Floor Statements

Mr. President, I move to proceed to H.J. Res. 43.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following leader remarks on Monday, April 3, the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 18, S. 89, with the time until 5:30 p.m. equally divided in the usual form, and that following the use or yielding back of time, the bill be read a third time and the Senate vote on passage with no intervening action or debate. I further ask that following the vote on passage, the Senate proceed to executive session for consideration of Calendar No. 24, the nomination of Elaine Duke to be Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security. I further ask that at a time to be determined by the majority leader, with the concurrence of the Democratic leader, on Tuesday, April 4, the Senate vote on confirmation of the nomination, and that if confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 107, submitted earlier today.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 3 p.m. on Monday, April 3; further, that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and morning business be closed.

Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it stand adjourned under the previous order.

Mr. President, I move to proceed to H.J. Res. 67.

Mr. President, over the last 8 years, American workers grappled with a sluggish economy and policies that often made it harder for families to get ahead. Even on its way out the door, the Obama administration pushed forward with more unfair regulations that hurt the middle class. It tried to advance regulations that threatened jobs and hindered economic growth. It tried to shift power away from people and toward government on everything from education to land management issues.

Under the guise of helping more people save for the future, it undercut a system of private retirement savings that has served millions of Americans very well for decades. It introduced regulations that would push more and more Americans into government-run retirement plans. These retirement savings regulations are a classic case of the whole being worse that the sum of its parts.

The Obama administration encouraged States and municipalities to set up government-run retirement plans for private sector workers. Sounds great, some might say, but that is until you see the fine print.

States always had the power to set up these plans, but they chafed at Federal laws protecting the workers who would be automatically enrolled in them. They didn't like that the basic retirement protections that apply to those who manage private sector retirement plans would apply to the government too. So they sought a waiver from long-accepted Federal protections like the requirement to invest prudently and the rule against self-dealing.

That is what these regulations are actually about. They allow States and cities to create an employer mandate that forces private sector workers into these government-run plans. They liberate the States and big-city mayors from Federal consumer protections for these hard-earned dollars, and they create a competitive advantage for these new government-run plans. The end result would be more government at the expense of the private sector.

Fortunately, we can begin to roll back these regulations. We will take a vote today to protect workers should big-city governments try to force their private sector employees to auto-enroll in government-run savings plans. Later, we will advance another CRA to protect workers from similar efforts at the State level.

Congress is able to push back against troubling regulations like these because of the tools provided by the Congressional Review Act, or CRA. Just last week, we sent the 11th CRA resolution to the President's desk, and we hope to add to those regulatory relief efforts again.

I thank Senator Hatch, the Finance Committee chairman, for his leadership on this issue. He understands that

we need to do more to encourage private retirement savings, and he has advocated numerous policies that would do just that. He also understands that more government involvement in the retirement of private sector workers is not the answer. He introduced companion legislation to the House bills we will vote on soon. We should pass that legislation without delay so that we can, as the chairman said, ``give employees and small-business owners more flexibility and freedom to choose how to financially invest and build a nest egg for retirement.''

Nomination of Neil Gorsuch

Mr. President, on another matter, since Judge Neil Gorsuch was nominated to the Supreme Court, Senate Democrats have searched high and they have searched low for a reason to oppose him. They looked at his background, and they found a Columbia alum, a Harvard Law graduate, and an Oxford scholar. They looked at his reputation and found an impartial and fair judge, an incisive and eloquent writer, and a humble and even- tempered man. They looked at his record as a judge and found someone who follows the facts where they lead without favoring one party over another; someone respected by Democrats, Independents, and Republicans alike; and someone who understands that his role is to interpret the law, not legislate from the bench.

Our colleagues across the aisle also had the opportunity to spend hours with Judge Gorsuch at his confirmation hearing. Once again, they found little to hang their hat on when it comes to a reason to oppose him. Instead, the hearings made clear a point recently stated by a board member of the liberal American Constitution Society: ``The Senate should confirm him because there is no principled reason to vote no'' on Judge Gorsuch. That was David Frederick, a self-proclaimed ``long- time supporter of Democratic candidates and progressive causes'' in a recent Washington Post op-ed. This prominent Democrat said he supports Judge Gorsuch because he ``embodies a reverence for our country's values and legal system. . . . We should applaud such independence of mind and spirit in Supreme Court nominees.''

Unfortunately, instead of coming together behind this nominee, some of our colleagues continue to press forward with convoluted excuses as to why they won't support him.

Just yesterday, my friend the Democratic leader came to the floor to share his reasoning. He talked about the need for the nominee to be independent and impartial. Well, Judge Gorsuch passes that test, and the American Bar Association, the organization revered as the ``gold standard'' for evaluating judges by the Democratic leader himself and the former Judiciary chairman, certainly agrees. It said: ``Based on the writings, interviews, and analyses we scrutinized to reach our rating, we discerned that Judge Gorsuch believes strongly in the independence of the judicial branch of government, and we predict that he will be a strong and respectful voice in protecting it.''

In addition to independence, the Democratic leader talked about his concern that Judge Gorsuch has earned the support of conservatives. Well, that is true. Judge Gorsuch has earned the support of Republicans, just as he has received praise from many on the left as well, like President Obama's former Solicitor General, Neal Katyal; President Obama's legal mentor, Professor Laurence Tribe; and left- leaning law professor E. Donald Elliot, among so many others.

The Democratic leader talked about the need for the nominee to offer assurances about how he would rule on a certain case and assurances that he would stand up for certain groups, but, as Judge Gorsuch pointed out, nominees are, to quote Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, to offer ``no hints, no forecasts, no previews'' on how they would rule in certain cases. Similarly, judges are to decide cases based on the facts, not personal views or political preferences.

Finally, the Democratic leader talked about the importance of a nominee's record. Well, I would like to take a moment to remind my colleagues of Judge Gorsuch's record. He said at his hearing:

I have decided . . . over 2,700 cases, and my law clerks

tell me that 97 percent of them have been unanimous, 99

percent I've been in the majority. They tell me as well that,

according to the Congressional Research Service, my opinions

have attracted the fewest number of dissents from my

colleagues of anyone I've served with that they studied over

the last 10 years.

To sum it up, more than 2,700 cases, in the majority on 99 percent of them, and part of a unanimous ruling on 97 percent of them--it simply doesn't get much better than that. No wonder the ABA gave him its highest rating: unanimously ``well qualified.''

So when we hear our Democratic colleagues talking about breaking longstanding precedent to oppose this noncontroversial, outstanding judge by mounting the first-ever purely partisan filibuster to try to defeat his nomination, we can only assume one thing: This isn't about the nominee at all; it is about a few on the left whose priority is to obstruct this Senate and this President whenever and wherever they can. Months after the election, they are still in campaign mode, calling for Senate Democrats to obstruct and to resist.

Let's be clear. These leftwing groups aren't concerned by the qualifications of this judge. They aren't looking out for what is best for the Court, for the Senate, or for the country. They simply refuse to accept the outcome of last year's election.

We realize the enormous pressure our Democratic colleagues are under. It is why we are hearing talks of some mythical 60-vote standard that doesn't exist. Just ask fact-checkers who have repeatedly debunked that idea. A 60-vote threshold has never been the standard for a Supreme Court confirmation--not for President Clinton's Supreme Court nominees in his first term and not for the Supreme Court nominees of a newly elected President Obama, either.

As the Washington Post Fact Checker reminded us again just this very morning, ``Once again: There is no `traditional' 60-vote `standard' or `rule' for Supreme Court nominations, no matter how much or how often Democrats claim otherwise.''

So I would ask our Democratic friends, do they really want to launch the first wholly partisan filibuster of a Supreme Court nominee in American history? Do they really think history books or the American people will look kindly on them for filibustering this amazingly well- qualified and widely respected nominee?

Judge Gorsuch has earned an enormous amount of praise from across the political spectrum and from a wide array of publications all across our country, like The Chicago Tribune, which recently called for his confirmation, saying that Judge Gorsuch ``has shown himself to be committed to the principle that judges should rule on the law as written, and apply it equally to all.''

The newspaper The Detroit News said Judge Gorsuch ``is proving himself an even-tempered, deeply knowledgeable nominee who should be confirmed by the Senate. The hearings confirm,'' it said, ``that Gorsuch is [eminently] qualified, and there is nothing radical in his judicial history.''

In the Denver Post: ``As we've noted several times in the run-up to Gorsuch's confirmation hearings, the 10th Circuit judge possesses the fairness, independence and open-mindedness necessary to make him a marvelous addition to the Supreme Court.''

The Post went on to say that Senators should not ``[miss] the chance to rally behind Gorsuch--who has been roundly praised here by Democrats and Republicans alike.'' In other words, Judge Neil Gorsuch should be treated fairly, receive an up-or-down vote, and be confirmed to the Supreme Court, just like all four first-time Supreme Court nominees of Presidents Clinton and Obama.

Again, as even those on the left can't help but admit, ``there is no principled reason to vote no'' on Judge Gorsuch. It is a sentiment we have heard from many of our colleagues here on the floor as we have been debating Judge Gorsuch's nomination over the past few weeks.

As we wait for the Judiciary Committee to report out his nomination, I would encourage Members of both sides to continue to take advantage of available floor time to discuss this important issue. I would also remind Senators that we will have all of next week--all of next week-- to continue debating Judge Gorsuch's nomination

as well. I look forward to hearing from our colleagues as we work to advance this extremely well-qualified nominee.

Recognition of the Minority Leader

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate be in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 98 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 103, submitted earlier today.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 353, which was received from the House.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Thune substitute amendment at the desk be considered; the Cantwell amendment at the desk be considered and agreed to; the Thune substitute amendment, as amended, be agreed to; the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed; and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9:30 a.m., Thursday, March 30; that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and morning business be closed; further, that following leader remarks, the Senate resume consideration of H.J. Res. 67, with all debate time being expired; finally, that the joint resolution be read a third time, and the Senate vote on passage of the joint resolution with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it stand adjourned under the previous order, following the remarks of Senator Murkowski.

Mr. President, throughout my career in the Senate, I have worked hard to defend coal communities and the jobs they and so many across the country depend on. These men and women have dedicated their lives to providing an affordable and reliable power source for our homes, businesses, and communities. They deserve our respect and our support.

The same is true of America's middle class, more broadly. Middle- class families had a hard enough time over the past 8 years without Washington making things worse. I think they deserve respect and support, not fewer jobs and unaffordable energy bills.

Unfortunately, the previous administration didn't see things the same way. Instead, the Obama administration launched energy attack after energy attack on Kentucky and America's middle class, threatening critical jobs and making coal more costly to mine and use.

Indeed, a couple years ago, then-President Obama finalized a massive regressive energy regulatory scheme that claimed to be about helping the climate but actually would have done little to truly impact global emissions. What it would have done is punish coal families, ship middle-class jobs overseas, and hurt the economy. It was also likely illegal. So I sent a letter counseling Governors to wait for the courts to rule on the legality of the regulation before submitting a compliance plan. It was not a popular move at the time, but it turns out that it was the right one. I am glad that nearly half of our Nation's Governors agreed with my advice to take a wait-and-see approach before needlessly putting their States in economic jeopardy.

I am proud to report that we will notch an important victory in this struggle later today. I commend President Trump for the decision to sign the energy independence Executive order and send several anti- middle-class regulations back to the drawing board. From the outset, I warned that regulations like these would hurt coal workers and America's middle class. One report predicted that more than 40 States could have seen double-digit electricity rate hikes as a result of the Clean Power Plan energy regulatory plan. We all know that low- and fixed-income families would have suffered the most. And for what? For a regulation that hardly would have moved the needle on climate anyway.

Talking about bad policy, it is important to remember how we got here. President Obama came into office with huge majorities in both Houses of Congress. He could have done virtually anything he wanted, and he certainly tried. He pushed through one left-wing policy after another. He even tried to push through a regressive, anti-middle-class energy regulatory plan--one so extreme that he couldn't even get his own Democrat-controlled Congress to go along with it. Undeterred, he went around Congress and imposed a similarly regressive energy scheme anyway.

It was evident that the Obama administration had overstepped its authority. That is why I sent the letter I mentioned earlier to the Nation's Governors, urging them not to comply with the CPP's demands but instead to take a wait-and-see approach before putting their States in economic jeopardy.

Because of the legal uncertainty of President Obama's plan, 27 States joined the fight in Federal court. In February 2016, the Supreme Court issued an unprecedented nationwide halt on this regulation--a nationwide halt. Despite the Court's order, the damage of President Obama's war on coal has already negatively impacted middle-class families across the country and coal communities in Kentucky. When plants shut down and miners lose their jobs, the entire community feels the pain. With less tax revenue, local governments are unable to pay teachers and first responders. These hardships often lead to a rise in crime and drug abuse that troubles these communities. Moreover, the Obama administration's massive regulatory burdens were imposed during a period when production and supply of natural gas had

been high and its costs relatively low--a devastating one-two punch to families already struggling to make it.

To make matters worse, President Obama didn't stop with the CPP. He also sought to impose similar limitations on any new plants in an attempt to prevent them from being built at all. It is an equally concerning regulation and one that would have further devastated coal communities. I am glad President Trump will include it in his Executive order today.

Coal communities face enough challenges without Washington piling on more with these unfortunate attacks. Fortunately, we have a President who will work with us to provide much needed relief.

Today's Executive order is good news for coal communities. It is a victory for middle-class families and another important step away from the overregulation of the Obama years.

We all want clean air and clean water, but that is not what President Obama's energy regulatory policies were actually about. It was an ideological vanity project. It wouldn't have even solved the problem it purported to address.

Now, fortunately, the EPA will have the opportunity to go back to the drawing board and get this right with balanced and serious policies. The EPA should work with stakeholders across the country to develop sensible policies that balance the economic needs of our communities with the realities of our environment. This way we can protect America's middle class, America's miners, and America's natural resources all at once.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.