Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the epidemic of suicide--a growing crisis that has devastated millions of families across our Nation. Over the past 8 years, the rate of deaths by suicide in our country has tripled. Let me repeat that. It has tripled, and the problem is particularly severe among young adults.

According to the Centers for Disease Control, for youth between the ages of 10 and 24, suicide is now the third leading cause of death. In other words, more of America's youth die each year from suicide than cancer, heart disease, AIDS, birth defects, stroke, pneumonia, influenza, and chronic lung disease combined.

This crisis shows no signs of abating. Consider that each day in our Nation, there are an average of over 5,400 suicide attempts by young people in grades 7 to 12. In my home State of Utah, the statistics are particularly alarming. Every 14 hours, a Utahn commits suicide, resulting in an average of 630 deaths each year. The problem is so acute that Utah now has the fifth highest suicide rate in the Nation. This troubling trend is particularly pronounced among Utah's youth. Even though Utahns from ages 10 to 17 comprise only 13 percent of the State population, they represent nearly 23 percent of all suicide attempts. Suicide is now the leading cause of death among Utah's teenagers.

To stem the tide of teenage suicide in Utah, I convened a roundtable discussion in Salt Lake City last December that included community leaders, healthcare professionals, high school principals, and parents from across the State. There we discussed proven methods that destigmatize mental illness, a critical first step in addressing the suicide crisis. We also discussed the links between bullying and depression.

In an effort to prevent teen suicide, the effect of bullying cannot be overlooked. A recent study in the Journal of the American Medical Association finds that kids who are bullied are more than twice as likely to consider suicide. In my home State of Utah, dozens of community leaders have drawn attention to the pernicious effects of bullying. The foremost among them is Dr. Greg Hudnall, a nationally recognized expert in suicide prevention. Dr. Hudnall found that between 8 and 12 percent of all suicides are committed by young people who have been bullied. To discourage bullying and to help our teenagers who are suffering most, Dr. Hudnall led in the development of HOPE4UTAH. HOPE4UTAH is a dynamic peer-to-peer program designed to empower students in groups called Hope Squads. Hope Squads identify warning signs of depression in teenagers and offer help to those in need.

Wendy Nelson, principal of Utah's Syracuse High School, recently told me how Hope Squads have helped students at risk of suicide to connect with therapists that the school has made available on a regular basis. The high school has since partnered with a local community health center for help in addressing the need for help in this particular area and, of course, the need for mental health professionals in schools. This shortage of mental health counselors is a serious problem, not only in Utah but in schools across the Nation. It is a very, very serious problem.

In our December roundtable discussion, we learned that teen suicide is something schools, parents, and mental health professionals cannot address individually. Instead, a continuum of care must exist for each child from the first day of school to graduation. We must all work together to ensure that our children feel safe.

Educators play a vital role in maintaining an infrastructure of support for teenagers struggling with mental illness. Because educators are often the first to identify warning signs in vulnerable students, hundreds of teachers in Utah receive training in how to identify and respond to these signs. Once we know a teen is suffering, parents and mental health professionals can step in to provide ongoing care. Building community partnerships that involve everyone and that focus on evidence-based practices can save hundreds, if not thousands, of lives.

My main purpose in organizing the roundtable discussion was to find ways I could help prevent suicide on a national level. Increasing access to mental healthcare has been a fixture of my Senate service. Nearly 20 years ago, I convened the Senate Finance Committee's first hearing dedicated to mental health. More recently, I focused my legislative efforts on fighting prescription drug abuse, an epidemic that has only accelerated our Nation's mental health crisis. I played a leading role in passing the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act and helped to draft the 21st Century Cures Act, which President Obama signed into law in December. Both bills take aim at the opioid epidemic that is ravaging entire communities across the Nation.

As a legislative body, we have set aside partisan differences in recent months to combat the opioid crisis as part of a broader effort to address growing rates of mental illness and death by suicide.

But there is more we can do to help. To begin, we need to provide better and more immediate access to counseling and mental health services. This is one of the main takeaways from last year's roundtable discussion. So often we hear that those seeking help are just one positive interaction away from giving life another chance. As Utah State Senator Daniel Thatcher said:

If you talk to someone, they live. If you connect them to

support, they live.

Laura Warburton, a Utah mother who lost her daughter to suicide, said that the day her daughter died, she had attempted to make one last call to her therapist and could not get through.

While this is a complex problem with no simple, immediate answer, there are steps we can take to help. Today, we are taking those critical first steps to prevent future tragedies from taking place.

In response to what I learned during the suicide roundtable in Utah, I have joined Senator Joe Donnelly in introducing the National Suicide Hotline Improvement Act, a bipartisan proposal that will make it easier for Americans of all ages to get the help and treatment they need when they are experiencing suicidal thoughts. The current suicide prevention lifeline system and veterans crisis line are in desperate need of reform. Our bill will require the Federal Communications Commission, in consultation with the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Veterans Affairs, to study the current national suicide hotline system and make recommendations to Congress on how we can improve it.

Across our great Nation, there are millions of people, especially young people, who are alone and suffering in the shadows of depression. Many of them are bombarded by suicidal thoughts and have no idea where to turn for help. To make matters worse, the national suicide hotline number, 1-800-273-TALK, is not an intuitive or easy number to remember, particularly for those experiencing a mental health emergency.

Fortunately, the success of the 911 emergency system provides a model for addressing this problem. My bill will require the Federal Communications Commission to recommend an easy-to-remember, three-digit number for the national suicide prevention hotline. I believe that by making the national suicide prevention lifeline system more user- friendly and accessible, we can save thousands of lives by helping people find the help they need when they need it most.

In introducing this legislation, I wish to thank my fellow Utahn, Congressman Chris Stewart. Congressman Stewart has been an invaluable partner in offering some of the most important measures of this bill. Additionally, I would like to thank the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention. I also wish to express my appreciation for the support we have received from the Utah State Legislature, Utah's attorney general, and the Utah Department of Health Services, as well as several groups from the law enforcement community.

This proposal transcends party lines and stands to save thousands of lives.

We cannot delay this effort to prevent suicide. So I call on my colleagues in both the House and the Senate to act quickly to pass this bill. Your support for this legislation represents your commitment to preventing future tragedies. I ask all of you today, regardless of your party affiliation, to cosponsor this legislation. In doing so, you can help us help those who need our help the most. There is absolutely no time to lose.

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the epidemic of suicide--a growing crisis that has devastated millions of families across our Nation. Over the past 8 years, the rate of deaths by suicide in our country has tripled. Let me repeat that. It has tripled, and the problem is particularly severe among young adults.

According to the Centers for Disease Control, for youth between the ages of 10 and 24, suicide is now the third leading cause of death. In other words, more of America's youth die each year from suicide than cancer, heart disease, AIDS, birth defects, stroke, pneumonia, influenza, and chronic lung disease combined.

This crisis shows no signs of abating. Consider that each day in our Nation, there are an average of over 5,400 suicide attempts by young people in grades 7 to 12. In my home State of Utah, the statistics are particularly alarming. Every 14 hours, a Utahn commits suicide, resulting in an average of 630 deaths each year. The problem is so acute that Utah now has the fifth highest suicide rate in the Nation. This troubling trend is particularly pronounced among Utah's youth. Even though Utahns from ages 10 to 17 comprise only 13 percent of the State population, they represent nearly 23 percent of all suicide attempts. Suicide is now the leading cause of death among Utah's teenagers.

To stem the tide of teenage suicide in Utah, I convened a roundtable discussion in Salt Lake City last December that included community leaders, healthcare professionals, high school principals, and parents from across the State. There we discussed proven methods that destigmatize mental illness, a critical first step in addressing the suicide crisis. We also discussed the links between bullying and depression.

In an effort to prevent teen suicide, the effect of bullying cannot be overlooked. A recent study in the Journal of the American Medical Association finds that kids who are bullied are more than twice as likely to consider suicide. In my home State of Utah, dozens of community leaders have drawn attention to the pernicious effects of bullying. The foremost among them is Dr. Greg Hudnall, a nationally recognized expert in suicide prevention. Dr. Hudnall found that between 8 and 12 percent of all suicides are committed by young people who have been bullied. To discourage bullying and to help our teenagers who are suffering most, Dr. Hudnall led in the development of HOPE4UTAH. HOPE4UTAH is a dynamic peer-to-peer program designed to empower students in groups called Hope Squads. Hope Squads identify warning signs of depression in teenagers and offer help to those in need.

Wendy Nelson, principal of Utah's Syracuse High School, recently told me how Hope Squads have helped students at risk of suicide to connect with therapists that the school has made available on a regular basis. The high school has since partnered with a local community health center for help in addressing the need for help in this particular area and, of course, the need for mental health professionals in schools. This shortage of mental health counselors is a serious problem, not only in Utah but in schools across the Nation. It is a very, very serious problem.

In our December roundtable discussion, we learned that teen suicide is something schools, parents, and mental health professionals cannot address individually. Instead, a continuum of care must exist for each child from the first day of school to graduation. We must all work together to ensure that our children feel safe.

Educators play a vital role in maintaining an infrastructure of support for teenagers struggling with mental illness. Because educators are often the first to identify warning signs in vulnerable students, hundreds of teachers in Utah receive training in how to identify and respond to these signs. Once we know a teen is suffering, parents and mental health professionals can step in to provide ongoing care. Building community partnerships that involve everyone and that focus on evidence-based practices can save hundreds, if not thousands, of lives.

My main purpose in organizing the roundtable discussion was to find ways I could help prevent suicide on a national level. Increasing access to mental healthcare has been a fixture of my Senate service. Nearly 20 years ago, I convened the Senate Finance Committee's first hearing dedicated to mental health. More recently, I focused my legislative efforts on fighting prescription drug abuse, an epidemic that has only accelerated our Nation's mental health crisis. I played a leading role in passing the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act and helped to draft the 21st Century Cures Act, which President Obama signed into law in December. Both bills take aim at the opioid epidemic that is ravaging entire communities across the Nation.

As a legislative body, we have set aside partisan differences in recent months to combat the opioid crisis as part of a broader effort to address growing rates of mental illness and death by suicide.

But there is more we can do to help. To begin, we need to provide better and more immediate access to counseling and mental health services. This is one of the main takeaways from last year's roundtable discussion. So often we hear that those seeking help are just one positive interaction away from giving life another chance. As Utah State Senator Daniel Thatcher said:

If you talk to someone, they live. If you connect them to

support, they live.

Laura Warburton, a Utah mother who lost her daughter to suicide, said that the day her daughter died, she had attempted to make one last call to her therapist and could not get through.

While this is a complex problem with no simple, immediate answer, there are steps we can take to help. Today, we are taking those critical first steps to prevent future tragedies from taking place.

In response to what I learned during the suicide roundtable in Utah, I have joined Senator Joe Donnelly in introducing the National Suicide Hotline Improvement Act, a bipartisan proposal that will make it easier for Americans of all ages to get the help and treatment they need when they are experiencing suicidal thoughts. The current suicide prevention lifeline system and veterans crisis line are in desperate need of reform. Our bill will require the Federal Communications Commission, in consultation with the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Veterans Affairs, to study the current national suicide hotline system and make recommendations to Congress on how we can improve it.

Across our great Nation, there are millions of people, especially young people, who are alone and suffering in the shadows of depression. Many of them are bombarded by suicidal thoughts and have no idea where to turn for help. To make matters worse, the national suicide hotline number, 1-800-273-TALK, is not an intuitive or easy number to remember, particularly for those experiencing a mental health emergency.

Fortunately, the success of the 911 emergency system provides a model for addressing this problem. My bill will require the Federal Communications Commission to recommend an easy-to-remember, three-digit number for the national suicide prevention hotline. I believe that by making the national suicide prevention lifeline system more user- friendly and accessible, we can save thousands of lives by helping people find the help they need when they need it most.

In introducing this legislation, I wish to thank my fellow Utahn, Congressman Chris Stewart. Congressman Stewart has been an invaluable partner in offering some of the most important measures of this bill. Additionally, I would like to thank the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention. I also wish to express my appreciation for the support we have received from the Utah State Legislature, Utah's attorney general, and the Utah Department of Health Services, as well as several groups from the law enforcement community.

This proposal transcends party lines and stands to save thousands of lives.

We cannot delay this effort to prevent suicide. So I call on my colleagues in both the House and the Senate to act quickly to pass this bill. Your support for this legislation represents your commitment to preventing future tragedies. I ask all of you today, regardless of your party affiliation, to cosponsor this legislation. In doing so, you can help us help those who need our help the most. There is absolutely no time to lose.

Mr. President, last Wednesday, the Trump administration unveiled the outlines of a tax reform plan, and, predictably, the plan has met with both praise and scorn from the usual sectors. Regardless of where the people might come down on the specifics of the President's plan, those who have been proponents of tax reform--hopefully those from both parties--should be pleased to see the President of the United States fully engaged in this effort.

For 6 years now, I have been beating the drum on tax reform. I have sought to make the case for reform here on the floor, in public forums and events, and in private conversations, and I haven't been alone. Indeed, Members from both parties have acknowledged the need to fix our broken tax system and have sought to move the ball forward on reform.

One thing I have said throughout this endeavor is that tax reform, if it is going to be successful, will require Presidential leadership, and that was not a political statement on my part. With those statements, I wasn't simply calling for the election of a Republican President; on the contrary, I repeatedly implored President Obama to engage with Congress on tax reform but really to no avail.

As of now, we finally have a President who is willing to lead in this effort. Once again, regardless of where anyone stands with regard to this President or the specifics of his tax plan, the fact that he is willing to meaningfully engage with Congress and the public on these issues should be viewed as a welcome sign for all tax reform advocates, regardless of their party affiliation.

With regard to the specifics of the outline, I believe the President has laid out a set of critical core principles that should hopefully serve as guideposts as the effort moves forward. Most importantly, the plan is designed, first and foremost, to grow the economy, and it would certainly do that.

In addition, the plan would greatly simplify the Tax Code to make it fairer, particularly for individuals and families, which has been a shared goal of tax reformers from both parties and from both sides of the aisle. For instance, over two-thirds of taxpayers take the standard deduction. Those taxpayers tend to be concentrated in the middle and lower income brackets. Under the President's plan, married couples would see the standard deduction doubled, so that they would not pay taxes on the first $24,000 of income. It would reduce rates for both large and small businesses and job creators, which is also something both Republicans and Democrats have sought to accomplish in tax reform.

Overall, the President's tax plan would make our country more competitive in the international marketplace and reduce the tax burden on millions of middle-class families.

Clearly, as the effort moves forward, Congress and the administration will have to fill in the specifics. We will need to see how the numbers work out and where the votes are for any particular reform proposal. This is going to take some time, but, as the chairman of the Senate's tax-writing committee, I believe we can be ready to move in relatively short order. I intend to work closely with my colleagues on the Finance Committee, our leadership here in the Senate, leaders in the House, and, of course, the administration to finalize a reform package and get it across the finish line. The last major tax overhaul in the United States was more than 30 years ago, so we have a once-in-a-lifetime or once-in-a-generation opportunity in front of us, and I intend to do all I can to ensure that we make the most of it.

When I say ``we,'' I am not simply referring to Republicans in Congress and the White House; I am referring to anyone who recognizes the problems in our current tax system and is willing to do the necessary work to fix those problems. My hope is that this will be a bipartisan exercise. By and large, Republicans appear ready and willing to work with the President to get tax reform done, and I am working to find some willing partners among my friends on the other side of the aisle.

I have said many times that tax reform should not have to be a partisan exercise. Our current tax system imposes undue burdens and undue hardships on Republican and Democratic voters alike. Therefore, both Republicans and Democrats in Congress should be willing to relieve these hardships, and, as I have stated here on the floor on numerous occasions, I am willing to work with anyone, Republican or Democrat, to make this effort successful.

That said, I haven't been all that encouraged by the rhetoric we are hearing from our friends on the other side of the aisle on these issues. Setting aside statements we have heard about the policies in the President's plan or

elsewhere, the Senate Democratic leadership at times seems bound and determined to ensure that no Member of their party engages on these issues.

Most recently, the Senate minority leader has insisted on two conditions before he will agree to work with Republicans on tax reform.

The first condition is that Republicans commit to not moving tax reform through the budget reconciliation process. This is an odd demand, one that is, quite frankly, unprecedented in the modern history of tax policy. Certainly, the reconciliation process makes it easier to move reform through Congress on a partisan basis, but, historically speaking, most major tax bills that have moved through reconciliation have had bipartisan support. There is no reason, if agreements are reached on policy, that Democrats could not agree to support a tax reform package moved through reconciliation, so taking it categorically off the table before discussions even begin seems, at best, counterintuitive.

History tells us that reconciliation need not be partisan. In fact, when Republicans have had control of both Houses of Congress and the White House, we have enacted tax reconciliation bills that have enjoyed some Senate Democratic support.

It is also worth noting that at various points in the recent past, Republicans have stayed at the negotiating table, participating in formal and informal discussions on major policy matters with reconciliation instructions in place and without any assurances that reconciliation would not be used. Are Democrats going to be more amenable to compromising on policy if reconciliation is not on the table? It is hard to see why that would be the case. Taking reconciliation off the table would really only make it easier for Democrats to prevent any kind of tax reform from passing.

So, essentially, what some of my Democratic colleagues are saying is that before they will even enter into talks on tax reform, they want us to ensure upfront that they will have the ability to block the bill once it is brought up. As I said, that is an odd demand, and not one you would expect to hear from someone who is willing to negotiate in good faith.

My colleagues' second precondition for working with us on tax reform is that President Trump release his tax returns. Like their first demand, this one makes me doubt whether the Senate Democratic leadership really wants to be constructive on tax reform. This is a political demand, pure and simple, likely poll-tested and focus-grouped to please the Democrats' base. I don't imagine this demand is really about uncovering conflicts of interest in tax reform. If it is, it is a horribly misguided strategy.

After all, if tax reform were to succeed, the President is only one small part of the equation. There are 435 Members of the House of Representatives and 100 Senators, all of whom would be called upon to vote either for or against the tax reform bill, and whether a Member of Congress supports or opposes a particular bill, a conflict of interest could potentially influence that decision, just as one could theoretically influence a President's decision to sign or veto a bill. Yet I don't hear anyone from the other side of the aisle demanding the release of the tax returns of every Member of Congress before we can even start working on a bill. That has never been a prerequisite for working on tax legislation in the past, and it certainly should not be a prerequisite in the future.

In any event, despite these unreasonable demands, I will once again state that I am more than willing to work with my Democratic colleagues on tax reform, and I sincerely hope at least some of them will be willing to do so. I have been in the Senate for a while now. I think I have more than sufficiently demonstrated my willingness to put partisan differences aside and to reach across the aisle.

Make no mistake, I believe Republicans can move a tax reform package on a purely partisan basis. We have the procedural mechanism in place that would allow us to do that. But my strong preference would be to find a bipartisan pathway forward, and I hope that can be achieved.

Speaking more broadly, whether we move forward on a partisan or bipartisan basis, being successful on tax reform is going to require that we practice the art of the doable. There are a lot of ideas out there on tax reform and no shortage of competing interests. I have my own ideas and proposals that I have been working on for a number of years that I would like to see included in the final package. However, no idea should be considered more important than the broader goals of tax reform. That goes for my ideas and those of anyone else in Congress or in the administration.

There is a great deal of consensus among Republicans on the most important tax reform policies and principles. In fact, I would say we agree on roughly 80 percent of the key issues, which is a good starting point. I will not go into specifics today, but there are some high- profile items in the remaining 20 percent, and there are some differences of opinion regarding most of those items.

Bridging that gap and finding the path forward is going to take some serious negotiation and compromise. My hope is that people will be willing to adjust their expectations and bend on their preferences in order to achieve success in this very important endeavor. Speaking for myself, I can say that I would be willing to do so, and I have confidence that my colleagues who will also be playing leadership roles in this effort are similarly willing. Perhaps most importantly, I believe the President and his advisers in the administration are willing to make the necessary compromises to finally make tax reform a success.

This is the closest we have been to success in tax reform in the past three decades. I hope both parties, both Chambers, both sides of Pennsylvania Avenue are up to that challenge.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise to commemorate an important day for Utah and the western way of life. Just yesterday, the President signed an Executive order calling for review of monument designations across the United States, with a specific focus on two national monuments that have caused significant damage in my home State of Utah: Bears Ears and the Grand Staircase-Escalante.

Yesterday's Executive action is the culmination of countless hours of hard work and close coordination with the White House. When I first spoke with President Trump in the Oval Office during his first week on the job, I asked for his help in addressing the Bears Ears debacle. From day one, our President has been committed to helping us fix this disaster and ensuring that our smallest counties get a fair shake.

Throughout my Senate service, I have fought to give voice to the needs of our rural communities in the debate over public lands. Too often, past Presidents have ignored the concerns of Utah's families in declaring massive monuments that threaten the western way of life. Too often, Presidents have abused the authority under the Antiquities Act to satisfy the demands of an extreme environmental agenda but no more.

Following yesterday's Executive order, I look forward to working with the Trump administration to address past abuses and restore the original meaning of the Antiquities Act. The Executive order directs Secretary of Interior Ryan Zinke to review dozens of national monuments. This is a welcomed opportunity to set a new precedent for the responsible use of the Antiquities Act--a precedent that will take into account the needs of locals and foster greater trust between the States and the Federal Government as we work toward a shared goal of preserving our cultural antiquities.

For decades, I have sought to rein in Executive abuse under the Antiquities Act. That is why I traveled to Bears Ears just last week to hear firsthand from the local residents and Tribal members who have been hurt most by this monument designation. That is why, in the opening days of his Presidency, I met personally with President Trump in the Oval Office to discuss the public lands issue at length. I made clear to the President that Utahns have had enough of monument designations that come down unilaterally with zero support from locals, State officials, or Congress. Many of my own constituents have had their lives upended by this abuse of Executive power.

For too long, Utahns--many of whom depend on public lands for their very livelihood--have been at the mercy of out-of-touch bureaucrats who have little knowledge or personal connection to the land. President Obama only made their situation worse when he spurned the men and women of San Juan County by declaring the Bears Ears National Monument last December. In doing so, he defied the will of the State legislature, the Governor, and the entire Utah congressional delegation. President Obama's last-minute monument designation imposed even greater land use restrictions on a region that is already predominately controlled by the Federal Government.

As I have said before, in opposing the Bears Ears National Monument designation, I am in no way opposing the protection of lands that need to be protected. Indeed, there are many cultural sites in Utah that warrant preservation, and I am committed to working with the President and with Congress to protect those sacred places for future generations. But as I have also said previously, I believe that it is both unlawful and undemocratic for any President to seize millions upon millions of acres of land through the Antiquities Act--a law that was geared to give the President only narrow authority to designate special landmarks, such as a unique national arch or the site of old cliff dwellings.

We desperately need a new process for creating national monuments. Congress and impacted local communities, not the President alone, should have a say in decisions that restrict access to millions of acres of federally owned land. In making such decisions, the voice of the people is paramount.

Let me be clear: Abusing the Antiquities Act at the expense of local communities is not a sustainable public lands strategy. This strategy is counterintuitive because it puts Antiquities Act authority at great risk. The Antiquities Act was designed to provide specific protections for objects of antiquity, but out West, particularly in Utah, the law has become synonymous with land grabs and Federal overreach.

Restoring the legitimacy of Antiquities Act authority in the eyes of westerners requires a more measured approach to monument designations, an approach that takes into account the needs of locals and restores trust between States and the Federal Government.

To be clear, I have no objection when Presidents use the Antiquities Act according to its original purpose, which was to protect cultural antiquities by designating the minimum acreage necessary. Take, for example, the great State of Washington, which is home to several national monuments that were created in line with the law's original intent. The State's beautiful San Juan Islands cover only 970 acres, while the Hanford Reach encompasses 195,000 acres. At first glance, this amount of acreage may seem large, but compared to Utah's two most prominent national monuments, it is a tiny speck on the map. In fact, the total acreage of the San Juan Islands and Hanford Reach combined is only 6 percent of the size of Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monuments.

In the State of Washington, Presidents have used the Antiquities Act within reason. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for my home State of Utah, where Presidents have repeatedly abused their authority under the law to declare eight national monuments that together span more than 3.3 million acres. In Utah, national monuments cover roughly 10 percent of all Federal land in a State where 67 percent of the land is already owned and dominated by the Federal Government. By contrast, only 28 percent of the land in the State of Washington is owned by the Federal Government. Of that Federal land, only 1.6 percent is locked away as a national monument. It is no wonder, then, that Utahns feel more threatened by the Antiquities Act than Washingtonians. This is a law that past Presidents have brandished as a weapon to cut up entire sections of our State.

This is far from the first time I have taken to the floor to speak out against Antiquities Act abuse. It certainly won't be the last. But I am encouraged by yesterday's Executive order with President Trump and Secretary Zinke

on our side. I believe we can plot a path forward to correct past abuses and forge a new precedent for future monument designations.

The President's Executive action signifies a critical milestone in the effort to include local voices in the management of our public lands. As the Trump administration reviews various national monuments, we must replace the top-down approach of past administrations with a grassroots strategy that engages local leaders, State officials, and Members of Congress in the decision-making process. Bringing all stakeholders to the table is essential to establish a new precedent that will undo the decades of abuse we have endured under, I think, false interpretations of the Antiquities Act.

I am eager to continue working with the President and the Secretary of the Interior to preserve our Nation's cultural treasures in a way that honors the original meaning of the Antiquities Act. I am likewise eager to involve locals in that process. With all parties working together, I firmly believe we can restore a relationship of trust between the States and the Federal Government in the management of public lands.

I am grateful for a President who is willing to work with us to reset the status quo. Better than any of his predecessors, President Trump understands the lasting damage wrought by past Presidents under the Antiquities Act. Indeed, in all my years of public service, I have never seen a President so committed to reining in the Federal Government and so eager to address the problems caused by these overreaching monument designations.

I wish to thank President Trump and Secretary Zinke for taking concrete steps to rein in abuse through yesterday's Executive order.

I also wish to thank the President's Chief of Staff, Reince Priebus, who helped make yesterday's victory possible. Reince has done exceptionally well in one of the toughest jobs in all of Washington. The President is lucky to have Reince in the White House. I am lucky to call him a friend.

I also wish to thank my former chief of staff, Ron Porter, who is now a special assistant to the President and the Staff Secretary at the White House. Rob is an invaluable asset to the President's team and ours as well. Without him, yesterday's Executive order would never have come to fruition, at least in my opinion. Rob was among the finest men ever to serve as my chief of staff. I have enjoyed watching him succeed at the White House.

Yesterday we took a meaningful first step to fix past abuses under the Antiquities Act. Yet there is still much work to be done, and I look forward to working with the White House every step of the way.

With that, I am grateful for all those who have participated in helping us to right the wrongs that have been going on for far too long, as some of the Presidents have played pure politics with public lands at the expense of the States involved, especially my State. It is easy to pick on a State that is 67 percent owned by the Federal Government and up to well over 70 percent owned by the Federal and State governments. It is easy to pick on these States--a small State indeed. But our State is resilient. We have some of the better people in Congress, and we also have the ability to be able to raise all kinds of hell here.

All I can say is that I just want my State treated fairly. I want to make sure the bureaucrats here in Washington don't walk all over the West because they think they can because of the wide expanses of territory and the many, many other aspects of the Western States that make them vulnerable to this type of inappropriate activity.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, last week, I had the opportunity to return home to visit the recently declared Bears Ears National Monument. This Federal designation encompasses roughly 1.35 million acres in Utah, and it is located in one of our country's most remote communities--Juan County.

For decades, this quiet county remained largely untouched by the tensions of modern life and the taint of

Washington politics, but no more. San Juan County is now the epicenter of a brutal battle over public lands, the outcome of which will have long-lasting consequences not only for Utah but for the entire Nation.

In geographical terms, San Juan County is massive. It is the largest county in the State of Utah and the second largest county in the United States. To put the size of San Juan County in perspective, consider that the county itself is larger than several States, including Connecticut, Delaware, and Rhode Island.

San Juan County alone accounts for nearly 10 percent of all the land in Utah. Yet Utahns have had very little to say about what actually goes on there. That is because the Federal Government administers the vast majority of San Juan County. Incredibly, just 8 percent of the county's land is under private ownership while an area of more than 2 million acres is controlled by the Bureau of Land Management.

This means that for years, my constituents who depend on the land's resources, have been at the mercy of out-of-touch bureaucrats who have little knowledge or personal connection to the land. President Obama only made matters worse when he spurned the men and women of San Juan County by declaring the Bears Ears National Monument last December. In doing so, he defied the will of the State legislature, the Governor, and the entire Utah congressional delegation. President Obama's midnight monument designation imposed even greater land use restrictions on a region that is already predominantly controlled by the Federal Government.

This last-minute monument designation was a case study in Presidential hubris. In making this unilateral decision, our former President either failed to heed the concerns of San Juan County residents or ignored them completely. As evidence of his disdain, President Obama issued this declaration with no open debate, no public hearing, and no vote in Congress. Utahns are now suffering the consequences of his recklessness.

When I visited the Bears Ears region last week, I met with small business owners and local officials who admitted the fact that the Obama administration never even gave them the courtesy of a simple phone call. President Obama knew his last-minute decision would impact the livelihoods of thousands in my State, but he was clearly more concerned with appeasing far-left interest groups than helping the men and women who depend on this land for their very survival.

I wish to be clear. In opposing the Bears Ears Monument designation, I am in no way opposing the protection of lands that need to be protected. Indeed, there are many cultural sites in San Juan County that deserve special care, and I am committed to working with the President and with Congress and with the people in that county to preserve these sacred sites.

I believe it is both unlawful and undemocratic for any President to seize millions upon millions of acres of land through the Antiquities Act--a law that was meant to give the President a narrow authority to designate special landmarks, such as a unique natural arch or the site of old cliff dwellings.

We desperately need a more sensible approach to protecting public lands--an approach that adheres more closely to the original intent of the Antiquities Act. Under this bill, Presidents were to exercise their authority to designate only the smallest area necessary to protect objects of antiquity. Instead, past Presidents have abused their power under the Antiquities Act to seize entire swaths of land.

In the case of Bears Ears, President Obama cited his authority under the Antiquities Act to lock away an entire quarter of San Juan County-- an action that undermines local autonomy and clearly violates the spirit of the law. In my view, land use decisions should not be decreed by executive fiat. They should be made only through a collaborative process that involves those who actually live there, live on the land, and know how to manage it.

For example, had President Obama worked with--rather than around-- Congress to protect public lands, Utah's schoolchildren would be better off today. That is because there are more than 100,000 acres of school trust land that lie within the 1.3 million-acre Bears Ears National Monument. The land is a significant source of revenue for schools across our State, providing children with the instruction and resources they need to succeed well into adulthood. But with President Obama's unilateral monument designation, this land was effectively rendered useless, eroding our State's ability to raise much needed funding for Utah's schools. Had a more responsible legislative approach been taken to protect Bears Ears, we could have preserved our school trust lands and protected the revenue they generate to benefit Utah's schoolchildren.

I wish to emphasize again that I am fully committed to protecting the vast stretches of red rock, desert, and rolling prairie that dot our western landscape, but the Antiquities Act is not the means to that end. Monumental land use decisions affecting thousands of westerners should be made by the men and women on the ground and their duly elected representatives, not just the President and his advisers. Congress--not the President alone--should have a say in decisions that restrict access to millions of acres of federally owned land.

In making such decisions, the voice of the people is paramount. That is why last week I visited the people of San Juan County. There, I spoke with Native Americans who rely upon this land and its resources for their very livelihood. I met with members of the San Juan School District who depend on the school trust lands to keep their classrooms lit and their schools up and running, and I met with members of the San Juan County Commission who are dealing firsthand with the negative consequences of the Bears Ears designation.

I traveled to San Juan County to listen to the people who feel abandoned by their very own government. My trip only reaffirmed my concern for the Bears Ears National Monument, which I have long held is not in the best interest of San Juan County.

The men and women of San Juan County are a strong and hardy people. They share a deep connection and history with the land. But San Juan County isn't without its struggles. For decades, it has been listed among the most persistently poor counties in the Nation. With the vast majority of the land owned and operated by the Federal Government, the fate of San Juan County rests almost entirely with beltway bureaucrats making politically motivated decisions more than 2,000 miles away. The families of Southern Utah should not be at the mercy of a Federal bureaucracy so completely out of touch with the western way of life.

Enough is enough. Under the Constitution, Congress has the sole authority to manage public lands. The only reason the executive branch has any say in the management of Federal lands is because Congress granted the President limited authority to participate in this process. We entrusted the executive branch to exercise reasonable authority through bills such as the Federal Land Policy and Management Act. At the heart of these policies was the principle of multiple use and sustainable yield--a mandate that Congress gave the executive branch when granting it this authority.

The mandate of multiple use was meant to preserve the ability of areas like San Juan County to live and grow, even when inundated with federally owned public lands. But President Obama betrayed this mandate through his Bears Ears designation when he declared much more than the smallest acreage possible as required by the Antiquities Act.

When I spoke with the leadership of the San Juan School District, they told me how prosperous the county had been when they were able to strike a balance with multiple land use. But the county's schools have been strapped for cash ever since the Bears Ears National Monument designation rendered these lands useless.

After speaking with school officials, we then met with local county commissioners and Navajo from San Juan County and drove together to the heart of Bears Ears, Bears Ears Meadow--behind me, the actual Bears Ears split of the mountains. We discussed how the monument could be altered so that the lands that deserve protection can remain protected but in a way that is consistent with the language of the Antiquities Act.

I believe there will be changes made to Bears Ears. These beautiful lands

deserve protection, but so too do the people of San Juan County. They should not be trampled on by their own government. As long as I am a U.S. Senator, I will not stop fighting to make sure that Utahns have a voice in the management of public lands. For years, I have fought to check the abuse of executive power under the Antiquities Act. That is why I have been working closely with the Trump administration from day one to right the wrongs of previous administrations.

In the opening weeks of his Presidency, I met personally with President Trump in the Oval Office to discuss the national monument issue at length. He listened intently as I relayed the fears and frustrations of thousands in our State who have been personally hurt by the Bears Ears and Grand Staircase monument designations. I explained the urgency of addressing the harm caused by these devastating measures, and I asked for his help in doing so. I was encouraged that, unlike his predecessor, President Trump actually took the time to listen and understand the heavy toll of such overreaching activities. Our President even assured me that he stands ready to work with us to undo the damage wrought by previous Presidents under the Antiquities Act, and I believe he will do so.

As details emerge, I understand the President even stands ready to issue an Executive order reining in the abuse of authority under the Antiquities Act. Now, this action would direct the Department of the Interior ``to review prior monument designations and suggest legislative changes or modifications to [these] proclamations.''

In President Trump, we have a leader who is committed to defending the western way of life. I am deeply grateful for his willingness to work with us to undo the harm caused by the overreach of his predecessors.

In protecting our public lands, I look forward to working with the Trump administration to establish a new precedent of collaboration and trust between States and the Federal Government.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time during quorum calls be divided equally.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, today I wish to recognize TechNet for its indispensable role in promoting the innovation economy and to congratulate the organization on its 20th anniversary.

TechNet is a national, bipartisan network of technology CEOs and senior executives that represents more than 2 million employees in the fields of information technology, e-commerce, advanced energy, biotechnology, venture capital, and finance. Over the last two decades, TechNet has advanced public policies and private sector initiatives that have helped to strengthen our Nation's position as the global technology leader and to create jobs and opportunities for millions of Americans. TechNet has been at the forefront of championing research and development, broadband connectivity, entrepreneurship, cyber security, tax reform, education reform, high-skilled immigration, and many other issues.

TechNet was founded in 1997 by two giants in the technology industry: John Doerr and John Chambers.

John Doerr's technology career began in 1974 at Intel, where he held roles in engineering, marketing, management, and sales. He later founded Silicon Compilers, a VLSI CAD software company, and cofounded @Home, a nationwide broadband cable Internet service. In 1980, John joined Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, KPCB, and has since supported some of the world's most successful entrepreneurs, including Google's Larry Page, Sergey Brin, and Eric Schmidt; Amazon's Jeff Bezos; and Inuit's Scott Cook and Bill Campbell. John avidly supports entrepreneurs seeking to create the ``next big thing'' in mobile and social networks, education, and economic development. Ventures sponsored by John have created more than 300,000 new jobs. Outside of KPCB, John also supports entrepreneurs who focus on the environment, public education, and alleviating global poverty. John serves on the boards of Amyris, Google, and Zynga, as well as several private technology ventures.

John Chambers spent 8 years with Wang Laboratories and 6 years with IBM before joining Cisco in 1991 as senior vice president, worldwide sales and operations. Over the course of 20 years at Cisco, he helped grow the company from $70 million, when he joined, to $1.2 billion when he assumed the role of CEO, to $47 billion when he stepped down as CEO in 2015. He is now executive chairman of the board for Cisco, where he counsels Cisco's leadership on company strategy, digital transformation, and strategic partnerships. John has received numerous awards for his leadership, including being named one of the Best- Performing CEOs in the World in 2015 by Harvard Business Review and receiving the Edison Achievement Award for Innovation. John has also been named one of Barron's' World's Best CEOs, one of Time Magazine's 100 Most Influential People, and the Best Boss in America by 20/20. In addition, John has been widely recognized for his philanthropic leadership and his active role in corporate social responsibility initiatives. He served on President Bill Clinton's Trade Policy Committee and on President George W. Bush's National Infrastructure Advisory Council, Transition Team, and Education Committee.

As chairman of the Senate Republican High-Tech Task Force, I commend John Doerr and John Chambers for their continuing efforts to keep America's technology industry at the forefront of the global economy. I honor them for their significant contributions to the tech industry.

In February of this year, I unveiled my innovation agenda for the 115th Congress and discussed several priorities to strengthen and secure America's place as the global leader in innovation. TechNet shares many of these priorities, including spurring high-tech investment and enhancing America's competitive workforce.

Our Nation is in need of workers with training in science, technology, engineering, and math--or STEM disciplines. We need to encourage our rising generation to focus on hard science and quantitative skills and to provide opportunities for Americans already in the workforce to develop expertise in these fields. Enhancing our competitive workforce also means improving the process by which high- skilled individuals in other countries come to the United States to fill crucial positions for which there is a shortage of American labor. As we endeavor to reform our high-skilled immigration system, we need to ensure that this system is not manipulated to undercut domestic wages or displace American workers. We need to reward good actors who use the system as it was intended and close off the ability of bad actors to profit by sending American jobs overseas.

TechNet provides our Nation an invaluable service as it continues to champion policies that promote the innovation economy. As a leader on tech and innovation issues here in the Senate, I look forward to working with TechNet and the rest of the tech community to ensure that the United States remains the global technology leader. I congratulate TechNet on its first 20 years and wish the organization the best of luck in its next 20 years.

Madam President, I really appreciate my colleague for his comments. He is one of the great Senators here, and we all pay attention to what he has to say, especially on foreign policy and military affairs, but also on so many other things as well. People ought to be listening to what he is saying with regard to this judgeship. I have great respect for Senator McCain and always will. He is one of the truly great Senators in this body. I just wish my colleagues on the other side would pay a little more attention to what he is having to say here today. So I thank the Senator.

Mr. President, I am pleased to pay tribute to a fine public servant and an incredible asset to the U.S. Congress.

Rich Rimkunas has had a career filled with outstanding achievement at the Congressional Research Service, CSR. After nearly 37 years of service, Rich will be retiring from CRS on Friday, April 28.

When Rich joined CRS in 1980, he was an analyst working on a broad array of social policy issues. Initially, he worked on issues like child nutrition, poverty, Social Security, social services for the aged, and unemployment insurance. Rich cocreated and coauthored a widely circulated CRS report on Federal social welfare spending. He was also a coauthor and contributor to several chapters in the House Ways and Means Committee print ``Children in Poverty,'' which provided a detailed look at the incidence and characteristics of child poverty in the United States.

Rich ultimately became heavily involved in providing research and analytical support to Congress on many health policy issues, including analyses of aggregate national health expenditures, the Medicare hospital prospective payment system, the Medicare Advantage program, and Medicare catastrophic drug costs. Additionally, he has worked on numerous issues related to Medicaid. He both directed a team of CRS analysts as well as contributed his own analysis to the Medicaid ``Yellow Book,'' a 1988 House Ways and Means Committee print that provided a comprehensive analysis of the Medicaid program as it existed at the time. Rich also managed the 1993 update of the ``Yellow Book.''

Rich's analyses have typically involved quantitative research methodologies, modeling techniques, and the use of complex databases. Rich has excelled at developing approaches for simulating the effects of potential changes to Federal benefits and grant allocation formulas.

In addition to the direct impact his research and analytical work has had on Federal policies, Rich has made equally important contributions within CRS in managerial roles. During his tenure at CRS, he has served as section research manager of the methodology section, the research development section, the research development and income support section, and the hea1th insurance and financing section. During his tenure as an SRM, Rich helped manage CRS work on the 1996 welfare reform law and the 2003 overhaul of Medicare in the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act. Rich helped manage an interdisciplinary team numbering about 3 dozen CRS analysts that provided legislative support during the passage of the Affordable Care Act.

Throughout his career, Rich has served as a role model for the highest level of CRS service to Congress, upholding the Service's standards of authoritativeness, objectivity, and confidentiality. He is known within CRS for his attention to detail, methodological strength, and creative approaches toward conducting analyses. His input is sought on a great many research efforts spanning virtually all of the major domestic social policy issue areas that Congress deals with.

Rich is renowned for his tremendous work ethic and energizing presence. Those who have worked closely with him appreciate his ability to keep his sense of humor even during the most stressful times.

In recent years, Rich has served as the deputy assistant director of CRS's domestic social policy division. In that role, he has mentored and helped develop many of the division's managers, analysts, and research assistants. He has also played a central role in reviewing written work produced by the division, helping to ensure its accuracy, completeness, and quality. Moreover, in his work as a division manager, Rich has served on numerous advisory panels that have recommended organizational practices and policies for CRS, many of which have been adopted.

Rich's policy expertise has been broadly recognized. He is regularly sought for his expertise at professional meetings and conferences. He was nominated to the National Academy of Social Insurance in 2002 and has served on the steering committee of the National Health Forum. He has also been recognized with numerous Library of Congress special achievement awards.

Rich has devoted nearly his entire distinguished professional career to supporting the work of Congress and to helping build and strengthen CRS and advance its mission.

We will miss Rich, but we wish him and his family the best of luck moving forward.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak out against the abuse of the Executive authority. Before I do, I want to compliment the distinguished Senator from Alaska for his cogent remarks here today on the floor. He is one of the great new additions to this body, and he ought to be listened to. I personally respect him and appreciate the words he said here today.

Antiquities Act

Mr. President, I rise today to speak out against the abuse of Executive authority under the Antiquities Act.

Over the last two decades, past Presidents have exploited the law in the extreme, using it as a pretext to enact some of the most egregious land grabs in our Nation's history. My home State of Utah has been hit especially hard by this Federal overreach. Time and again, Presidents have abused their power under the Antiquities Act to proclaim massive monument designations--to lock away millions of acres of public land.

My State has fallen victim to not one but two catastrophic monument designations. These designations were made unilaterally, without any input whatever from our congressional delegation or even the local Utahans whose lives would be directly affected by such decisions. Rather than advancing the important cause of conservation, these national monuments have come to symbolize Washington at its worst.

How did we get here? How did a century-old law, which is intended to give Presidents only limited authority to designate special landmarks, become a blunt instrument for Executive overreach? In answering this question, some background is necessary.

In 1906, Congress passed the Antiquities Act, which granted the President limited authority to establish national monuments to protect areas containing ``historic landmarks, historic and prehistoric structures, and other objects of historic or scientific interest.'' The Antiquities Act was a well-intentioned response to a serious problem: the looting and destruction of cultural and archaeological sites.

When applied as intended, the law has been indispensable in preserving our Nation's rich cultural heritage. But the law has not always been applied as intended; rather, it has been abused, exploited, and distorted beyond all recognition. It has been hijacked by past Presidents not to preserve archaeological features but to satisfy special interests and to advance a radical political agenda--all at the expense of States' rights.

By signing their authority under the Antiquities Act, past Presidents have seized millions of acres of public land, violating both the spirit and arguably the letter of the law. We need only look at the history of the Antiquities Act and its enactment to see how far we have come and how far we have strayed off course.

As with any law, congressional intent is key. On this point, I would like to refer to the House Congressional Record dated June 5, 1906. When asked how much land would be taken off the market in the Western States by passage of the Antiquities Act, Congressman John Lacey, the bill's lead sponsor, gave a simple response: ``Not very much.''

The bill provides that it shall be the ``smallest area necessary for the care and maintenance of the objects to be preserved.'' ``The smallest area necessary.'' These words are damning in light of recent monument designations which, far from regulating the smallest area necessary, have sought to restrict the largest area possible. I wonder what Congressman Lacey would say today if he could see how his bill has been manipulated for extreme partisan ends. I wonder what he would say if he could see how his legislation has been exploited by past Presidents to lock up entire sections of State land--all without congressional approval. And I wonder what he would say about the two most recent monuments designated in Utah: Bears Ears and the Grand Staircase-Escalante monuments. Together, these two monuments encompass 3.25 million acres--an area roughly the size of the State of Connecticut. To say that Congressman Lacey and his colleagues would be disappointed is an understatement.

In passing the Antiquities Act more than 100 years ago, Congress did not intend to cede undo authority to the executive branch, and they certainly did not intend for future Presidents to proclaim the massive land grabs of the recent past. They intended to give Presidents only limited authority to designate special landmarks, such as the unique national arch or the site of old cliff dwellings. Yet today, when it comes to the Antiquities Act, there is a shocking disparity between what Congress intended and what has actually happened.

As a case in point, look no further than my home State of Utah, where President Obama's last-minute, lameduck monument designation at Bears Ears is wreaking havoc on the local population. In the parting shot of his Presidency, President Obama defied the entire Utah congressional delegation and the will of his own constituents when he declared the Bears Ears a national monument. With the stroke of a pen, he locked away an astonishing 1.35 million acres--a geographic area larger than the total acreage of all five of Utah's national parks combined.

If that is not enough, consider that Utah's second most recent national monument, the Grand Staircase-Escalante, spans 1.9 million acres. That is an area double the size of all of Utah's national parks combined. When President Clinton proclaimed the Grand Staircase- Escalante a national monument more than 20 years ago, I remember standing on this very floor and speaking out then, just as I am speaking out now. My words back then are just as applicable today. I said:

While the 1906 Antiquities Act may indeed give the

President the literal authority to take this action, it is

quite clear to me that in using this authority, he is

violating the spirit of U.S. environmental laws. Real damage

has been done here. The failure even to consult prior to

making this decision should be considered devastating to

representative democracy.

To this day, the Grand Staircase proclamation remains among the most flagrant abuses of Presidential power I have ever seen. Without so much as a ``by your leave'' from Utahans, this unilateral action cut off access to millions of acres of land, suffocating economic development and uprooting the lives of thousands of Utahans who relied on the region's resources for their very survival. And just like Bears Ears, this designation came with no input from Utah's Governor, the Utah congressional delegation, or even local communities.

The Grand Staircase monument designation exemplified Executive overreach of the worst kind. Even Democrats were stunned by this shocking power grab, and many of them conceded to me privately when I was then shouting publicly that the President was never meant to set aside millions of acres through the Antiquities Act.

Even the San Francisco Chronicle--by no means a conservative newspaper--panned President Clinton's Grand Staircase proclamation. In 1996, the editorial board stated:

The question is whether a decision of such magnitude should

be carried out by Executive order. We think not. This may

well be a worthy idea, but it deserves a fair hearing. It

deserves to go through public deliberations, as slow and

messy as democracy may be, to fully air the concerns.

That was more than 20 years ago. In the intervening period, nothing has changed. Bears Ears was Grand Staircase all over again. When President Obama declared the Bears Ears a national monument in the twilight hours of his Presidency, he ignored the years of work Utah's congressional delegation had spent fighting to pass legislation to protect the region via a fair and open process. He ignored the State legislature and the Governor. He ignored the stakeholders and even local Utahans who were all working together to find a workable solution. He ignored the best interest of Utah and cast aside the will of the people, all in favor of the top-down unilateral approach meant to satisfy the demands of far-left interest groups. This is Executive hubris at its worst. It was never supposed to be this way.

Congress, not the President, is solely responsible under the Constitution for the management of property and land within the Federal domain. Only through passage of the Antiquities Act can Congress grant authority to the President to make limited monument designations. Congress entrusted the executive branch with narrow authority, but the executive branch has violated that trust time and time again.

For years, I have fought to check the abuse of Executive power under the Antiquities Act. As far as back as 1997, in the aftermath of the Grand Staircase proclamation, I introduced legislation requiring an act of Congress before the President could establish any national monument of more than 5,000 acres. As early as last year, in anticipation of the eminent Bears Ears debacle, I wrote a bill prohibiting any further extension or establishment of national monuments in Utah without express authorization from Congress.

Most recently, I have been working closely with the Trump administration from day one to right the wrongs of previous administrations. Within days of his nomination, I indicated to Secretary Ryan Zinke that undoing the harm caused by the Bears Ears and Grand Staircase monument designations was among my top priorities.

In a private meeting in my office, I even told Secretary Zinke that my support for his nomination would depend largely on his commitment to this cause. After gaining assurances from Secretary Zinke that he would work with us in this effort, I was eager to support his confirmation. I probably would have supported it anyway because he is a fine man. But I am really pleased that he agreed with me on the injustices that have occurred in Utah.

Just 2 weeks later, I found myself in the Oval Office where I engaged President Trump for over an hour on a wide-ranging discussion that focused specifically on the public lands issue. I have to say that I was amazed at the President's willingness to help. He listened intently as I relayed the fears and frustrations of thousands in our State who have been personally hurt by the Bears Ears and Grand Staircase monument designations.

I explained the urgency of addressing these devastating measures. I asked for his help in doing so. I was encouraged that, unlike his predecessor, President Trump actually took the time to listen and understand the heavy toll of such overreaching actions. Our President even assured me that he stands ready to work with us to fix this disaster. More than any of his predecessors, President Trump understands what is at stake here.

I was really buoyed up by the conversation with him in the Oval Office. Indeed, in all my years of public service, I have never seen a President so committed to reigning in the Federal Government and so eager to fix the damage done by these overbearing monument designations. We are fortunate now to have the White House at our side in the fight for local control.

There are many areas in this country that merit protection. I welcome the opportunity to work with my colleagues to further that cause. But the process to determine how best to protect these areas is equally important. That is why, for decades now, I have vehemently opposed unilateral actions to restrict the use of entire landscapes without even the charade of a public process.

Using the Antiquities Act to protect our public lands, we must set a new precedent of collaboration and trust between the States and the Federal Government. I look forward to working with President Trump to establish this new precedent.

Mr President. I will turn to another matter of pressing importance, the confirmation of Judge Neil Gorsuch to be a Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court. I have been in a lot of these battles over the years. I have to say, this one bothers me as much as any battle we have had.

In early January of this year, the Democratic leader issued a warning to then-President-Elect Donald Trump regarding the President-elect's anticipated selection of a Supreme Court nominee. Even before President Trump took the oath of office, the Democratic leader was already threatening the soon-to-be-President to either pick a ``mainstream and independent'' nominee or the Democrats would oppose the President- elect's choice ``with everything we have.''

Well, President Trump did exactly what the Democratic leader asked when he nominated Judge Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. Not only is Judge Gorsuch a mainstream and independent judge, he is easily one of the finest and most qualified nominees to the High Court that I have seen in all my 40 years in the Senate. His selection was also the result of the most transparent Supreme Court nomination process in American history.

President Trump and Hillary Clinton both made the Supreme Court a centerpiece of their campaigns and spoke at length about the type of judge they would appoint to replace Justice Scalia. Candidate Trump even made the novel pledge to nominate someone from a list of judges his campaign released to the public. This gave the American people the opportunity to vet the list and to discuss more generally the proper role of judges in our system of governance.

When the American people elected Donald Trump to be our next President, they ratified his list of candidates. When President Trump subsequently selected Neil Gorsuch from that list to be his nominee, he kept his promise to the American people. That is who I expected him to select at that time.

Judge Gorsuch's judicial record on the Tenth Circuit paints a clear picture of the judge's judicial temperament and philosophy. Of the more than 2,700 cases Judge Gorsuch has participated in on the Tenth Circuit, 97 percent of them were decided unanimously. Judge Gorsuch voted with the majority on that court 99 percent of the time, even though the majority were Democrats.

In the 1 percent of the cases in which Judge Gorsuch dissented, he did so with almost the same frequency, whether the majority opinion was written by a judge nominated by a Republican or a Democrat President. Additionally, Judge Gorsuch has gained bipartisan support, including from President Obama's former Solicitor General, Neal Katyal, a man whom I respect, said that Judge Gorsuch is committed to the rule of law and the judiciary's independence.

Judge Gorsuch was described by six former Solicitors General appointed under four different Presidents as, ``highly respected'' and ``admired by his colleagues appointed by Presidents of both parties and law clerks of all political stripes.''

The American Bar Association gave Judge Gorsuch its highest rating of ``well qualified'' to be an Associate Justice on the Supreme Court. I think we can all agree that this is a far cry from the profile of an extreme or activist judge. It is a far cry from that. That needs to be pointed out. I want to know how anyone can, while keeping a straight face, honestly make the case that Judge Gorsuch is anything but mainstream.

In reality, quite the opposite is true. Judge Gorsuch is exactly the kind of judge we need on the Supreme Court. He is an impartial, thoughtful man with tremendous judicial experience, a person that you can't help but respect. He has been educated at some of the best schools in the world and has excelled at every stage of his career.

He has served with character, courage, and integrity for more than a decade on the Federal bench. It would be hard to even imagine a better, more suitable choice for the Supreme Court than Judge Gorsuch. After seeing the judge sit through several grueling days of confirmation hearings and nearly 20 hours of questioning before the Senate Judiciary Committee, my confidence in Judge Gorsuch has only been solidified.

Despite the Democrat's best efforts before and during the hearings to distort his record, he demonstrated time and again that his judicial philosophy is to impartially interpret and apply the law and the Constitution wherever it might take him.

Now we are about to witness something unprecedented in the history of our Nation. The partisan minority is going to block a vote on a Supreme Court nominee. In all of the Senate's 228-year history, that has never happened before. Three Supreme Court nominees have faced filibusters in our Nation's history. The first, Abe Fortas, faced a bipartisan filibuster by Senators of both parties concerned about Fortas's questionable ethics background.

The second and third, William Rehnquist and Samuel Alito, endured partisan filibusters by Democrats who disagreed with these nominee's judicial philosophies. The filibuster against Fortas succeeded, in part, because Fortas lacked a clear majority support, and, in part, because he was ethically compromised. The filibusters against Rehnquist and Alito, by contrast, failed. Rehnquist and Alito both enjoyed clear majority support and both were confirmed. But that was a different Senate at the time. There was a lot more open mindedness about the qualifications of these judges and their right to sit on the bench.

I regret to say that we are likely to add a fourth filibustered Supreme Court nominee, Neil Gorsuch. Like Justices Rehnquist and Alito, Judge Gorsuch enjoys clear majority support. Like Justices Rehnquist and Alito, Judge Gorsuch faces opposition from Senate Democrats who don't like his judicial philosophy. Why, I will never understand. In particular, they object that Judge Gorsuch takes the law as he finds it, rather than trying to bend the law toward liberal social ends.

Unlike Justice Rehnquist and Alito, however, Judge Gorsuch is apparently not going to clear the 60-vote threshold for cloture. This is because Senate Democrats, with only a few exceptions, have concluded that no nominee who does not subscribe to their views of hot-button social issues should be allowed to serve on the Supreme Court. Never, never, in the history of this body has the Senate allowed a partisan minority to defeat a Supreme Court nomination for which there is clear majority support.

The only successful filibuster of a Supreme Court nominee in our Nation's history was bipartisan, and it involved an ethically compromised nominee, Abe Fortas, who resigned from the bench shortly after his nomination failed rather than face impeachment for serious conflict-of-interest violations. Those circumstances are not even remotely comparable to the situation we face today.

The filibuster of Judge Gorsuch, should it go forward, will be entirely partisan. It will have nothing to do with Judge Gorsuch's ethics or character, which are above reproach, and it will occur in the face of clear majority support for the nominee.

Senate Democrats' decision to block Judge Gorsuch should come as no surprise to anyone who has been following the confirmation wars for more than the last 5 seconds. My Democratic colleagues will no doubt shout to the hilltops--some of them. There are some that are standing up here too. But they will shout to the hilltops that Republicans are ruining the Senate if we decide to put a stop to their unprecedented obstruction of this nominee.

They will no doubt cry that the 60-vote threshold for cloture on Supreme Court nominees is sacrosanct and that by putting an end to Democrats' unprecedented obstruction, Republicans are somehow undermining this institution's ideals.

When the American people hear these claims, when they hear Senate Democrats argue that Republicans should respond to their unprecedented obstruction by allowing a nomination with clear majority support to fail, they should recognize these arguments for what they are: hypocrisy. The fact is, we are only in this situation, forced to choose between rewarding Democrat obstructionism and changing the Senate's rules, because of Democrats and the campaign they have waged against qualified judicial nominees for the past 30 years.

Every single escalation of the confirmation wars can be laid at the feet of Democrats. This is a simple truth, and nothing my colleagues on the other side of the aisle can say can change it. I speak from experience. I have been here for through all of it. I was here in 1987 when Democrats started the confirmation wars with their disgraceful treatment of Robert Bork, one of the greatest lawyers in the country and a person who was supremely qualified to be on the Supreme Court.

I remember vividly the day the late Senator from Massachusetts came to this floor and smeared Judge Bork as a man would somehow turn back the clock to darker days in our Nation's past. I have to say, Senate Democrats twisted Judge Bork's words, misrepresented his record, and in sum, did their best to turn a good and decent man into some sort of a monster.

In their scorched-earth campaign against Robert Bork, Senate Democrats sowed seeds of destruction that are coming now to full fruition.

Next came Clarence Thomas. My Democratic colleagues learned from their Bork experience that fabrications and misinterpretations can bring down even the most qualified nominee, so they set to work on Judge Thomas. Not satisfied merely with denigrating Judge Thomas's professional qualifications, they set out to destroy him personally as well.

I have been in the Senate for 41 years, and never in all my time have I seen a lower moment than the way the Senate Democrats treated Clarence Thomas. No baseless allegation, no lurid lie was too low for my Democratic colleagues' attention. To his great credit, Judge Thomas endured this slander with dignity and respect and was confirmed by a slim 52-to-48 margin.

Thankfully, after the Thomas ordeal, we stepped back from the brink. When Bill Clinton became President and had two Supreme Court vacancies early in his term, Senate Republicans did not play tit for tat. Instead, we gave Justices Ginsburg and Breyer fair hearings and confirmed them overwhelmingly. And how did Senate Democrats pay us back for our fair treatment of President Clinton's nominees? They filibustered President George W. Bush's nominees.

I have used the word ``unprecedented'' to describe Democrats' expected filibuster of Judge Gorsuch. Well, what the Democrats did to President Bush's judicial nominees was also unprecedented. For the first time in history, Senate Democrats successfully filibustered 10 court of appeals nominees. These were nominees with majority support in this body. These were nominees who would have been confirmed had they gotten an up-or-down vote. I cannot overstate how dramatic a change this was to Senate norms and procedures. For the first time in history, Senate Democrats created an effectual 60-vote threshold for judicial nominees. Remember that Clarence Thomas was confirmed with only 52 votes. Had Senate Democrats filibustered his nomination, it would have been defeated. But they didn't because partisan filibusters of nominees with majority support were simply not in the accepted playbook. What Senate Democrats did during George W. Bush's Presidency changed the Senate forever.

Next up was Samuel Alito. Like Chief Justice Rehnquist, Justice Alito faced a partisan filibuster by Senate Democrats. Like Chief Justice Rehnquist, he overcame that filibuster. But what is notable about Justice Alito is he received fewer than 60 votes for confirmation. He overcame the filibuster because 19 Senate Democrats voted to end debate on his nomination even though only 4 ultimately voted for confirmation. Fifteen Senate Democrats chose not to filibuster Justice Alito even though they opposed his nomination because they recognized that filibustering a Supreme Court nominee with clear majority support had no precedent in this body's norms or history.

What happened when Barack Obama became President and Republicans had an opportunity for payback? Did they filibuster Sonya Sotomayor and Elena Kagan? Of course not. Indeed, many Republicans voted against Justice Sotomayor and Justice Kagan, but no Republican tried to prevent their nominations from coming to a vote. Once again, Senate Democrats escalated confirmation wars, and Senate Republicans chose not to reciprocate.

How did Democrats pay us back for our restraint on Justices Sotomayor and Kagan? They nuked the filibuster for lower court nominees. The irony of this move is really something. It was the Democrats who, 10 years earlier, for the first time in Senate history, began the practice of filibustering courts of appeal judges in an effort to stop President Bush's nominees. When Senate Republicans then had the gall not to roll over for President Obama once the shoe was on the other foot, Democrats simply changed the rules back to what they were in practice 10 years prior. Democrats, that is, raised the effectual confirmation threshold to 60 votes by instigating filibusters to block Republican nominees and then lowered it back down to 50 votes to push through Democratic nominees. They did so after only seven failed cloture votes. The Republicans, by contrast, endured 20 failed cloture votes during President Bush's term and never changed the rules.

That brings us to today. Having Borked Judge Bork, smeared Justice Thomas, instigated the filibuster for lower court nominees when it was in their interest, filibustered Justice Alito, and then eliminated the filibuster for lower court nominees when it was in their interest, Senate Democrats now expect Republicans to drop our hands and allow them to block Judge Gorsuch--an unquestionably qualified nominee with broad support from across the legal community and the country as a whole.

Enough, Mr. President. Enough.

We have let our Democratic colleagues get away with their games for too long. They were for the filibuster before they were against it before they were for it. They were the ones who created an effectual 60-vote threshold for judicial nominees. They were the ones who then undid that threshold to assist their short-term political interests when they were in power. They are the ones who now, for the first time in history, are seeking to block a Supreme Court nominee with clear majority support.

To put the matter bluntly, my Republican colleagues and I are fed up with these Democratic Party antics. We will no longer be bound by their games and petty partisanship. We will no longer allow them to dictate the terms of debate in ways that always advantage their side and always disadvantage ours.

I regret deeply the point we have arrived at. I am an institutionalist. I love the Senate and what it represents. I love my Democratic colleagues, and they know it. I have been very fair to them through the years, and I continue to be. I value debate, and I honor bipartisanship. But 30 years ago, my Democratic colleagues sent us down this path, and they have done nothing in the years since to turn us from this course. To the contrary, they have only hastened our descent.

If Democrats will filibuster a person like Judge Gorsuch, they will filibuster anyone--anyone--who holds to the traditional judicial values Republicans embrace. Neil Gorsuch is as good as they come. If he is not good enough for Democrats, no one will be.

Democrats demand that Republicans choose a nominee they would choose if they held the White House, when that has never been the standard for Supreme Court nominees and defies all logic and common sense. They demand the power to veto President Trump's choice even though the Supreme Court was, in all likelihood, the issue that won him the election. And I believe that. And they demand that Republicans keep the rules sacrosanct when they have changed the rules and changed the rules and changed the rules.

I am not happy that we are where we are, but I can say without reservation

that we are here because of what Democrats have done over the past 30 years to poison the confirmation process.

I am about to change the rules if necessary to put Neil Gorsuch on the Supreme Court. I won't be happy about that, but I will do it because Judge Gorsuch deserves confirmation and because I refuse to reward Democrats for 30 years of bad faith in blocking, stalling, and smearing Republican nominees.

Enough, Mr. President. Enough.

I hope my colleagues will come to their senses and realize that we ought to be working to support people of the quality of Judge Neil Gorsuch. There will come a time when they are going to have nominees before this body--I kind of hope that doesn't happen, but I think it is bound to happen--and when they do, I hope my fellow Republicans won't treat their nominees the way they are treating ours. It is abominable, it is abysmal, it is wrong, and I think it is time for everybody in this country to know that.

Mr. President, I used to try cases in Federal court, in Pittsburgh and in Utah. I had tremendous respect for Federal court judges. Mainly the judges in Pittsburgh were all Democrat. The judges in Utah more often were Democrats, some Republicans. But I have got to say that they were good judges, and I was very proud to be able to present my cases in front of them.

All I can say is that in all my years of working on the Judiciary Committee, trying cases before I came here, having an AB rating, the highest rating that Martindale-Hubble grants to attorneys for ability in both Pittsburgh and Utah, I have to say that I am very disturbed by the arguments made against Judge Gorsuch, and I have to say that I don't think you can find a better more qualified person to be on the Supreme Court.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, as we approach the end of another week in the Senate with a 2-week recess on the horizon, I think it is a good time to reflect on where we are on various high-profile efforts and to talk about the pathways forward.

As is generally the case when any new administration comes into office, the Republican majorities in both the House and Senate began 2017 with an ambitious agenda in order to make good on the promises we have made to the American people over the last several years. Many of the key items on the agenda fall squarely in the jurisdiction of the Senate Finance Committee, which I chair. That being the case, my colleagues on the committee and I have been hard at work, trying to find the right solutions on things like healthcare, tax reform, and trade policy.

I don't think I am going to surprise anyone when I say it hasn't been easy. Honestly, I think that might be the biggest understatement of the year.

Things have been difficult for a number of reasons. One reason is that we are coming off of a bitter election year, one that shocked a number of our colleagues. After a hotly contested campaign, it can sometimes take a while for things to return to normal. However, I don't think that excuses the tactics and rhetoric we have seen from our friends on the other side of the aisle.

In any of these big-ticket policy efforts, whether we are talking about repealing and replacing ObamaCare, fixing the Tax Code, or updating America's trade policy, cooperation between the legislative and the executive branches is key. My Democratic colleagues know this, which, I suppose, is probably the reason they appeared to be bound and determined to prevent any meaningful cooperation from happening.

Now don't get me wrong; I don't expect my friends to change their views and back policies that they find disagreeable. However, you would think, at the very least, that they would allow the new President to get his team in place, a courtesy that has typically been extended to past Presidents, regardless of party. Yet over the last few months, we have seen a systematic effort from our Democratic colleagues to smear, attack, and undermine the vast majority of executive branch nominees. In many cases, after the baseless attacks have failed to gain traction, they have used every procedural tool at their disposal, including surprise boycotts of committee markups, in order to slow down the confirmation process.

This level of obstruction with regard to nominees is unprecedented. And I think it is safe to say that it has slowed our efforts down somewhat, which, I suppose, is the exact reason our colleagues have taken this path. Still, despite these childish tactics, the teams are coming together, and we are moving forward in a number of key areas. As I said, it still hasn't been easy, but to paraphrase a number of important figures, nothing worth doing is ever easy.

For example, on healthcare, I think it is safe to say that the ongoing effort to repeal and replace ObamaCare took a hit last week, but I don't think that has weakened anyone's resolve. ObamaCare is a disaster, and one way or another, it has to go away. The American people are demanding that we take action, and I expect that the volume of those demands is only going to go up.

I commend Speaker Ryan for his efforts thus far, and I commend all my colleagues in the House and Senate for their commitment to repealing and replacing the so-called Affordable Care Act. I remain hopeful that in the near future we can find a workable path forward, and that includes my Democratic colleagues as well.

On tax reform we have some indications that the Trump administration intends to be more actively engaged in finding and developing a path forward. I have said for years that if we are going to be successful in tax reform--a goal shared by Members of both parties--it is going to take Presidential leadership and cooperation by both parties. While President Obama was generally unwilling to meaningfully engage on tax reform, President Trump and his team appear to be anxious to drive the process, and I welcome that.

As with healthcare reform, there are some differences of opinion with regard to tax reform. Still, I think there is a remarkable amount of agreement, at least among Republicans, on the major issues we need to deal with to fix our broken Tax Code.

Overall, I would say that the Republicans in the Senate, the House, and the White House agree on about 80 percent of the major tax reform issues, and a number of key and fundamental questions are answered in that 80 percent. For example, we all generally agree on the need for comprehensive reform. We agree on the need to bring down tax rates for businesses and job creators. We agree that we need a simplified rate structure on the individual side. We agree on the need to fix the international tax rules to level the playing field for American companies and encourage more investment in the United States, and we generally agree on key process issues, including the appropriate revenue baselines and the use of macroeconomic analysis in budget scoring.

Still, that 20 percent of issues where we don't necessarily agree is not insignificant. We will need to find a consensus path forward on those issues as well. One area where we have yet to reach a consensus-- and the one getting the most attention--is on the proposed border adjustment tax. People have a number of opinions about this, and I have had numerous people in my office on both sides of the issue. As I said, there are a number of opinions on this proposal, and they have been more than willing to express them publicly. As for myself, I am anxious to see what it looks like once our friends in the House put it all together.

It is too early for me to express a definitive position now. So at this point, all I will say is that I have some basic questions about the proposal.

For example, who will ultimately bear the tax? To what extent will it be borne by consumers, workers, shareholders, and, of course, foreigners?

Another question: Is the proposal consistent with our international trade obligations?

Finally, since border adjustability will likely be a significant shift in business tax policy, would it require us to make adjustments to ensure that we don't unduly increase the tax burden on specific industries? If so, what adjustments would be necessary, and how would they be structured?

I look forward to receiving more details on this proposal. However, here in the Senate, we also have some work to do, and I have been actively working with the members of the Finance Committee to find various solutions to our Nation's tax problems.

At the end of the day, I don't think it will surprise anyone to hear me say that I believe we are going to need to have a robust and substantive tax reform process in the Senate. In my view, it is not realistic to think that the Senate will simply take up and pass a House bill without our Members having a significant input on the substance of the bill. That is how the Congress is supposed to operate, and I think that is what will produce the best result in the end.

I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues in the House on tax reform. I also appreciate the willingness of the new Treasury Secretary and the President's National Economic Council to lead on this effort, and I look forward to continuing to work with them as well.

I will also say this: My hope is that both parties can find a way to work together on tax reform. While we have procedural tools at our disposal to get tax reform legislation through Congress with strictly Republican votes, I personally believe that it would be better to find a bipartisan path forward. A bipartisan bill would allow us to put in place more lasting reforms and give the overall effort additional credibility.

I am sure there are some who think it is impossible for Republicans and Democrats to work together on something of this magnitude, but I have been in the Senate for a long time, and I think my record for bipartisanship speaks for itself. I believe we can and should work together, and I am willing to talk and work with anyone who is willing to set politics aside and engage in good faith on these matters.

I have been banging a drum on tax reform for 6 years now, and throughout that time, I have invited my Democratic colleagues to join in this effort. I will do so again today. Hopefully, some of our colleagues on the other side will take me up on this offer.

Finally, I want to say a few words about U.S. trade policy. Trade is another area in which President Trump has some ambitious plans and in which, up to now, progress has been hindered. Before I delve into that, let me reiterate a key point.

In 2015, Congress outlined its trade priorities with our legislation to renew the trade promotion authority, which was signed into law by President Obama. The TPA statute gives clear guidance as to what a trade agreement should look like if it is going to win Congress's approval.

President Trump was fortunate to come into office with TPA already in effect, and I am committed to working with him to enact trade agreements that meet those standards established by the TPA law. When it comes to new trade agreements or revisions to modernize existing trade agreements, that is my top priority as chairman of the Senate committee with jurisdiction over trade policy. Our trade laws are designed to give Congress a voice in both the negotiation and implementation of trade agreements.

In addition to priorities and objectives outlined under TPA, there is the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, which is intended to be the chief intermediary between Congress and, of course, the administration on trade

policy matters. In other words, in order for the two branches to effectively work together on trade, the Office of the USTR needs to be fully functional and fully staffed.

Unfortunately, up to now, some on the other side have been making unreasonable and wholly unrelated demands in relation to the confirmation of President Trump's nominee to be USTR even though he has support from Members of both parties. This is unfortunate. However, I am working with my colleagues to remove any remaining roadblocks, and I am hoping we can make progress on this very soon.

As one can see, we have quite a bit of work to do here in Congress, and I am only talking about a handful of the major issues before us. I am very concerned. There are, of course, many other priorities we need to address and matters we need to resolve. I am hoping that in the coming weeks and months, as we put more distance between us and the 2016 election, more of our colleagues on both sides will be amenable to working together to address these kinds of issues even if it means allowing President Trump to claim some successes.

I yield the floor.

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.

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

Mr. President, before I begin my remarks on the Supreme Court nomination, I want to just say a word about the terrorist attack in London yesterday.

I was devastated to hear that two Utahans, Kurt and Melissa Cochran, were victims in yesterday's attack. While Melissa is recovering, I was heartbroken to hear that Kurt has since passed away from his injuries.

I just want to offer our most sincere condolences to the Cochrans and ensure that we help them in any way we can.

I know all our prayers are with the victims and with their families, friends, and loved ones.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to once again address the nomination of Judge Neil M. Gorsuch to be the next Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.

I am extraordinarily pleased that the President has nominated such an outstanding individual to fill the seat that was held by my friend, the late Justice Antonin Scalia, for nearly three decades.

In the weeks since Judge Gorsuch's nomination, I have done my best to make the case that he is exactly the kind of Justice that we need: one that will--in the timeless words of Marbury v. Madison--say what the law is, not what he wishes the law would be.

In my view, his outstanding credentials and his understanding of the proper role of a judge under our Constitution make him a choice that should command universal support. Unfortunately, this feeling does not appear to be as broadly shared as it should be.

Leftwing activists are demanding a scorched-earth approach to Judge Gorsuch's nomination, and I am afraid that some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle appear to have been swept up in this fervor. Their opposition stems from two different

sources and has taken two different forms.

The first cause is the visceral reaction among some to our new President. After last year's bitterly fought election campaign, many on the left simply refuse to accept the legitimacy of the new administration and are dead set on all-out opposition to every initiative, every policy, and every nominee of this President. As a case in point, we are in mid-March and the President is still waiting for the Senate to confirm his Cabinet nominees. This hasn't happened, to my knowledge, in the 40 years I have been in the Senate.

Skeptical of any nominee's willingness to hold the administration that nominated him accountable to the law, they are demanding assurances about how Judge Gorsuch would rule on the administration's most controversial moves.

The Supreme Court confirmation process should not be treated as just another forum to litigate the wisdom and lawfulness of the new administration's policies. Not only does such an approach distract from the proper focus on the nominee's qualifications and judicial philosophy, but it also threatens to undermine the very independence Democrats claim to want in a Supreme Court Justice.

As I have explained in detail as recently as last week, nominees of both parties for decades have refused to speculate on cases that may come before them in order to not prejudice their potential future judgments. Moreover, as a sitting Federal judge, Judge Gorsuch is bound by the code of conduct for United States judges, one of the canons of which prohibits a judge from making ``public comment on the merits of a matter pending or impending in any court.''

In light of this longstanding, necessary, and, in Judge Gorsuch's case, legally mandated practice, I have found it extraordinarily disappointing to hear some of my colleagues try to turn on its head Judge Gorsuch's admirable efforts to protect his independence. For example, the minority leader has repeatedly castigated Judge Gorsuch for refusing to take a definitive stand on the legality of the new administration's policies, accusing him of ``avoiding answers like the plague.''

For those of us of all political stripes who want a Supreme Court Justice who decides cases on the basis of what the law commands, rather than whether the result serves a particular political or policy agenda--be it Republican or Democrat, conservative or liberal, pro- Trump or anti-Trump--Judge Gorsuch's refusal to prejudice his approach to future cases should be celebrated, not condemned.

As Justice Sotomayor said recently: ``Any self-respecting judge who comes in with an agenda that would permit that judge to tell you how they will vote is the kind of person you don't want as a judge.''

Put more colorfully, there is a plague threatening judicial independence; here, this plague takes the form of the minority leader's attempt to extract these sorts of inappropriate answers, and Judge Gorsuch is wise to avoid that. The minority leader should know better.

Moreover, we know the minority leader does know better, given his many years of service on the Judiciary Committee and, in particular, how he acquiesced to the same approach when now-Justices Sotomayor and Kagan were presented with similar timely hypotheticals during their confirmation processes.

Sadly, I have little doubt that this line of attack on Judge Gorsuch will continue to infect the confirmation process, but we should be completely clear and unambiguous about what these attempts to get Judge Gorsuch to answer hypothetical questions about the legality of the administration's policies represent. They are illegitimate, partisan attempts to derail his nomination, cleverly shrouded in a cloak of alleged concern about his independence. Americans should not be under any illusions that these proper concerns about independence amount to anything else.

To turn to the second source of opposition to Judge Gorsuch's nomination, one need only examine this week's New York Times heading, which blared: ``Democrats' Line of Attack on Gorsuch: No Friend of the Little Guy.''

This same theme has been repeated by various leftwing interest groups and by some of my colleagues here in the Senate. They should be ashamed. As I have explained extensively in the past, the judge's critics view the judiciary as simply an extension of politics, just another forum to relitigate battles that they lost in the policymaking process. In their view, the job of a judge is not to apply the law to the facts dispassionately, but rather to pick winners and losers on the basis of the political popularity of the litigants and the policy consequences of the decision.

While such an approach is antithetical to the role of a judge under the Constitution, it has become an entrenched article of faith for most of those on the left. As such, they have approached Judge Gorsuch's nomination in a predictable manner: cherry-picking and mischaracterizing his opinions as evidence of a political agenda with total disregard of what the law commanded in each of those cases.

Simply put, this line of attack on Judge Gorsuch is ludicrous. Any reasonable analysis of his opinions shows that his decisions apply to laws enacted by the people's elected representatives, without regard to his own personal preferences. His approach manifests the Constitution's vision of the appropriate role of a judge that has been prominently embraced by Justice Scalia: ``If you're going to be a good and faithful judge, you have to resign yourself to the fact that you are not always going to like the conclusions you reach. If you like them all the time, you're probably doing something wrong.''

Today, I want to examine just a few of the cases seized on by Judge Gorsuch's liberal critics to demonstrate just how unfounded their attacks are. Compass Environmental v. Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission involved a Tenth Circuit ruling against a firm for failing to provide adequate training to protect its employees from electric shock hazards. Judge Gorsuch did indeed rule in the firm's favor, but the case did not present the question of whether the company should do more to protect its workers. Rather, the case turned on the question of whether the Secretary of Labor satisfied the standard of showing any evidence to demonstrate that the firm in question was providing less training than what is the norm in the industry.

One need only examine the judge's opinion to understand how that specific legal burden was met, reaching the same conclusion as the administrative law judge below.

Next, Riddle v. Hickenlooper touches on one of the liberals' faith talking points: the supposed need to regulate political speech in order to fight money in politics. While this case has been characterized as some invitation for wealthy and large corporations to exert undue influence in politics, it actually turned on a rather narrow and technical question of whether a $200 disparity in the contribution limits for major party and write-in candidates for Colorado's State House of Representatives amounted to an equal protection violation.

Judge Gorsuch joined the majority opinion of his colleagues--an Obama appointee, by the way--in agreeing that it did constitute such a violation, and then wrote a brief concurrence outlining how unclear Supreme Court precedent was on this particular point.

Moreover, he stated how ``clear'' it was that ``with a little effort, Colorado could have achieved its stated policy objectives . . . without offending'' the Constitution.

In essence, Judge Gorsuch adopted a particularly narrow position on a relatively minor issue in the grand scheme of campaign finance law, meriting none of his opponents' extrapolations about larger issues of political speech.

Finally, several of Judge Gorsuch's writings have called into question the so-called Chevron doctrine, under which Federal courts defer to administrative agencies' interpretations of the law. His opponents have seized on this skepticism to argue that Judge Gorsuch is somehow reflexively opposed to regulation. Nothing could be further from the truth.

These critics of Judge Gorsuch should recall that the Chevron deference first flourished as a reaction against liberal judges overturning the deregulatory actions of the Reagan administration. I myself am a skeptic of

Chevron and have led the fight to overturn it with my Separation of Powers Restoration Act. But as the name of my legislation suggests, overturning Chevron is about restoring the constitutional allocation of powers between the three branches, maintaining fidelity to the text of the Administrative Procedure Act, and ensuring that the bureaucracy abides by the law no matter its policy goals.

These are a few of Judge Gorsuch's opinions that have been most prominently mischaracterized as driven by a political agenda, when in reality their results are demanded by the law. Sadly, I expect that these mischaracterizations and inappropriate demands of Judge Gorsuch will continue to appear in this confirmation process. They don't have any better arguments, and those arguments are not only flawed, but they are wrong and inappropriate.

Let me quote from a prominent liberal law professor, Harvard's Noah Feldman, to sum up how I think we all should feel about this strategy:

I'm not sure who decided that the Democratic critique of

U.S. Supreme Court nominee Judge Neil Gorsuch would be that

he doesn't side with the little guy. It's a truly terrible

idea. . . . [S]iding with workers against employers isn't a

jurisprudential position. It's a political stance. And

justices--including progressive justices--shouldn't decide

cases based on who the parties are. They should decide cases

based on their beliefs about how the law should be

interpreted.

That is a liberal law professor agreeing with me, really, and condemning these types of ad hominem attacks by people who know better or should know better.

I urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to resist the temptation to give in to partisan and ideological pressure to engage in these tactics I described earlier, and I hope people will pay attention to what I have suggested. These are unworthy of the Senate's role, and they are unmerited with respect to such a stellar nominee as Judge Gorsuch, a man who is clearly committed to the proper, independent role of a judge.

I urge all of my colleagues to join me in helping to ensure his speedy confirmation. This man is a decent, honorable, intelligent man who deserves the support of this decent, honorable, intelligent body. The arguments of the other side are without merit and, frankly, are really abysmal, and I sure hope they will reconsider and vote for this man who will be an excellent Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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