether you simply believe in the power of local innovation and opportunity, you should be against this proposal.

What this proposal is about is this: There is a twist in the national retirement law known as ERISA that an employer might possibly have liability related to an employee signing up for a State-sponsored or a municipality-sponsored account. Well, that pretty much puts a wet blanket over employers signing up under these State plans or under these local plans, because the thought that you might have liability for something you have no control over doesn't sound like a good place to be. So to correct or clarify this, a regulation was issued and it should be obvious why it is right, which is that the employer will not have liability over provisions of a State- or municipal-sponsored retirement account. They didn't set it up. The employer didn't advocate it. The employer is not choosing where the investments go within the account. They are not deciding which companies' retirement plans get to participate as options or whether there are even company retirement plans. The employer is not doing any of that. The employer is simply the host. The whole point of the plan is to make it very easy for the employer, because that has been the burden in the past of an employer- by-employer plan. In this case, it is just automatically set up.

In States like Oregon, they are setting up a pilot project, where employers are willing to experiment and be a part of it so they can learn from that. Then, they can design a better plan for larger small businesses, those that have more than 10 employees. Then, they can make it, after having worked the kinks out of it, work for everyone, including very small employers. If along the way they run into an obstacle, they can pause and work on that.

This is absolutely the best in policy strategy in America. Give municipalities, give States the opportunity to experiment, and on an issue that can help families thrive, help our young ones thrive.

I know that my son and my daughter are going to be better prepared for retirement and in a better financial position if, in every job they pursue in Oregon, they are automatically saving 3 percent of their income--or more if they choose to or less if they opt out. But certainly, the vast majority of workers, once in a plan, stay in the plan. It is kind of how it is with deductions on your Federal and State taxes. When it comes out of your payroll automatically, you get used to it, you adjust to it, and you say: Hey, that works.

So, to my colleagues, please oppose this Congressional Review Act proposition that will squash innovation by municipalities, and its companion will squash programs by States--programs that are very valuable, both for us to understand possible important policies to help set a platform for the success of our families, and it is very important

to the families themselves. Please vote no.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, the most important words in our Constitution are the first three words. Our Founders made sure that, when the Constitution was written, those were displayed--``We the People''--in super-sized font so that, generations later, we would not forget what our Constitution is all about.

Our Constitution was not crafted to create a government that would make decisions by and for the powerful. It was not crafted to create a government that would make decisions by and for the privileged. That was the power of the ``we the people'' vision, as President Lincoln so eloquently stated, ``a government of, by, and for the people.'' Well, that is the vision we have the responsibility of maintaining, and it is a vision that is facing a dramatic test in this coming week--a test that affects the integrity of this body, a test that affects the integrity of the Supreme Court.

Back in January of last year, a Supreme Court seat came open. A Supreme Court seat for which the President had a responsibility to nominate a replacement, a new Justice to serve on the Court. We here in the Senate had a responsibility--a responsibility to exercise advice and consent. That meant that we would vet the nominee, that we would research, have a committee hearing, have a committee vote, and then forward it to the floor, where we would have a floor debate. But for the very first time in the history of the United States of America, the majority party decided that they would not exercise their constitutional responsibility, that they would instead steal this seat from the Obama administration, wrap it up, pack it into a time capsule, and send it into the future, in hopes that they would be able to succeed in packing the Court by having a different President, a more conservative President, proceed to fill the vacancy.

I am going to go through the 16 cases in our history where there has been a vacancy during an election year, and in 15 cases, the Senate acted. But last year, this Chamber refused to act, for the first time, in trying to exercise a seat-stealing, Court-packing scheme, and that diabolical act against our Constitution will have its final chapter of discussion next week. I think it is important that the Members of the Senate understand the history of the United States of America and the setting in which this debate is going to occur.

If you read the Constitution from start to finish, nowhere does it say that the Senate has the option of refusing to consider a Supreme Court nominee in the final year of a Presidency. This strategy was announced within hours of Judge Scalia dying. And why would the majority choose to reject their responsibility under their oath of office? Why would they choose to do that? Certainly it wasn't because Merrick Garland wasn't qualified. He hadn't been nominated yet. Certainly it wasn't because there was a precedent because there was no precedent in U.S. history for stealing a Supreme Court seat.

Here is what transpired. The majority said: This might be a nominee who will fight for the ``we the people'' vision of our Constitution, and we don't want that because we are committed to a different vision-- a vision of government by and for the most powerful people in the United States of America--and we want to make sure that the Court has a 5-to-4 majority to keep turning the Constitution on its head, destroying the vision that this Constitution, our Constitution, was designed for.

Well, the President proceeded to carry out his responsibility despite the fact that the majority said: We are not going to consider your nomination because we are not going to honor our responsibilities under the Constitution.

Despite that, the President said he would honor his responsibility, and he nominated Merrick Garland on March 16.

The story here in the Chamber was that if he was on this floor, he would have plenty of votes, far more than 60 votes to be confirmed. So that kind of hardened the opposition, because there were more than 60 Senators who were going to say: Yes, let's embrace this mainstream judge who wants to fight for our ``we the people'' Constitution. But the leadership said no.

What have we seen unfold over the last few years of dark money ruling American campaigns? In 2014, we saw the Koch brothers decide that they wanted to control this Chamber, so they said: We are going to spend vast sums to elect a majority that will respond to our perspective as billionaires, coal and oil billionaires, kind of like a government by and for the powerful.

So they spent huge sums of money in Arkansas and in Louisiana and in North Carolina and in Iowa and in Colorado and in Alaska and in my home State of Oregon, and they won most of those States. Suddenly, there was the majority they had hoped for.

Then they sent a warning message to the Republican leadership in the form of this: In January 2015, the Koch brothers said: Pay attention because we plan to spend nearly $1 billion in the next election, 2 years from now, and if you cross us, you might know the consequences because we can spend money in primaries as well as in general elections.

That is the background on how the Senate majority decided to steal this seat for the first time in U.S. history.

Just to make sure we are checking all of our facts on this, let's take a look at those various vacancies. As I mentioned, there have been 16 in our history. In one group of nominations, those vacancies occurred after the election, so there was very little time for the Senate to act.

Nominee John Jay--President John Adams--was nominated on December 18. At that point in time, the new President took office in March, so there wasn't very much time, but nonetheless the Senate acted and confirmed the nominee, and, in kind of an interesting twist of fate, the nominee turned down the post.

When Ward Hunt was nominated by Ulysses Grant in December of 1872-- again, just a couple of months before the next President would come in--the Senate acted.

Let's take a look at William Woods. The nominee from President Rutherford Hayes was also nominated in December of that year, just months before the new President would come in, but nevertheless the Senate acted.

In all three cases, they confirmed the nominee within that short period of time. They debated. They vetted. They acted. They fulfilled their responsibility under the Constitution.

Now there is another group of nominees in an election year where the vacancy occurred before the election, but the nominee was nominated after the election, and there are four in that group. We have President John Quincy Adams, who nominated John Crittenden. The day he nominated him was in December of 1828--again, just a few months before the new President would take office--and in that case, it was proceeded to be acted on by the Senate. The Senate chose to postpone the action, but they acted. They took a vote. They decided.

There was Jeremiah Black, the nominee, in February 1861. There was a motion to proceed. The Senate voted, and they rejected it.

Then we have a nominee from Abraham Lincoln in 1864, and that nomination was confirmed.

Finally, under President Dwight Eisenhower, there was William Brennan, and that nomination was confirmed as well.

In all of these cases, even though the nomination occurred after the election and there was little time, the Senate acted.

There is a set of nine more nominations that occurred in an election year, and these are cases where both the vacancy occurred before the election and the nomination occurred before the election.

Nominee William Johnson under Thomas Jefferson. Final result: The Senate acted. They confirmed.

Edward King under President John Tyler. The Senate acted. They rejected that nomination, but they acted. They tabled it.

Edward Bradford under Millard Fillmore. They proceeded to again reject the nomination, but the Senate acted.

Melville Fuller--nominee under Grover Cleveland--was confirmed. And realize this was in May of that year.

George Shiras under Benjamin Harrison. He was confirmed. That happened in July that the nomination occurred.

Brandeis under Woodrow Wilson. He was nominated in January. Confirmed.

John Clarke, also Under Woodrow Wilson. Nominated in July. Confirmed.

All of these were before the election in a parallel case to the situation with Justice Scalia passing away and a nomination in the election year.

Benjamin Cardozo was nominated by Herbert Hoover. He was confirmed.

So there we have 16 cases--actually, I have only mentioned 15 so far--15 cases in our history in an election year, and in each and every case, the Senate acted--in each and every case except for the tragedy, the desecration of the Senate process that occurred last year.

Merrick Garland was nominated by Barack Obama in February. No action. The first no action in U.S. history. The first stolen seat in U.S. history.

Let's understand that this is politics out of control when Senators would ignore their oath of office, would proceed to engage in a Court- packing scheme and steal a Supreme Court seat. This is politics completely unhinged. This is driven by the dark money of the Koch brothers. This is the powerful, behind-the-scenes puppet master telling the Senate what to do because they cannot afford to have a Justice who hadn't been appropriately vetted by conservative think tanks to make sure how they will vote on Citizens United possibly get on the Supreme Court. Nobody knew how Merrick Garland would vote on Citizens United. On the Democratic side, we worried that he might sustain it. On the Republican side, they worried that he might strike it down and be a ``we the people'' Justice. But instead of engaging in responsible Senate action required by our oath of office, for the first time in U.S. history, the majority, driven by a powerful special interest, the Koch brothers, decided to steal the seat.

So that is the setting in which next week's debate will occur. We have heard some very self-righteous words coming from the majority side saying: Look how qualified he is. How could you possibly say there is anything wrong with this nomination?

Well, I asked my fellow colleagues to realize the reality of what they are engaged in, that they had a responsibility and that every Senate majority in U.S. history exercised that responsibility until last year. And it corresponds to this enormous growth of dark, secret money under Citizens United entering our campaigns. It corresponds to the threat that the Koch brothers made in January of 2015 that they were going to spend nearly $1 billion in the 2016 election.

One of our Republican colleagues said he thought the Senate should do their job. He thought we should hold a debate, we should hold a vote. And there was a tremendous pressure brought to bear on that colleague from the suppliers of this dark money, and then 3 days later he changed his position.

This is a corruption of the very foundation of our democracy, and that is why there is only one legitimate nominee who President Trump should put forward to end this act of theft, to honor the integrity of the responsibility of the Senate, and that is Merrick Garland. We don't know where he stands on lots of issues. He has been a judge who came right down the middle. He has been a judge whom everybody respected. He wasn't from the extreme. But the process of stealing the seat was to get a judge whom everyone knew where he stood, because they wanted to make sure that he would sustain Citizens United, that he would take the corporate side against the consumer time after time after time. This is why there is a tragedy unfolding right now. I urge the American people to pay attention because the very foundation of our democracy, of the integrity of our institutions are being shattered, degraded, and destroyed right before our eyes.

Those who care about the Constitution, those who care about the integrity of the Senate doing its job under its oath, those who care about the integrity of the Court must stand up and say no to this effort to pack the court.

One of the arguments colleagues made, not knowing the history of the United States, was that there just wasn't time. There was just not enough time to consider a nominee. So here is a little bit of information regarding time. Since the 1980s, every person appointed to the Supreme Court has been given a prompt hearing and a vote within 100 days. Since 1975, the average is 67 days.

So to those who said that this seat opened up in January and there wasn't time left to have the Senate exercise its responsibility, we can see that they were just presenting a falsehood, that there was plenty of time for the Senate to exercise its responsibility. To those who said that the nomination didn't come until March, there was still 10 months left. So from the time that Merrick Garland was nominated, 293 days were left in the administration.

For Kagan, consideration took 88 days; for Sotomayor, 67; for Alito, 83; for Roberts, 63; for Breyer, 74; and for Ginsberg, 51. Do we hear any numbers equivalent to 293 days?

Let's look at Thomas, 69 days, Kennedy at 65, Scalia himself at 85, Rehnquist at 89, and O'Connor at 33. They all fall into the same pattern of a couple of months for the paperwork to be done, the investigation to be completed, and the committee to hold hearings and to act. But there is Garland, with 293 days, and the Senate failing to act.

This simply reinforces the pretense put forward that there wasn't enough time, or that there was a tradition of not considering a nominee for a seat that became available in an election year, because it has happened 15 times previously in our history, and in all 15 times the Senate acted--every single one. So every argument put forward was phony, was wrong, and was based on falsehood. It was driven by dark money puppeteers of this Chamber wanting to make sure they could keep open their Citizens United money corrupting American campaigns and debasing our democratic Republic.

So to everyone who cares about the integrity of the Senate and the integrity of the Court, let this Senate know that they must return to respecting this institution and to respecting the Court. That means Merrick Garland must be the nominee until the Senate has acted on him, and the nominee before us must be rejected. To do anything else is to desecrate the integrity of this Court and this Chamber.

Mr. President, I have been very interested in the minority leader's comments here this morning. I have high regard for him. We have worked together on a wide variety of issues, but I have to say that he is leading a party right now that is doing completely the opposite of what Democrats have done in the past when Republicans have had the Presidency and have had the privilege of appointing people to the Court. Frankly, it has become kind of a war that we really don't need and something that literally, I think, is demeaning to the Senate and to this country.

I venture to say that it would be very difficult for anybody to find a better nominee for the Supreme Court than Neil Gorsuch. I can't say that the Heritage Foundation was the one that carried the weight with regard to the choice of Neil Gorsuch. Now, the Federalist Society did weigh in rather heavily, and there were around 21 absolutely top judges and lawyers who were on that list. I venture to say that anybody would have a very difficult time finding anything to criticize about that list other than on a partisan basis. Unfortunately for the Democrats, they lost the election.

Now keep in mind, all the current majority leader was saying was that we just weren't going to go with a Supreme Court Justice during an intensely hard-fought Presidential election year. In this century, that has been the rule.

The majority leader, Senator McConnell, knew that it was very likely, in the eyes of almost every pollster, that Hillary Clinton would win, and although he and I believed that nominee was a good, reasonable, moderate Democrat, we were quite sure that if Hillary got elected, she would not pick him. We were even working on trying to find a way so that she would have to pick him rather than pick another totally leftwing person for the Court.

Unfortunately for the Democrats, Donald Trump proved to be a formidable candidate for President and won the election and, interestingly enough, as is his right as President, nominated Neil Gorsuch for the U.S. Supreme Court.

Whether you are a Democrat or a Republican, I would venture to say that it would be very difficult to find any candidate for the Supreme Court in this century who is any better than Neil Gorsuch. Gorsuch is going to apply the law as written, not as he conjures up his ideas of what it should be. He is not going to do that. He is going to apply the law as written. He did that as a circuit court of appeals judge on the Tenth Circuit, my circuit. You would be hard-pressed to find a better qualified person. In fact, I do not think you could find a better qualified person for the Supreme Court than Neil Gorsuch.

So what is all the whining about? They lost the election. They knew that this was going to be a big deal if they won and that the Republicans would pretty well have to go along with whomever they chose, but President Trump won the election, and he has a right to pick who should go on the Supreme Court. In this case, I think he picked the most qualified person in the country for the Court. Yes, he is conservative. Yes, he came up the hard way. Yes, he is not likely to be a liberal on the Court, but I would have to say that anybody this President would choose would not likely be a liberal on the Court. In this case, the President chose one of the leading people in this country, one of the greatest lawyers in this country, one of the finest judges in this country, who has a record of working with Democrats on the bench, to become his choice for the U.S. Supreme Court.

I know what is wrong with the Democrats on this. They lost, and it is a hard thing for them, and I do not blame them. It is a hard thing because they were so sure they would control this nominee to the Supreme Court and probably two to five more had Hillary Clinton been elected for two terms. But that is not the way the American people chose to vote.

I commend the American people for realizing that these things are very important. I have to say, in that last election, probably the single most important issue that drove it toward Donald Trump was, who is going to pick the Justices to the U.S. Supreme Court?

Republicans know and President Trump knows that he is not going to be able to put ideologues on the Court, and Neil Gorsuch is anything but an ideologue. He is as fine a judge as we have in this country, albeit conservative in nature. He has as fine an academic background as anybody on the Court--ever. On top of all of that, he is a terrific human being, a good husband, father, and a terrific judge on the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals.

To be honest with you, I thought it was really nice to have somebody picked from the West who might bring a western perspective of freedom into the judicial system, and I have no doubt that Neil Gorsuch will do that. To make this a big political issue, it seems to me, is beyond the pale, and it does bother me a great deal.

On another matter, Mr. President, by any measure, our efforts in this Congress to repeal harmful regulations through the Congressional Review Act have been historic. Prior to this year, only one CRA resolution-- Congressional Review Act resolution--had ever been passed by Congress and signed by the President. We are an overregulated country like never before. This year, we have already successfully rolled back 11 regulations that were proposed and finalized under the previous administration. That is truly remarkable. I think our success in this endeavor can be attributed to a few factors.

First, in its last year, the Obama administration was particularly aggressive in its regulatory efforts. A number of regulations were finalized after the election, right up until the day President Trump was inaugurated. In fact, the regulation at issue today was finalized on January 19, the day before the inauguration. In other words, the Obama administration left Congress

and the new administration with a target-rich environment for CRA resolutions. There is no doubt what they were doing: They were scrambling to get as many changes as they could instead of allowing the new administration to take over.

Another important factor has been the realization by the American people that our economy--our workers, our businesses--is grossly overregulated. The regulatory state extracts hundreds of billions of dollars from our economy, much of it needlessly so. These CRA resolutions are part of a much broader effort to undo some of that damage.

Today I am pleased to be able to express my support for H.J. Res. 67, which will likely be the 12th CRA resolution we will pass this year. This resolution, once passed and signed, will roll back a last-second Department of Labor regulation that eliminated longstanding Federal protections for the retirement savings of private sector workers.

Specifically, the regulation builds off of a prior regulation that gave States a ``safe harbor'' from the protections workers have under ERISA if the government mandates that employers who do not offer retirement plans either set one up or join the government plan. These government-run plans do not have to be portable, nor do they have to permit workers to withdraw their savings at any time.

The resolution we are debating now would roll back the regulation that provided this authority to municipalities, such as New York City. Hopefully, sometime soon, the Senate will also debate and pass the CRA resolution relating to the original regulation, the one that focused on States, like California and Illinois.

Combined, these regulations encourage State and municipal governments to impose conflicting and burdensome mandates on private sector businesses and to bar private workers' access to their retirement accounts, and they would let States invest private workers' retirement assets, ignoring provisions in Federal pension law that require prudent pension investment practices and that ban kickbacks and self-dealing. Think about that.

To be blunt, places like New York City should not just get a pass on investing potentially billions of dollars in private worker retirement assets without regard to Federal rules that require prudent investment practices--rules designed to protect the retirement nest eggs of hard- working Americans.

Now, do not get me wrong--I am all for increasing coverage for employees in workplace retirement programs. In fact, it is something I have been working on for some time with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle.

Last Congress, the Senate Finance Committee, which I chair, unanimously approved the Retirement Enhancement and Savings Act of 2016, which is a bipartisan bill that will increase voluntary retirement savings. It includes a number of provisions from a bill I introduced a few years before that, one that received high marks from analysts and stakeholders in the retirement-security community. My bill and others like it provide workable, voluntary solutions to give more workers access to retirement plans. This approach is far better than the one taken by the Obama administration and former Labor Secretary Tom Perez, which would purposefully take us down the path toward government-mandated and government-run retirement plans.

The retirement savings system that has been in place for decades now is one of the clearest examples we have to demonstrate the superiority of the free market over government mandates. Private retirement savings vehicles, including 401(k)s and individual retirement accounts, which have been encouraged but not mandated by Federal tax laws, have produced nearly $14 trillion--that is trillion dollars--in wealth and savings for the middle class.

I know some have concerns about the federalism implications in rolling back these Department of Labor regulations. However, let's be clear: Prior to the implementation of these regulations, States were free to pass laws to encourage retirement savings opportunities for private sector workers, and they will be free to do so after this CRA resolution is signed by President Trump. They will simply have to observe the longstanding rules and protections that have been in place under Federal pension laws, including the ban on self-dealing and the duty to invest prudently, and they will not be able to offer plans on an uneven playing field that favors government retirement plans over those produced in a free, private sector market.

Unfortunately, I have to wonder why States and municipalities want to do away with these protections in the first place. I also have to wonder why they think they will be able to produce better results than the private retirement savings system, which thus far has been an unqualified success, benefiting workers and employers alike. I also have to wonder how some of my colleagues who value consumer financial protection, as I do, would want to see the continuation of rules that erode protections for workers and future retirees.

The first step in undoing these harmful regulations is with the passage of H.J. Res. 67. Toward that end, I urge all of my colleagues to vote in favor of this resolution.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to complete my remarks today.

Mr. President, I want to compliment the distinguished Senator from Wyoming for the wonderful remarks he has made. They are right on point.

Last week's Judiciary Committee hearing on Judge Neil Gorsuch's Supreme Court nomination made two things abundantly clear. The first is that Judge Neil Gorsuch is a superb, highly qualified nominee. Second, with the possibility of the first partisan filibuster in the history of a Supreme Court nominee, I have come to the conclusion that some Democrats would do almost anything to keep us from having an impartial, independent judiciary.

As I explained at the start of the hearing last week, qualifications for judicial service include both legal experience and judicial philosophy. Legal experience looks at the nominee's past accomplishments in the law, while judicial philosophy anticipates the nominee's future judicial service.

Judge Gorsuch's legal experience is among the most impressive that I have seen in my 40 years on the Judiciary Committee. He is truly an impressive man. This is no doubt why the American Bar Association easily and unanimously gave Judge Gorsuch its highest ``well qualified'' rating, the highest rating it can give. I certainly have had my differences with the ABA, because at times they appear to let political or ideological considerations influence their rating. I mention their rating now because my Democrat colleagues, including Senators Leahy and Schumer, have called the ABA's rating ``the gold standard'' for evaluating judicial nominees.

The ABA testified about their rating at last week's hearing, explaining that they sought input from more than 5,000 people throughout the legal world who would have personal knowledge about Judge Gorsuch. That is about as broad a group as I have ever heard of. They assembled 40 scholars and nationally recognized Supreme Court practitioners to review his judicial opinions, other writings, and speeches. The ABA's 1,000-page report concluded that Judge Gorsuch meets the ``very high standards of integrity, professional competence, and judicial temperament.''

Editorial boards across America took notice as Judge Gorsuch demonstrated such qualities to everyone.

The Denver Post said that Judge Gorsuch ``possesses the fairness, independence, and opened-mindedness necessary to make him a marvelous addition to the Supreme Court.''

The Detroit News said that Judge Gorsuch ``is proving himself an even tempered, deeply knowledgeable nominee who should be confirmed by the Senate.''

The Chicago Tribune said that Judge Gorsuch's critics ``suggest that they fear Gorsuch won't follow the law, but the opposite is more true. They fear he will. Gorsuch should be confirmed.''

The second and more important qualification for judicial service is the nominee's judicial philosophy or his understanding of the power and proper role of judges in our system of government. This is ground zero in the conflict over the appointment of judges. America's Founders were clear about their design for the judicial branch as part of the system of government they established. Central in this design is the separation of powers. Government power is divided among three branches and is supposed to stay that way. As a result, what the legislature does in making law is designed to be different than what the judiciary does in interpreting and applying that law. This design for government is necessary for the liberty that we all enjoy. Change the design and sacrifice the liberty it makes possible.

Specifically for our purpose today, this design provides the job description for judges. They interpret and apply written laws such as statutes and the Constitution to decide cases, and they must do so impartially, deliberately removing their own views, preferences, or agendas from the judicial equation. That is exactly the kind of Justice that Neil Gorsuch will be and has been. Professor Jonathan Turley, a well-known constitutional law expert, told the Judiciary Committee that, like Justice Scalia, Judge Gorsuch has a well-defined judicial philosophy with a record of well-considered writings both as a judge and as an author. In short, concluded Professor Turley, ``we have a very good idea of who Judge Gorsuch is and the type of Justice he will be.'' He will be an impartial Justice who takes the law as he finds it, applies it objectively to decide cases, and leaves the decision about changing the law to the people and their elected representatives.

This brings me to the second thing that the Judiciary Committee hearing revealed last week. I said at the start of the hearing that the confirmation process reveals the kind of judge that Senators want to see appointed. And it certainly did. Judge Gorsuch's opponents seem determined to oppose an impartial and independent judiciary. In fact, it looks to me like they want the opposite--a judiciary that is partial and dependent. They want judges to decide cases with deliberate regard to the parties and with determined attention to the political interests that their decisions will promote.

This is the 14th Supreme Court confirmation process in which I have participated, and I cannot remember Senators opposing more strongly the basic notion that judges must impartially apply the law.

It is important to point out, of course, that Democrats' objection to judicial independence has, to be charitable, not always been consistent. In 2009, for example, Senator Schumer introduced Justice Sonya Sotomayor to the Judiciary Committee for her confirmation hearing. Senator Schumer was a distinguished member of the committee at the time. He praised Justice Sotomayor for, as he described it, carefully applying the law even when it meant ruling against ``so- called sympathetic litigants.'' That was then. This is now. Last week, Democrats turned the Schumer standard on its head, cherry-picking a few of Judge Gorsuch's thousands of cases to criticize him for ruling against sympathetic litigants.

Every Federal judge takes an oath to administer justice without respect to persons and to discharge his judicial

duties impartially. The ABA's Model Code of Judicial Conduct spells out that this includes a duty not to make commitments about issues that may come up in future cases.

When Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg appeared before the Judiciary Committee in 1993, she took a firm stand. She said: ``A judge sworn to decide impartially can offer no forecasts, no hints, for that would show not only disregard for the specifics of the particular case, it would display disdain for the entire judicial process.''

Every Supreme Court nominee of either party has taken this same position. To me, this simply shows how much these nominees, most of whom are sitting judges already, care about their impartiality and the fairness it provides to litigants.

I think it would baffle our fellow citizens to suggest that judges should, in effect, prejudge cases before they even come up or publicly take sides on issues that could later require their judicial decision. Our constituents would think it crazy to say that judges should not keep an open mind or that judges need not be impartial.

Today, however, Democrats say they will oppose Judge Gorsuch's Supreme Court nomination unless he spells out those views, unless he provides those same forecasts and previews. In other words, Democrats consider the impartiality they applauded in Justice Ginsburg to be a liability in Judge Gorsuch. To most people, fairness, openmindedness, and impartiality are qualities we need in our judges. To some Democrats, they are obstacles to be overcome, I might say, on the way to a fully politicized judiciary. What do my Democratic colleagues have to fear from judges who are truly impartial? I mean, I don't see where the argument really is.

Another tactic last week was to talk about people who had not been nominated and who were not even in the room. Committee Democrats, for example, talked about President Trump and a few of his advisers more than 80 times over just 3 days. They also decried the efforts of grassroots activists working on behalf of Judge Gorsuch's nomination. It mattered not that the nominee had no connection whatsoever with those particular efforts. No, Democrats warned of the ``extreme special interest groups'' that supposedly advised the President about filling this Supreme Court vacancy. They talked about so-called ``dark money'' contributed to such groups by undisclosed donors.

I would not go so far as to directly accuse anyone of hypocrisy or of changing their tune based on ideology or political party. I would not do that. I would observe, however, that one group invited by Democrats to testify against the Gorsuch nomination was particularly vocal about condemning ``big money corrupting our politics.'' It turns out that this group was cited by the Center for Public Integrity in January as an opponent of dark money even though the group itself accepts shadowy funds and refuses to fully disclose its own donors.

Next week, the Judiciary Committee will report the Gorsuch nomination to the Senate floor, where the same tactics will be in full view. Democrats are already claiming that the threshold for confirming Supreme Court nominees is 60 votes. Where did they get that from? They may wish this were the rule, at least for Republican nominees, but they know that is not true. They know it.

Democrats have been playing this game for years, embracing one standard when it suits them, only to do an about-face later. It may be just a coincidence, but the flip-flopping follows an eerily similar pattern to election cycles when different parties control the White House. But, like I said, that may be just a coincidence.

What I do know is that Senator Schumer voted 25 times to filibuster judicial nominees of President George W. Bush. Then, when nomination filibusters had declined under President Obama, he voted to abolish them. Now, with a Republican in the White House, he is back on the filibuster train. He was against judicial filibusters before he was for them before he was against them.

Why not have a vigorous debate followed by an up-or-down vote? The 1987 nomination of Robert Bork was controversial, yet there was no cloture vote, even though he was defeated. The 1991 nomination of Clarence Thomas was controversial, yet there was no cloture vote, even though he was confirmed.

Republicans have never even attempted a partisan filibuster of a Supreme Court nominee. Most recently, then-Majority Leader Harry Reid said in 2010 that he would file cloture on the Supreme Court nomination of Elena Kagan. Republican leaders, including our former colleague Senator Jeff Sessions, told him that filing cloture would be completely unnecessary.

The truth is that no Supreme Court nominee has ever been defeated by a partisan filibuster. The only reason Democrats are choosing to push us in that direction is that their leftwing groups have told them to do so.

Judge Gorsuch's approach to judging empowers the American people and their elected representatives. It does so by taking seriously what they do. He takes the words of the statutes they enact and the Constitution they established as having substance and actually meaning what they say. That is the respect that our system of separated branches requires that each give the other.

Last week's hearing confirmed for all to see that Judge Gorsuch has the legal experience and judicial philosophy and temperament to make him fully qualified to serve on the Supreme Court. It also exposed the fact that some of my colleagues see an impartial and independent judiciary as a threat rather than as an indispensable support for our liberty.

I have been kind of shocked at the turnaround by some of our Democratic colleagues--not all of them but some of them--that how, if it is their judgeship nominee, these rules do not apply that they are now trying to apply to Judge Gorsuch.

I have seen a lot of nominees in my day and an awful lot of nominees to the Supreme Court. I have never seen one any better than Judge Neil Gorsuch. He is totally prepared for the job. He is an outstanding lawyer with great experience. He is a brilliant judge, someone who will enhance the Supreme Court and not deteriorate it, who deserves to be on the Supreme Court. Thank goodness the President has seen fit to put him there.

I hope our colleagues will think it through because we should not be politicizing these judgeships like has been done recently. Frankly, we should never politicize the Supreme Court nomination process. It is not just because the President is a Republican; it is because that is the way I have always approached it. I think that is the way most everybody in this body has always approached it.

I hope people will think it through and vote for Neil Gorsuch. He deserves their vote. He will be a great Justice on the Supreme Court. He is going to make it one way or the other, and I hope my colleagues on the other side realize that and will dispense with some of this garbage that has been used against Judge Gorsuch.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I rise to talk about the continuing challenge that our agricultural communities face across this country.

Just a couple of weeks ago, I came to the floor and cited a Wall Street Journal article with the headline: ``The Next American Farm Bust Is Upon Us.'' Living in eastern Colorado, in a purely 100 percent agricultural community, I understand that when there is a downturn in the ag economy, it does not affect businesses on Main Street later that week or later that month; it affects them that very same day. He is not just somebody who is going in to buy a bag of seed or somebody who is going to the local implement dealer to buy a tractor. He is somebody who decides he is not going to be able to buy that pair of blue jeans that he thought he would or that piece of equipment he needed to help fix the fence. It means that the entire economy in towns like Yuma, CO, Burlington, CO, and Dove Creek, CO, are going to suffer enormously. That is why it is important that we continue the conversation in the U.S. Senate about what is happening in agriculture across this country.

I recognize that many people, when they think of Colorado, probably do not think of farms and ranches on the flatlands and prairies. They probably think more of Kansas for that than they do Colorado. If you look at Colorado, it is more than just snowcapped peaks; it is incredible agricultural diversity as well.

According to the 2016 National Agricultural Statistics Survey, Colorado ranks in the top 10 in production for the following agriculture commodities: barley, beans, sweet corn, alfalfa, potatoes, millet, sorghum, sunflowers, wheat, cabbage, cantaloupe, onions, cattle, lamb, and wool. Colorado is one of the top 10 producers in those commodities. It is a remarkable list that shows the diversity of Colorado from the plains to the mountains and the incredible production levels that we have achieved.

One of the goals I have had in the Senate, of course, is to help make sure that we have the right policies to support our farmers and ranchers throughout Colorado who are producing everything from barley to potatoes. I want to make sure that we work to add even more crops to this list of the top 10 in order to strengthen the agricultural industry in Colorado.

As I mentioned a few weeks ago when I came to the floor to talk about that crisis, the Wall Street Journal article highlighted a story from a farmer in Kansas. I recently talked to a farmer in eastern Colorado who is getting paid $3.21 for a bushel of corn, but to pay the bills, his break-even point on that bushel of corn--the amount of money that it took to make that corn bushel--was $3.92 cents. So he was getting paid $3.21, and it cost him $3.92. That is not the right side of an equation to be on if you are in business and, particularly, if you are hoping to pass that business on to future generations.

I think it is important that the Senate talk about commodity prices and that we talk about the impact that increased Federal regulations have had which make it more difficult for that farmer to survive, that have driven up the cost of doing business, that have driven up the cost that you need to be paid per bushel of corn so that you can help make ends meet.

I talk about barriers to exports and limited financing options. Those are four things that we have to lay out--commodity prices--and deal with. We have to make sure that we are decreasing the number of Federal regulations. We have to make sure that we remove barriers to export and allow agriculture to export. We have to make sure that we are removing any obstacles to the financing that a farmer or a rancher may have, particularly if the economy continues to deteriorate in our countryside, and we have to make sure that we have certainty in ag policy and certainty in regulations. The farm bill conversations continue. Let's make sure that we provide the certainty to our ag communities that they deserve and, quite frankly, demand.

According to the 2017 Colorado Business Economic Outlook--and this is an incredible statistic--net farm and ranch incomes are projected to be down almost 80 percent since the records that were set in 2011. By 80 percent, net farm and ranch incomes are projected to be down. An 80 percent drop in just a few years is devastating for rural communities. I believe the exact numbers in Colorado are something like going from $1.8 billion in farm income to a little over $300 million in farm income just over a matter of a few years.

While we have done a good job of addressing regulatory concerns, we have to make sure that we are doing a good job of addressing continued trade opportunities in this country as well. Corn and wheat prices are hitting 10-year lows. The price is so low that it costs farmers more to produce the crop, as I mentioned, than it is worth on the market. You do not have to be an economist to figure out that that is not going to let you stay in business for much longer.

Simply put, we have a lot of people who are worried in Colorado and across this country for agriculture and our rural communities, which are dependent on their farms and ranches. The Presiding Officer is from the great State of Iowa--a leader in this country when it comes to agriculture. Whether you live in the Eastern Plains of Colorado or in the great State of Iowa, the fact is we have to provide that leadership on a global stage to make sure that our ag communities survive and thrive.

Earlier this year, I sent a letter to the Colorado Farm Bureau that solicited feedback on what Congress and the Federal Government could do to support Colorado agriculture. In their response, I received a number of recommendations from the Colorado Farm Bureau and a number of organizations that they reached out to to respond to my request and my question.

On the list, of course, was regulatory reform--one of the four pillars that we have to address in order to have successful agriculture in this country. Their concern is that overregulation creates uncertainty in regulations like the waters of the United States and the BLM 2.0 rules.

The good news is that, with regard to both of these rules, we have been able to roll them back. According to the Colorado Farm Bureau, the waters of the United States regulation threatened to add additional regulatory compliance requirements to thousands of stream miles and thousands of acres of agricultural land.

To put that in layman's terms, it basically would have said: Hey, you, the Federal Government, you are in charge of every molecule of water.

That is not good for agriculture. Thankfully, the administration has said: No, we are going to stop that, and we are going to repeal it. Courts across this country had actually put in stays.

The Presiding Officer from the great State of Iowa--our colleague, Joni Ernst--was a leader when it came to stopping the waters of the United States regulation. Luckily, we have seen that regulation being stopped in its tracks.

In Colorado, two-thirds of waterways were identified as what is known as

``intermittent flow.'' That means that they do not have water in them year round, that, part of the year, they are dry. Yet they would have been subject to a regulation known as the waters of the United States, even though they did not have water in them. That is the absurdity of the Federal Government. So I am glad that we are able to start rolling back these regulations.

At the same time, the Bureau of Land Management had started a process known as its BLM 2.0 rulemaking process, which is a rule that they had issued that they thought would deal with complex permitting issues and land use decisions. Unfortunately, what this rule would have done instead is take away access to thousands of acres of Federal land that were used for grazing. Even more disturbing, it would have given somebody in downtown New York City just as much say over the land in Moffat County, CO, as a Moffat County commissioner--somebody who lives there--amongst various agencies in the Federal Government that oversee thousands of acres of public lands. That, too, was overturned by the U.S. Senate.

In fact, if you look at the total number of regulations that the administration and that the U.S. Congress has been able to overturn, we are approaching $60 billion worth of regulatory relief that we have been able to give to the American people; $60 billion worth of regulations have been taken off the backs of hard-working Americans and has allowed them to do their jobs easier, allowed them to make ends meet easier, allowed them to breathe easier when it comes to job creation and job opportunity.

I am very glad that we saw the BLM 2.0 rule repealed, which gives our people in Colorado a little bit more of a chance to have a say in what happens in their front yards and their backyards. Of course, the waters of the United States has to continue to be something that we stop as we move forward.

There are other positive steps we should take to give our producers additional regulatory certainty. I know there is more that we can do, and I hope to hear from our Nation's farmers and ranchers and our farmers and ranchers in Colorado on how Congress and the Federal Government can help.

So I use this opportunity to make an appeal to people across the country in order to hear from farmers and ranchers, whether you are in the Eastern Plains of Colorado or on the Western Slope of Colorado or in the great State of Iowa or Kansas or anywhere in between and outside the State of Colorado--inside and outside--of the things that we can be doing, such as with trade policy, regulatory policy, financial services opportunities, making sure we have farm bill programs that are working. Back in my office, we want to hear about these ideas and about thoughts moving forward on these important issues so that we can have an agricultural community that thrives and so that we can make sure that, when we talk about bringing generations of farmers and ranchers back to the farm and the ranch, we will get their ideas on how best to do that.

This week, I will be sending letters to the Colorado Agriculture Council, which is made up of organizations across the agricultural spectrum in Colorado, as well as to Don Brown, who is the commissioner of the Colorado Department of Agriculture, on what else Congress and the Federal Government can do to help support this industry. Also, there is Julie McCaleb, the Colorado Agriculture Council chair.

Basically, I will be writing: Hey, whether it is regulations or legislation, it is important that the administration and Congress understand the impact their policies will have on agriculture. I look forward to hearing from you, your member organizations, and farmers and ranchers throughout the State on how we can work together to ensure Colorado agriculture continues to be effectively represented in Washington.

We will be sending this letter, of course, to Commissioner Don Brown. Commissioner Brown is from my hometown. He is a corn farmer and a cattleman. He is somebody who understands firsthand the hard work and challenges that go into making ends meet in agriculture. He also understands the suffering that we are seeing in the farmland right now and that some people may be at their wits' end in terms of trying to deal with their financial struggles.

We will be sending these letters out. I encourage people--farmers, ranchers, and leaders in counties--to contact my office and give us their ideas on how we can turn this ``could be coming'' crisis around so that we can actually start improving and growing agriculture again and so that we can make sure that we lead Colorado's diverse agricultural economy into a better state than it is today--in a better place than it is today--in terms of the economy.

Here, in the Senate, I believe that same bipartisan support exists for all of us to be reaching out to our communities and making sure that we hear from the heartland of America what we can do to help struggling farmers and ranchers.

I thank the Senator for her leadership in agriculture.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I come to the floor once again today to talk about the confirmation of Judge Neil Gorsuch to the U.S. Supreme Court.

In the 235 years of our Nation's history with the Constitution, there has never been a successful partisan filibuster of a Supreme Court Justice. What I mean by that is this: No Supreme Court nominee has ever been rejected by a partisan filibuster on the floor of the Senate. Now, sure, we can argue about the 1968 bipartisan attempt to make sure that then-Associate Justice Abe Fortas wasn't elevated to the Chief Justice position.

What this Chamber is facing today isn't a question of whether we will abide by the Biden rule. The Biden rule, of course, was when Joe Biden said: During the last term of the outgoing President, when the office is up for election, we are not going to confirm any nominees. This isn't an argument over whether Chuck Schumer was right when Senator Chuck Schumer said: Heck, over the last couple of years of the Bush administration, we are not going to allow a Justice to be confirmed.

That is not what we are arguing about today. We are arguing about whether a brilliant legal mind, a judge who has proven incredible legal temperament over the last several months since his nomination, a judge who has agreed 97 percent of the time with the majority decisions of the court, should receive an up-or-down vote.

Have no doubt that this is a historic opportunity for this Chamber to come together to prove that we believe in that 230-year precedent of confirming Supreme Court Justices. This is an opportunity we have to come together on a judge who just 11 years ago was confirmed unanimously by voice vote. There was no opposition 11 years ago to Judge Gorsuch when he was confirmed to be placed on the Tenth Circuit Court, which is based in Denver. Now, the Denver-based court, the Tenth Circuit Court, covers about 20 percent of our Nation's land mass. It is a huge, huge area. This is a court that deals with public lands cases. This is a court that deals with water issues, complex public lands issues, and Tribal issues. This is a judge who has been a part of 2,700 opinions, voting 97 percent of the time with the majority of the court.

Now, the majority of the court aren't all George W. Bush or George H.W. Bush or Ronald Reagan nominees. The nominees in the Tenth Circuit Court are bipartisan justices. It is filled with Democratic and Republican appointees. That is the Tenth Circuit Court, with whom Judge Gorsuch has worked. Judge Gorsuch has been somebody known as a feeder judge. A feeder judge is somebody that the Supreme Court--when they are looking to select clerks to help the Justices do their work--looks to, like Judge Gorsuch, to provide them with law clerks to help them at the Supreme Court. They do that because he is an incredible and outstanding jurist, somebody who has the respect on both sides of the aisle, Republican and Democrat. That is why he is a feeder judge. That is why he was confirmed 11 years ago by a bipartisan body of Senators.

In the last couple of weeks, we have seen days' worth of hearings where each Senator has been able to speak for an hour or so, questioning Judge Gorsuch, days' worth of hearings where the American people witnessed as Judge Gorsuch laid out his legal philosophy and his temperament, and where he displayed the even temperament we need on a Supreme Court--the kind of temperament that not only is able to work with colleagues but understand complex legal cases. And 11 years ago his confirmation was so noncontroversial that when it came to his confirmation, Senator Lindsey Graham was the only one who showed up. He was the only one at the confirmation hearing. That is how noncontroversial it was. What a difference a court makes.

Now, let's talk about some of the Senators who supported him, or at least didn't object to him, 11 years ago. Then, Minority Leader Chuck Schumer didn't oppose Judge Gorsuch of the Tenth Circuit Court. Senator Leahy, a member of the Judiciary Committee, did not object to Judge Gorsuch. Senator Feinstein, another member of the Judiciary Committee, didn't oppose Neil Gorsuch. Senator Durbin, the minority whip, did not oppose Judge Neil Gorsuch 11 years ago. Senator Cantwell, Senator Carper, Senator Menendez, Senator Murray--none of them opposed Judge Gorsuch's confirmation to the Tenth Circuit Court. Senator Nelson, Senator Reed, Senator Stabenow, Senator Wyden--all of them here today. None of them objected to Neil Gorsuch.

It is even more than that. Then-Senator Barack Obama did not object to Judge Gorsuch's confirmation. Then-Senator Hillary Clinton didn't object to Judge Gorsuch's nomination. Then-Senator Joe Biden helped pass his confirmation, his appointment, and made sure it cleared on a voice vote.

To hear the partisan bickering here is extremely disappointing and disingenuous. So I hope this Chamber will do what we do best in this country, and that is to come together on issues of doing our job of confirming a Supreme Court Justice after spending the past several months complaining that the Supreme Court wasn't filled.

This judge should receive bipartisan support, as he did 11 years ago. I guess the question has to be asked of people who are now opposing Judge Gorsuch today, who either supported or did not object to him 11 years ago: Did they not do their work 11 years ago? Did they not realize he was a bad judge? Or has the time of politics changed? Or are we just dealing with a President whom they have decided they don't want to have a Supreme Court Justice from? I guess that is what has perhaps changed the most over the past 11 years, because there is not really a narrative we can point to for a reason of why they should oppose him, other

than people just deciding that the politics of the now require it, and that is incredibly disappointing.

If we look at Judge Gorsuch's statements, he talks about Justice Scalia's vision of the good and faithful judge. I think it is a worthy one that we focus on because of what it means to Judge Gorsuch--soon to be Justice Gorsuch--to be a good and faithful judge:

It seems to me that the separation of legislative and

judicial powers isn't just a formality dictated by the

Constitution. Neither is it just about ensuring that two

institutions with basically identical functions are balanced

one against the other.

To the founders, the legislative and judicial powers were

distinct by nature and their separation was among the most

important liberty-protecting devices of constitutional

design, an independent right of the people essential to the

preservation of all other rights later enumerated in the

Constitution and its amendments.

Now consider . . . if we allowed the judge to act like a

legislature. Unconstrained by the bicameralism and

presentment hurdles of Article I, the judge would need only

his own vote, or those of just a few colleagues, to revise

the law willy-nilly in accordance with his preferences and

the task of legislating would become a relatively simple

thing.

Notice, too, how hard it would be to revise this so-easily-

made judicial legislation to account for changes in the world

or to fix mistakes. Unable to throw judges out of office in

regular elections, you'd have to wait for them to die before

you'd have any chance of change. And even then you'd find

change difficult, for courts cannot so easily undo their

errors given the weight they afford precedent.

Notice finally how little voice the people would be left in

a government where life-appointed judges are free to

legislate alongside elected representatives.

The very idea of self-government would seem to wither to

the point of pointlessness.

Indeed, it seems that for reasons just like these Hamilton

explained that ``liberty can have nothing to fear from the

judiciary alone,'' but that it ``ha[s] everything to fear

from [the] union'' of the judicial and legislative powers. .

. .

That is the explanation that Judge Gorsuch has given to Justice Scalia's good and faithful judge--a judge who believes that the judicial branch is the guardian of the Constitution to take a decision or a question before them to the place the law leads them to, not to the place where politics sends them or politics demands them or personal opinions and beliefs dictate.

We have heard Judge Gorsuch say he believes that a judge who personally believes or agrees with every opinion he reaches is probably a bad judge. It is because Judge Gorsuch knows that once you put on the robe, you don't follow your personal opinion. You follow the law. That is the guarding of the Constitution that the Federalist Papers talked about.

So that is the kind of nominee we are dealing with--a nominee who understands the separation of powers and who understands the role of the judiciary, the role of the legislative branch, and the role of the executive. In fact, he believes that the executive branch has been empowered too greatly and that we should once again have separate but equal branches of government balanced in power.

I think that is a good judge to place on the Court--a judge who is clearly mainstream, a judge who clearly has the temperament to work with colleagues to make our country proud.

Certainly as a fourth-generation Coloradan, I am very excited Judge Gorsuch has been nominated by the President. In addition to the bipartisan support Judge Gorsuch received here 11 years ago, he also has tremendous bipartisan support back home in Colorado. In fact, I have a letter here from Jim Lyons, who was a personal friend and lawyer for President Bill Clinton. It is a letter to Senator Grassley, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, dated February 7, 2017.

I write this letter in strong support of the nomination and

confirmation of Neil Gorsuch for Associate Justice of the

Supreme Court.

He ends his letter with this:

Judge Gorsuch's intellect, energy and deep regard for the

Constitution are well known to those of us who have worked

with him and seen first-hand his commitment to basic

principles. Above all, his independence, fairness and

impartiality are the hallmarks of his career and his well-

earned reputation.

The former Governor of Colorado, Democrat Bill Ritter, supports the confirmation of Judge Neil Gorsuch.

Eleven years ago, then-Senator Ken Salazar spoke very highly of his temperament, saying in 2006 that Judge Gorsuch met the ``very high test'' required of someone to be a ``great judge'' and that he has ``demonstrated a dedication to fairness, impartiality, precedent and avoidance of judicial activism--from both the left and the right.''

The Denver Post editorial board, which came out in support of Hillary Clinton, argued for Neil Gorsuch's nomination, saying: ``A justice who does his best to interpret the Constitution or statute and apply the law of the land without prejudice could go far to restore faith in the highest court of the land.''

Neal Katyal, former personnel in the Obama administration, stated his support for Neil Gorsuch: ``I am confident Neil Gorsuch will live up to that promise'' to ``administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich.''

The Washington Post editorial board, many others in Colorado's legal community, including the former cochair of the Host Committee of the Democratic National Convention in 2008, support the confirmation of Neil Gorsuch. This is not a partisan judicial appointment; this is a judge who has strong bipartisan support from the people who know him best.

I hope we can live up to that high, noble intention of our Constitution, the purpose of the Senate, to make sure we are confirming somebody to do a lifetime service for this country in a way that respects our Constitution and the people of this country.

I hope that over the next several days as we debate the nomination, we will move away from this cliff of changing two centuries' worth of precedent in this body and instead come together in a way that befits the best nature of our country.

Mr. President, I thank you for this opportunity to speak and come to the floor.

With that, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to speak in strong support of the nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch as Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.

There has been a lot of debate about Judge Gorsuch and his candidacy for the Supreme Court. Let me first review some of the things that really have not been debated. One is the intellect and the education and the knowledge of this man. It is really extraordinary.

Judge Gorsuch attended Columbia University as an undergrad, Harvard Law School, and he went on to Oxford for postgraduate work.

Nobody disputes the intellect, the education, and the knowledge that this man brings to this job. Nobody disputes his experience and qualifications, either. How could they? He has spent 10 years on the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, the second highest level of courts in our American system. There is no question that Neil Gorsuch has the experience and the qualifications.

Character and temperament are extremely important--actually, essential--characteristics for a judge or a Justice. I have heard nobody criticize the character or temperament of Judge Gorsuch, whatsoever. In fact, he has only gotten glowing praise about both his integrity, his character, his temperament, and the way he treats people in his courtroom and throughout his life.

There is also no disputing that he has enjoyed very broad bipartisan support in the past and significantly to this day. First of all, there was not a single Senator who opposed his confirmation to the Tenth Circuit when he was nominated and confirmed.

President Barack Obama's Acting Solicitor General, a Democrat, has endorsed Neil Gorsuch for the Supreme Court. A bipartisan group of attorneys, former colleagues from his law firm, classmates of his, and many people across the political spectrum from both parties who know this man personally have strongly endorsed his candidacy.

So as to these very important criteria--his intellect, his education, his knowledge, his experience, his temperament, his character-- everything about this man is really quite extraordinary, and that is not even disputed. That is almost universally acknowledged.

So what is the attack? What is the criticism that we hear about Judge Gorsuch? Well, one is this notion that somehow he is outside the mainstream. We have heard this from some of our colleagues who intend not to support Judge Gorsuch.

One of the things about being a circuit court judge is that it is actually quite easy to evaluate whether or not a circuit court judge is outside the mainstream because, as it happens, appellate court or circuit court judges don't rule alone. They rule in groups. It is usually a group of three when they are hearing a case as a subset of the full court, or it is the entire court. Either way, they are ruling with other judges.

So you can evaluate, for instance, how often they are by themselves, how often they are the sole minority dissenting view, because that might be an indication of someone who is outside the mainstream.

It is interesting. In the over 2,700 cases that Neil Gorsuch has decided on, in 99 percent of those cases, he was in the majority. In 97 percent of the cases, it was unanimous. How could that possibly be outside of the mainstream? That is not a valid argument at all.

As to the people who are trying to manufacture some opposition to Judge Gorsuch, what they are doing is they are cherry-picking a handful of the over 2,700 cases in which he has participated in, and they try to find a handful in which Judge Gorsuch did not rule in favor of litigants that our Democratic colleagues believe are politically sympathetic. That is what their argument has come down to.

The Democratic minority leader has been down on the floor for a speech, and I will quote from his speech. He said: ``I saw a judge who repeatedly decided with insurance companies that

wanted to deny disability benefits to employees.''

The Democratic leader goes on to say: ``I saw a judge who, in unemployment discrimination, sided with employers the great majority of the time.''

Here is another quote: ``Time and time again, his rulings favor the already powerful over ordinary Americans.''

The Democratic leader went on to marvel: ``Judge Gorsuch ruled against a teacher.'' ``Judge Gorsuch ruled against a truck driver.''

Now, even if you set aside the fact that the facts in these cases have been wildly distorted in the retelling that I have heard, and if you set aside the fact that even in those very cases in which Judge Gorsuch has ruled, often he has ruled with the Democratic judges who enjoy the support of our Democratic colleagues, and even if you ignore the fact that in many of these cases he was bound by precedent--he had no choice--you could also ignore all the many other cases in which Judge Gorsuch ruled in favor of workers and unions and people who allege sexual harassment, environmentalists, immigrants, and other sympathetic litigants. The minority leader put all that aside. I think we have to ask a fundamental question: What is missing in this critique of Judge Gorsuch's decisions? What I find striking is that what is missing is any reference to the law. I don't hear them mention the law. I have not heard any of our Democratic colleagues, who intend to oppose Judge Gorsuch, say that he ignored the law or that he violated the law or that he misapplied the law or that he misunderstood the law. I don't hear anything of the sort.

Now, why do you suppose that is? I think I know why that is. I think because to many of the people who are threatening to oppose Neil Gorsuch, the law isn't what really matters the most. What really matters the most is that politically favored special interests or someone that they think the public will be sympathetic to has to win regardless of the law. They want a policy outcome and one that would benefit their perceived preferred litigants, rather than the law.

Here is what I think. I really think there are two unpardonable offenses in the minds of our friends and colleagues who are opposing Neil Gorsuch's nomination. The first is that Judge Gorsuch believes in the rule of law. I know he does. It is very, very clear. To some degree, there is a fundamental debate going on here between those who support his candidacy and those who oppose it, and it is fundamentally about the role of judges in the U.S. constitutional system.

One view, the view that I have--and I believe the one that Judge Gorsuch shares--is that the law totally matters. What the law says matters, and that includes the Constitution. The words matter. And not only that, but it is up to the American people to change laws or to change the Constitution, if the American people see fit. It is up to judges to impartially apply the law and the Constitution, as it is written, and that is an important thing here. Both of these are important.

Under our view of the world, a judge is supposed to see everyone the same regardless of race, sex, wealth, political affiliation, or other characteristics. A judge is obligated to neutrally apply the law. Whether you are a man or a woman, young or old, rich or poor, Black or White, that is not supposed to matter to a judge. There is a reason our symbol of justice, Lady Justice, is depicted wearing a blindfold--it is because as a judge you are not supposed to decide based on these characteristics of a person; you are supposed to decide based on what the law says. This is fundamental to an independent judiciary, to a nation that lives by the rule of law.

But the other view, the critics' view--they constantly go back not to the law or the application of the law but to how sympathetic the litigants are. That is what matters most to them. That is an implicit rejection of the notion that everyone is equal before the law. Instead, in that world view, some are more equal than others and the law means whatever a judge thinks it should mean, and that is based significantly on whom the litigants are.

The same applies to the Constitution, in their world view, that of those who are opposing Judge Gorsuch. The Constitution can't really mean exactly what it says--that can be very inconvenient--and so what the Supreme Court is supposed to be, in the minds of our friends who are opposing Judge Gorsuch, the Supreme Court is really a permanently sitting constitutional convention. Make up the Constitution as it goes along. Decide what it means today as opposed to what it meant yesterday or what it might mean tomorrow. The judges are supposed to be acutely sensitive to the race, wealth, political affiliation of the people who come before them, and those criteria matter a great deal.

In fact, you have to ask yourself, if that is the way you view the world, why even bother having a trial? Why not have a checklist and see whether the litigants come down on the politically sympathetic side of the ledger, and once you know that, you can decide? Why bother with the hassles or a trial or a case?

I would suggest that this approach to the law--the law that depends on the race, ethnicity, or any other criteria of the litigants--such a law is not a law at all. That is how a banana republic imposes the law; that is not how America views the law.

So my view, as I stated earlier, that the law means exactly what it says and nothing other than what it says--and that also applies to the Constitution--that is a view which is often described as originalism. The opponents' view, especially with respect to the Constitution--they believe the Constitution is a living document, meaning changes over time, in their view. I would suggest that this is the fundamental choice between the rule of law in the former case and the rule by judges in the latter case.

Justice Scalia once said: ``Every tin horn dictator in the world today, every president for life, has a Bill of Rights.'' The Bill of Rights only protects us if it is enforced and if it is enforced consistently and equally for everyone who is involved. How much protection does our Bill of Rights provide if, as Chief Justice Hughes stated in 1907, ``the Constitution is what the judges say it is''? Well, as Justice Scalia observed, once the original meaning of the Constitution can be set aside and judges can rewrite it, then they can rewrite and limit individual liberty or any other of the rights that are so fundamental to the nature of our country.

Let me give an example that makes this very specific. There is a case that came before the Supreme Court not very long ago called the Kelo decision. The Fifth Amendment states very clearly that the government cannot take private property unless it is ``for public use.'' That is what it says in the Constitution. Look it up. Well, in the Kelo case, five Supreme Court Justices decided that public use can mean private use. The word ``public'' can mean ``private.'' Specifically in this case, what they said was that the government can come along and take an individual's home and give it to a private company--in this case, to use as a parking lot for a private venture. This is blatantly unconstitutional. It is very, very clear. Yet that is what happened when five Justices decided they could just rewrite the Constitution as they prefer it.

Here is the thing about this: Even if you believe it is a good idea to be able to take someone's house and give it to another private developer because he has a better use for it than the homeowner, if you think that is a good idea--I don't happen to think that is a good idea, but you might. If you do, we have a mechanism for making that policy permissible. You change the Constitution. You amend the Constitution. You can strike that word or insert another clause. There are any number of ways you can change that.

But here is what is so important: Under our constitutional system, the only people who get to change the Constitution are the American people. They do it through their elected representatives in the Congress and in the State legislatures, but they are the sovereigns. It is the American people who get to make these decisions, who determine policy, not five unelected guys wearing black robes, because when they get to make that policy, they are not accountable to anyone. They can't be fired. The Presiding Officer and I can be fired. If we are not

doing the job our constituents want us to do, we will be fired. That is how we are held accountable. Our constituents can replace us with people who will reflect the policies they want. That is why we are the policymakers under our constitutional system.

I believe Neil Gorsuch completely understands this. It is one of the reasons our friends on the other side of the aisle can't bring themselves to support him.

I think there were two unpardonable sins that Neil Gorsuch has committed. I just mentioned the first. I think the second one was that he was nominated by Donald Trump. We have folks in this Chamber who don't seem to be able to accept that they lost an election, and they are reflexively opposing whatever it is President Trump wants, and apparently they intend for that opposition to continue indefinitely.

In a public interview, the minority leader was quoted as saying: ``It is hard for me to imagine a nominee that Donald Trump would choose that would get Republican support that we could support.''

He was asked a follow-up question: ``So will you do your best to hold the seat open?''

The Democratic minority leader replied: ``Absolutely.''

Hold the seat open for 4 years or maybe 8 years? This is outrageous, and it is unprecedented.

If the minority leader were to get his way, for the first time in the history of the Republic, we would have a Supreme Court nominee defeated by a partisan filibuster. Let me stress this. This has never happened before in the history of the country. How many times have we nominated and confirmed Supreme Court Justices? Never once have we had a partisan filibuster used to block the consideration of a nominee. We have had people withdraw. We have had people who were voted down.

The case of Abe Fortas was an unusual case where there was a bipartisan filibuster because there was a perception of ethics problems, and he, in fact, had to resign as an Associate Justice. The bipartisan filibuster was used when there was an attempt by President Johnson to elevate him to Chief Justice. That is not the precedent. There is no precedent.

Take the case of Clarence Thomas. In my lifetime, I am pretty sure Clarence Thomas was the most controversial nominee we have ever had. It was a brutal, very difficult, very contentious, really ugly process-- the hearings, the nomination process, the confirmation process. In the end, Clarence Thomas was confirmed with 52 votes. Any Senator in the body could have insisted on a 60-vote threshold if it was there, but nobody did. No Senator did because the custom has been that Supreme Court Justices get confirmed if they have a majority of support. So what the minority leader wants to do is completely departing from that and establishing a new threshold.

The minority leader made an argument that is absolutely laughable. He suggested that because President Obama's nominees got 60 votes, well, then President Trump's should. What is laughable about that is the reason President Obama's nominees got 60 votes is because Republicans gave them those votes. I was running for the Senate at the time that Sonia Sotomayor was nominated, and I pointed out that there was a lot I disagreed about with her. I am sure I will not be happy with many of her decisions. But here we are in the President's new term--relatively early--and this is a qualified, capable person. I am not going to obstruct. I voted to confirm her, and a number of Republicans did join the Democrats, and President Obama got Justice Sotomayor and Justice Kagan confirmed to the bench.

The minority leader has suggested that there is this tradition of 60 votes. Well, you don't have to take my word for it; the Washington Post Fact Checker--not exactly the mouthpiece of the Republican Party--did their fact-checking analysis, and they said it was absolutely false. They gave him three Pinocchios.

It is also one of the many ironies of this that the very same Democrats who insist that we should allow them to permanently block any Supreme Court nominee because they won't provide the votes to get to 60 are the ones who actually did break the Senate tradition and establish a 50-vote threshold when they wanted to pack the DC Circuit Court of Appeals back in 2013. Now they suggest that if we use the same tactic they used--although we are doing it for a different reason--that this would be an abomination, that the Democrats would never do this. Well, actually, they did in 2013. But as for the circumstances we face now, there is no mystery about what they would have done because they told us just 12 days before the election.

Our Senator Tim Kaine, the Democratic nominee for Vice President, was asked: ``What happens if,'' as everyone expected at the time, ``Hillary Clinton becomes President and the Democrats take control of the Senate, if Republicans were to filibuster a Supreme Court nominee? What would you do?''

I will quote Senator Kaine. He said: ``We will change the Senate rules to uphold the law, that the court will be nine members.''

Here is the truth: If the election had gone differently, if Hillary Clinton had won and if Democrats were in control of the Senate, then Republicans would have probably provided the votes for a competent, capable, qualified Supreme Court nominee, just as Republicans did for Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor. That is what history has shown. Unfortunately, our Democratic colleagues at this point seem unwilling-- or at least some of them are--to provide the same bipartisan cooperation to a new President attempting to fill a vacancy that Republicans provided to President Obama.

Let me conclude with this: The case for confirming Judge Gorsuch was summed up pretty well by the editorial board of the Chicago Tribune-- again, not exactly the RNC's mouthpiece--in endorsing Neil Gorsuch. They said:

Here is a judge who knows the law and knows the role of the

judiciary: He isn't on the bench to make law, he's there to

interpret it faithfully, because the separation of powers

among the branches of government serves our democracy.

Sometimes the result benefits liberal positions, sometimes

conservative. . . . Some of Gorsuch's critics think judges

should be creative and expansive depending on the political

climate--to treat laws differently on a cold night than a

warm one. Those critics suggest that they fear Gorsuch won't

follow the law, but the opposite is more true: They fear he

will. Gorsuch should be confirmed.

If our Democratic colleagues aren't willing to confirm Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court, then there is no one they are going to vote to confirm to the Supreme Court. And we cannot allow a Democratic minority to block an up-or-down vote and deny filling a vacancy on the Supreme Court for 4 or 8 years. We simply can't allow that to happen, and I trust that we won't.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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.