Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I wish to speak tonight about the opioid crisis that has gripped my State of Ohio and our country and talk about some lessons learned.

There was an article in the New York Times that some might have seen on Sunday about a town in Ohio--Dayton, OH--and the progress they have made in combating this opioid crisis, including a reduction in overdose deaths, which is really significant. Dayton is a city that has had some of the highest overdose death rates in our entire State of Ohio, and Ohio is No. 3 or No. 4 in the country in terms of overdose deaths. They have seen in Dayton, OH, over the last year, about a 50-percent decrease in overdose deaths. It is still totally unacceptable. Unfortunately, there are still hundreds of people who are dying every year. But from this high-water mark, progress has been made. Why is that happening?

Well, I am going to talk a little bit about that tonight and talk about some of the things that are actually working back in our communities and perhaps give us a little sense of optimism about what might be able to happen over the next couple of years as we try to turn the tide on this epidemic.

For a little context, last year we had the highest rate of overdose deaths in the history of our country. Some 72,000 Americans--72,000-- lost their lives to overdoses from drugs. In my State of Ohio, that number is particularly high, to the point that it is the No. 1 cause of death now in our State.

I met with the director of the CDC, or the Centers for Disease Control, today and talked about the opioid epidemic and talked about the tragedy he is seeing in places like southwest Ohio, Dayton, and Cincinnati, my hometown, where we see incidences of hepatitis C increasing and even hepatitis A. These are diseases that are primarily increasing because of the sharing of needles and the opioid epidemic.

So we have our work cut out for us, don't we?

In Dayton, OH, by the way, over the last few years, the death rate had gotten so high that the coroner's office was literally running out of space. There wasn't enough room to put all the bodies.

I have held roundtable discussions in Dayton and Montgomery County, which is the county around Dayton, over the past several years and heard the bad news. I have often been with Montgomery County then- Sheriff Phil Plummer, who has been tireless in trying to focus law enforcement, the social workers, the treatment community, the business community, and other community leaders on how to respond to this problem. Our first responders, of course, are as desperate as anybody to address this.

It has been tough. Again, I have been in Dayton, OH, and had to talk about the fact that we had the worst rates in the country of deaths and, therefore, one of the worst in the entire country.

So what has happened? How has Dayton made this progress, this 50 percent reduction?

Well, the New York Times highlights a number of reasons for it. They talk about greater community involvement, the ability for more Medicaid recipients to get treatment, and more

Narcan being distributed throughout the community. Narcan, of course, is this miracle drug that reverses the effects of an overdose.

They talked about helping to deal with the stigma. In other words, by reducing the stigma that is associated with addiction, more people will step forward to get treatment for it, and their families will be more willing to push them forward. That helps to unite communities against what is the biggest public health crisis we face in Ohio and around the country.

I would like to highlight tonight some of the things we have done here in this body just in the last couple of years that contribute to some of the success that we are seeing.

Again, are we there yet? No, we are not. Last year was worse than the year before, but I do believe that we are going to begin to make progress, and, frankly, I think we would already have seen some of these efforts at the Federal level, State level, and local level, which are taking root, make a bigger difference but for one thing, and that is this big influx of synthetic opioids--fentanyl. Fentanyl, carfentanil, and other synthetics have taken over.

I remember being in Dayton, OH, the city we are talking about tonight, about 4 years ago when, for the first time, I heard from a law enforcement official that fentanyl was pushing out heroin. At that time, the big issue was heroin. It wasn't fentanyl. In fact, very few people knew about fentanyl. Fentanyl has hit my State and our country so hard over the past several years--the last 3, 4, 5 years--that it has sort of overwhelmed the system. So as we have begun to make progress on better education, better treatment, better recovery options, and more Narcan, we have also had this big influx of this incredibly powerful drug that is 50 times more powerful than heroin on average--an inexpensive drug.

We will talk in a minute about what we are doing about fentanyl, but, again, I think if we had not seen that influx, we would already be seeing more progress because of some of the things that we will talk about that are happening in Dayton, OH.

Back in 2016, this body, after 4 years of work, passed legislation called the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act. I was proud to coauthor that with my colleague Sheldon Whitehouse. It was bipartisan. It was nonpartisan. It was based on evidence. It was based on four conferences we had here in DC. We brought in people from all over the country to talk about this: What is the best treatment option? What is the best way to ensure somebody gets through treatment successfully? How can we do a better job with our veterans? How can we ensure that we are bringing our first responders into this, working with them, and helping them to be able to deal with this crisis? All of that led to this Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act legislation.

The first thing the legislation did, actually, was it said: Let's look at this like a disease. That may be--of all the things that are in that legislation, including significant new funding for our communities--maybe the most important thing, and it is beginning to change the paradigm, so that we don't look at this as a moral failing but rather look at it as something that is a disease. Something changes in your brain when you become addicted.

I can't tell you the number of people I have met in my home State of Ohio who because of an accident or an injury took an opioid, became addicted--physically addicted--shifted to heroin or fentanyl because the prescription drugs were hard to find or too expensive, and then overdosed, and, in some cases, overdosed and died.

But having said that, this legislation--this Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act legislation--focusing on prevention, focusing on treatment, focusing on recovery, focusing on providing Narcan to our communities, has made a difference. There will be $608 million spent this year on these CARA programs. Our first year it was about $182 million. It has gone up every year since. Why? Because it is working. It was based on good evidence, and it is helping to offer innovative solutions to this stubborn addiction challenge we face in our country.

Dayton, OH, and Montgomery County have received $3.5 million in CARA funding. So part of the reason they have had some success is that they have taken this funding and used it in innovative ways. It includes $2 million for first responders and about $500,000 for the city of Dayton to develop partnerships between first responders and treatment providers responding to overdoses as a team.

Somebody overdoses, Narcan is applied, and their lives are saved. Unfortunately, still in America in most cases, the person goes back to the community, to the old team, the old gang, and often there is no followup.

In Dayton, what they have said is this: Do you know what? If somebody overdoses and Narcan is applied, we are going to follow up with them, and the team will include law enforcement, but it also will include treatment providers and maybe social workers. This funding has allowed them to pursue that.

Also, there is $1 million from Montgomery County Public Health to analyze substance abuse issues and identify potential solutions to come up with more innovative and creative ways to deal with this.

Also, in 2016, this Congress passed another piece of legislation. The Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act, remember, is funding that goes straight to programs to help on prevention, education, and innovative solutions. The second one was called the 21st Century Cures Act, and this provides funding directly back to the States, and the States then decide how it is spent. That funding is also making a big difference.

In each of the last 2 years, Ohio has received $26 million in Cures funding to affect the opioid crisis. All of your States have received funding too. The funding is based on the degree to which you have a problem. So the States like my State of Ohio, West Virginia, and Kentucky have gotten significant amounts of money from this because we need it.

Again, the Montgomery County Alcohol, Drug Addiction, and Mental Health Services Board, or the ADAMHS Board, has received about $2 million in Cures funding over the last 2 years in Dayton, OH. I have seen and heard about how that funding is being put to good use.

Just a couple months ago, I was in Dayton. I took part in a roundtable discussion with the Montgomery County ADAMHS Board and discussed how they are using their Cures money and their CARA money. They are using their Cures money to fund a community-based treatment team. They are partnering with Dayton and Montgomery County Public Health Addiction Services to provide 24/7 ambulance withdrawal support--a community treatment team to help people gripped by addiction get treatment in their own homes and primary care for high-risk addicts, including pregnant women and more.

They are finding that is working. It is working not just to have people be saved from an overdose by Narcan but getting these people directed into treatment to actually help them with their addiction problem longer term.

They are implementing impressive programs to help with some of the most vulnerable groups that are affected by this crisis, and that is mothers who are addicted and their babies, who are too often being born with what is called neonatal abstinence syndrome. Because the mom is addicted, the baby is born with this syndrome which requires the baby-- tiny innocent babies--to go through withdrawal. It is a very sad situation. It is happening in hospitals all over our country. Go to your neonatal unit in your hospital, and you will find out that, unfortunately, the numbers of these babies has increased dramatically.

We don't know the impact longer term on these babies who are born to moms who are addicted, but there is a great risk there. What we do know is that hospitals across the country are being filled up with these innocent babies, and they need our help.

After these babies get out of the hospital, by the way, often they can't go back to their moms or their dads because they are addicted, nor should they.

The moms and dads sometimes are in treatment. They can't take their babies with them. What happens to these kids? Well, there are some groups that have started. Community volunteers have stepped up in Dayton, OH, as an example, and started a group called Brigid's Path. Brigid's Path is a shining example of an organization that is

dedicated to helping newborns who are dependent on drugs be able to recover longer term. As these innocent babies are taken through the withdrawal, they also need to be surrounded by love and support.

Earlier this year, I had the opportunity to visit Brigid's Path. It provides short-term inpatient care in a home-like setting for these newborns who are suffering from prenatal drug exposure.

A lot of volunteers are involved. Some of the volunteers do something really important and really simple. You know what it is? They hold the babies. Literally, it is the human contact. Based on all of the psychological studies and looking at how you create a healthy, well- adjusted baby, you have got to have that human contact. For these babies who can't be with their parents because their parents are addicted or maybe the dad isn't around and the mom is addicted, volunteers come in and literally hold the babies, love these babies, and support these babies. We need to provide as much care and treatment as possible to help these kids so that they can achieve their God-given potential in life.

By the way, the opioid legislation that the President signed into law just last month, which this Congress passed, provides for the first time that organizations like Brigid's Path in Dayton, OH--entirely funded up to this point with volunteers, with money from the community, but, frankly, they don't have the resources they need to take care of all the babies who need the help--for these babies whose families qualify for Medicaid, will now be able to get Medicaid reimbursement under what is called the CRIB Act, which the President just signed into law.

It provides $60 million in funding for babies and recognizes residential pediatric recovery facilities like Brigid's Path as providers under Medicaid. This is a huge difference. It is going to enable not just Brigid's Path but other organizations like this to pop up around our State.

So that may not be affecting the overdose rate per se, but that is affecting something really important, which is the ability for these infants--these babies--to be able to have a normal life and to be able to achieve whatever God has in mind for them in their life, which is not to be growing up in a family with addiction but rather to be able to escape the grips of addiction.

I believe, perhaps most importantly, that the legislation we just passed in Congress recently--adding to Cures, CARA and the CRIB Act--is dealing with fentanyl and will help in Dayton, OH, and around our country.

I mentioned fentanyl earlier, a synthetic opioid 50 times more powerful than heroin and inexpensive. Sadly, while, again, Dayton has made progress, fentanyl remains the No. 1 killer in Dayton.

They told me when I was there a couple months ago that cocaine and meth deaths--crystal meth--are rising in the Dayton area. That is deaths from cocaine and crystal meth. Why is that?

Typically, you don't hear about people overdosing on cocaine, but you certainly do when fentanyl is mixed in with cocaine, and that is what law enforcement is telling me around Ohio is happening.

These drugs, often mixed with fentanyl, are now deadlier than ever. Fentanyl was involved in more than 70 percent of Ohio's overdose deaths last year. From January until April of this year, despite the overall reduction in overdose deaths, about 77 percent of the overdose deaths in Montgomery County, in Dayton, OH, involved fentanyl.

So, again, we are making progress, but not nearly as much as we all want to make, and a major reason for this is this influx of this deadly synthetic substance. Unbelievably, we know that fentanyl is mostly manufactured in China, and mostly comes to our country through our own United States mail system. Up to now, up until last month when the President signed this legislation, we did not have a way to screen these packages coming in from overseas, specifically from China, coming in through the mail system into our communities, causing all of these deaths and destruction. Now we have in place something that closes the loophole in the international mail screening. It requires the post office to do what the other carriers have had to do since 9/11, which is to provide law enforcement with advanced electronic data to be able to identify these suspect packages and get them offline. I think that is going to make a huge difference, not just because it is going to stop drugs from coming into our country but because, by reducing the supply, you are going to see the costs go up on the street, which has been one of our great challenges.

That is not the ultimate answer. The answer is prevention and education, reducing the demand for these drugs, better treatment and longer term recovery options--all of those things we talked about in terms of taking care of those moms and babies. But we also have to do everything we can to reduce the supply of these drugs, and that legislation that the President just signed is going to help.

We are also going to be helped by a new law that the President just signed last month which says that with regard to residential treatment programs, they are no longer going to be capped by an arbitrary limit of 16 beds. This is a vestige of the 1960s and 1970s, when we wanted to deinstitutionalize these people, and we said: You can't get reimbursement from Medicaid unless you have less than 16 beds for mental health and substance abuse treatment.

Then the opioid crisis hits us, and suddenly we find ourselves with no room at the inn. Literally, people are being turned away at treatment centers and, in the period they are waiting to get in, overdosing and dying. I have heard these stories. I have heard the moms and dads talk about the pain of a child who finally says: I am ready.

In one case, a dad takes his daughter to a treatment center. This was in a tele-townhall meeting I had. We have them every month, and I hear these stories. These are people who aren't calling to tell these stories, but they end up telling it because we are talking about this issue. In this case, the dad's heart was heavy. He said: We took her. She was ready. There was no room. They couldn't accept her in the treatment center. So we took her back home.

In the 4 weeks that she was waiting to get a slot in the treatment center, what happened? She succumbed, once again, to shooting up--in her case, heroin--and an overdose in her own bedroom.

So this arbitrary limit doesn't make any sense. If the treatment center is doing a good job, don't limit it to 16 beds. If it is not doing a good job, by the way, it shouldn't be getting any reimbursement. But if it is doing a good job and successfully helping people to get beyond their addiction and into recovery, we shouldn't be limiting it. This legislation does that. It actually takes off the cap. It has a 5-year life because it has a cost to it, and I am convinced it is going to work well. Five years from now, we will extend that even further, but this is something some of us have been working on for many years, and it is now done. So, again, progress is being made incrementally. Some of this legislation we talked about tonight is contributing to that.

We need to ensure that if we implement this, we cannot at this point take our eye off the ball. I think when we look back at this year, 2018--and we are coming to the end of the calendar year now--we will see for the first time in the last dozen years a reduction in overdose deaths. I predict that is going to happen. I say that in part because I spoke to the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

I also say that because back in Ohio I am seeing these programs work. I am seeing us finally beginning to turn the tide, despite the influx of fentanyl. But I would just state tonight, if that is true, and if we begin to see some progress--and I see it on the ground and see it in reports from coroners and medical directors around Ohio--if that happens, let's not take our eye off the ball. We succeeded. Let's move on.

We did that back in the 1990s with regard to cocaine; we had solved the problem. We never solved the problem. It is like the tide. It keeps coming in. We have to be vigilant. We have to maintain the support we have provided here in the U.S. Congress to push back against this terrible addiction, this disease, and we have to ensure that we are not just pushing down on one drug and having another drug pop up.

As we make progress on fentanyl or make progress on heroin, let's also be

mindful of the disastrous impact of cocaine, crystal meth, and drugs we haven't even heard of yet--the new synthetic drugs that are coming our way.

I believe that Federal programs like CARA and Cures are making a difference. We are working with our States that are passing their own legislation and helping in many ways. Our local communities are jumping in and figuring out innovative and creative ways of taking that Federal dollar and leveraging it with private sector money and with State and local money.

I believe we are going to make progress with the STOP Act in reducing the supply and therefore raising the cost of the drug on the streets. I think what you have seen in Dayton, OH, which was reported in the New York Times, can continue--and not just in Dayton, but in Toledo, Columbus, Akron, Cincinnati, and St. Clairsville--all over our State and all over our country.

We have a role to play here, and that is to continue to be better partners, as we have been over the last 2\1/2\ years here in Congress-- better partners with our States and with our local communities and with our families because, ultimately, this is an issue of the heart, isn't it? This is about the future.

We have some pages with us tonight. They are young people who are 16, 17 years old who come to this town because they are selected as bright, young people. They are listening--at least they are acting as though they are listening tonight; thank you. It is about you. It is about what kind of future you are going to have and what kind of future we are going to have, having safe and healthy communities.

Thank you.

I yield back my time.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding rule XXII, all postcloture time on the Farr nomination expire at 12 noon on Thursday, November 29; that if the nomination is confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action; further, that notwithstanding rule XXII, the cloture vote on the Kraninger nomination occur at 1:45 p.m., Thursday, November 29; and that if cloture is invoked on the Kobes or the Kraninger nomination, all postcloture time be yielded back and the Senate vote on the nominations at a time to be determined by the majority leader, in consultation with the Democratic leader, but not before December 4.

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

Mr. President, I have 11 requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority leaders.

Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate:

Committee on Agriculture

The Committee on Agriculture is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, November 28, 2018, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing on the following nominations: Mindy Brashears, of Texas, to be Under Secretary for Food Safety, Naomi C. Earp, of Maryland, to be an Assistant Secretary, and Scott Hutchins, of Indiana, to be Under Secretary for Research, Education, and Economics, all of the Department of Agriculture.

Committee on Environment and Public Works

The Committee on Environment and Public Works is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, November 28, 2018, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Addressing America's Surface Transportation Infrastructure Needs.''

Committee on Foreign Relations

The Committee on Foreign Relations is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, November 28, 2018, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``The Global Fight to End Modern Slavery.''

Committee on Foreign Relations

The Committee on Foreign Relations is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, November 28, 2018, at 2 p.m., to conduct a hearing.

Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

The Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, November 28, 2018, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Reducing Health Care Costs: Improving Affordability through Innovation.''

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

The Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, November 28, 2018, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing on the following nominations: Ronald D. Vitiello, of Illinois, to be an Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security, Richard S. Tischner, of Virginia, to be Director of the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency for the District of Columbia, and Dennis Dean Kirk, of Virginia, to be Chairman, and Julia Akins Clark, of Maryland, and Andrew F. Manuz, both to be a Member, all of the Merit Systems Protection Board.

Committee on Indian Affairs

The Committee on Indian Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, November 28, 2018, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a legislative hearing.

Committee on the Judiciary

The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, November 28, 2018, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing on the following nominations: Brian C. Buescher, to be United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska, Clifton L. Corker, to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Tennessee, M. Miller Baker, of Virginia, and Timothy M. Reif, of the District of Columbia, both to be a Judge of the United States Court of International Trade, and Donald W. Washington, of Texas, to be Director of the United States Marshals Service, Department of Justice.

Committee on Rules and Administration

The Committee on Rules and Administration is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, November 28, 2018, at 2.30 p.m., to conduct a hearing on the following nominations: Donald L. Palmer, of Florida, and Benjamin Hovland, of Maryland, both to be a Member of the Election Assistance Commission.

Special Committee on Aging

The Special Committee on Aging is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, November 28, 2018, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Ensuring Trust: Strengthening State Efforts to Overhaul the Guardianship Process and Protect Older Americans.''

Subcommittee on Cybersecurity

The Subcommittee on Cybersecurity of the Committee on Armed Services is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, November 28, 2018, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a closed hearing.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 6651, which was received from the House.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be

considered read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 545, S. Res. 501.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 710, submitted earlier today.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10 a.m., Thursday, November 29; further, that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and morning business be closed; further, that following leader remarks, the Senate proceed to executive session and resume consideration of the Farr nomination under the previous order; finally, that all time during recess, adjournment, morning business, and leader remarks count postcloture on the Farr nomination.

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

Mr. President, I have the great pleasure today to talk about a friend. It is a bittersweet moment because that friend is choosing not to stay with us here in the Senate. He didn't run for reelection. He is going back home to Utah, but I want to take a minute to talk about his incredible accomplishments here as a public servant over a 42-year career--over 4 decades here in the Senate.

Some people come here because they want to be somebody. Orrin Hatch came here because he wanted to do something for people, and boy, he has done that. Time after time, he has stepped up to serve the American people.

When Senator Hatch retires, the Senate will be losing not only our President pro tempore--that means that he is fourth in line to be President, and he is the President pro tempore here of the Senate, the most senior Member--but we are also going to lose somebody who, over the years, has been a mentor for a lot of us because he is a person who is committed to legislating, to making a difference in the lives of the people of Utah and the people of our great country. He has been a Statesman. At a time of bare-knuckle politics, isn't it nice to have that model? That is Orrin Hatch.

Back in 1976, a blue-collar kid from Pennsylvania, who had been a card-carrying union member, of which he is proud, and later went to law school and in Salt Lake City became a successful litigation attorney, decided to run for the Senate. He was running against a 3-term incumbent. Normally, that is not a recipe for success, but he had a rare and impressive victory for a first-time candidate, and he hasn't looked back since.

When he got elected, I think he probably was a little surprised, but he also realized that he owed something to the people of Utah. That was to put his nose to the grindstone and make a difference for them, and that is what he has done.

They say he has sponsored more bills that have become law than any other living Member of Congress. He might even have that record for any Member of Congress but, certainly, for those of us who are still around.

He is the former chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, also called the HELP Committee, and the former chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Currently, he is the chairman of the all-powerful Senate Finance Committee. I say that somewhat jokingly, but, truly, that committee has jurisdiction over such a broad range of issues, all of which Senator Hatch has touched. I have gotten to work with him on a lot of those issues over the years, when I was on the Ways and Means Committee in the House and now on the Senate Finance Committee. We have worked together on tax reform, on anti-drug legislation, on pension legislation, on healthcare legislation, on intellectual property legislation, and on so much more.

I also had the honor of working very closely with him when I was U.S. Trade Representative because the Senate Finance Committee handles trade matters. He was always extremely involved and engaged in expanding the opportunities for U.S. workers and farmers to sell their products abroad. With a slew of achievements to highlight, it is his most recent accomplishment that I want to talk about very briefly, and that is the devotion he gave to tax reform.

Remember, it had been 31 years since we had had any significant tax reform in this body. Then, a couple of years ago, Orrin Hatch said: Do you know what? We are going to do this. He set up a bunch of working groups, and they were bipartisan. I cochaired one of them with Senator Schumer, who is now the Democratic leader. He said: Let's go to work on this thing.

Frankly, a lot of people didn't give him much of a chance. Why? It had been tried previously in those 31 years, and it had been unsuccessful. Then, here we were in this partisan atmosphere. How could it possibly succeed?

He kept at it, and he shepherded through the process what, I think, is historic tax reform and what I know is helping the people I represent. It is helping small businesses, and it is helping American workers. It is helping to give people opportunities that they would not otherwise have had.

It had been 31 years. Think about that. Back then, Senator Hatch was a second-term Senator. Pete Rose still played for the Cincinnati Reds. Ronald Reagan was President of the United States.

After 31 years, it was probably a good idea to update the Tax Code, and he did that. It is pro-growth. It is resulting in more investment in people and equipment and jobs. As a result, I believe you see this expansion of our economy out there. I think it is the biggest single reason for it.

Wages are finally going up for the first time, really, in a decade and a half, and families have just a little more cash to spend for their Christmas shopping, for their retirements, for their healthcare, for their kids and grandkids. That is exactly what Senator Hatch intended when we crafted that new law, and that is a heck of a capstone for an amazing career.

I am also, though, very grateful for his work in other areas--in protecting religious freedom, in encouraging technological innovation, in focusing a lot on the tech community and how we can help here in Congress to either provide legislation that helps them to be successful, which has encouraged this economic growth we have seen in this country over the last several decades, or to get out of the way, when necessary, to ensure that technology can continue to be at the cutting edge here in the United States.

He has even helped songwriters. Now, some might think that is selfish of him because he is a songwriter himself, but he did it because he realized that songwriters deserved to get a responsible return and to be able to protect their intellectual property that they had embedded in their music and in their videos. So he has been a hero to the folks in the music industry as a result.

By the way, he is not done. This week, next week, and the week after, Senator Hatch is and will be leading a bipartisan effort with Senator Brown to save the multiemployer pension system. Folks, this is not a task that people take on because it is fun. It is difficult. It is difficult on substance, and it is difficult on politics. Who is back in the lead? Orrin Hatch, as cochair of this select committee, which this Congress formed to finally come up with a way to keep these pensions from going under, to keep the government entity that ensures the pensions, which is called the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, or PBGC, from going under, and, ultimately, to ensure that our economy and thousands of businesses will not be impacted so negatively, because we are going to lose a lot of businesses, and we are going to lose the ability to provide people with their hard-earned retirement money unless we fix this system.

Once again, he is in the lead and is trying not to do something that is good for him or good for him politically but something that is good for our country that he knows has to be done. In my view, Orrin Hatch epitomizes what it means to be a public servant and to be a servant leader because he does it through leadership. He doesn't have to give speeches on civility; he practices it.

Over the years, for me, he has been a model of a serious legislator-- one focused on delivering results. Perhaps, most importantly, he is a gentleman. He is a gentleman who treats everybody with respect-- everybody. Regardless of your political focus, regardless of who you are in this place or what your station in life is, Orrin Hatch treats you with respect and dignity.

Despite all of these legislative accomplishments during his more than four decades in the Senate, what is he the most proud of? His family. I know that. I got to know his son early on when we worked together as lawyers in the first Bush White House. This was about 30 years ago. He and Elaine, his wife, have been together now for more than 60 years. They have 6 children, 23 grandchildren, and 24 great-grandchildren. Now, that 24 might have increased since I started talking--I don't know--but he has a lot of them.

Even as he retires as the President pro tempore of this body, I know he is going to stay busy with the Hatch Foundation, and, folks, he is going to stay busy with that growing family. Shepherding tax reform will be nothing compared to shepherding 47 grandchildren and great- grandchildren this holiday season.

Orrin Hatch, we thank you for what you have done for your State and your country. I know I speak on behalf of this body as a whole when I say that the impact you have had during your time here in the Senate has been one that has made all of us better by being around you and has made this country better. I am grateful for having had the opportunity to work with you as a colleague, and I look forward to the pleasure of our continuing friendship. Enjoy your retirement, Orrin. It is well- deserved. Godspeed.

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

Mr. President, today I rise to talk about the economy; that is, what is going on out there in terms of jobs and wage growth. It is a positive story. I have seen it firsthand back home in Ohio. Every weekend I go back to Ohio, and I meet with small business owners, and they tell me the same thing, which is that things are good. Their biggest concern is finding workers. They are growing and expanding. We see this in the national numbers as well.

These small businesses tell me it is primarily because of the tax reform and tax cuts legislation and, second, because of the regulatory environment that makes it easier for them to be able to create more jobs.

I want to start by talking about tax reform. We remember that before this legislation was passed, going back really for several years, our economy had been relatively weak. We had seen economic growth of between 1.5 and 2.5 percent, and a lot of people were saying that 2 percent growth is kind of the new normal.

In fact, the Congressional Budget Office, which is the nonpartisan group here that tells us what our growth numbers are likely to look like and then tells us what they actually are, said last year that they believed economic growth this year--the calendar year 2018--would be 2 percent. That is pretty discouraging, really. With 2 percent growth, we are not going to see the kind of growth in wages we all want to see, and we are not going to see the job expansion we all want. That 2 percent growth was before the tax legislation was passed.

They also predicted that employment would increase by an average of 107,000 jobs per month; again, that is not bad, but not something to write home about.

Now our economy is up and going, and it is moving toward its full potential.

Shortly after tax reform passed, CBO changed its estimate. They said: OK, with tax reform, this is our new estimate. We are going to say that the growth is going to be, instead of 2 percent, 3.1 percent. That is more than a 50-percent increase in growth. That is incredible. They were pretty optimistic about what would happen. They said that it was attributable to tax reform,

which was a big part of this upward revision, as they called it.

They also changed their projection on monthly unemployment. They said that instead of 107,000 jobs, we are likely to see 210,000 jobs per month.

Well, what has happened? It turns out the Congressional Budget Office, despite their optimistic projections, was wrong. We have seen numbers even better than their optimistic projections. Economic growth for the second quarter of 2018 was 4.2 percent, and a record 876,000 new businesses were created. The Federal Reserve now estimates that growth in this quarter we are in is likely to be 4.1 percent. Wow. We will see what the final numbers are, but if it is anywhere close to that, that is extraordinary.

So we have gone from 2 percent to 3 percent to 4 percent. And with 4.2 percent, 4.1 percent growth, what else is happening? Unemployment is going down. The unemployment rate was 3.7 percent last month. That is the lowest it has been since December of 1969, so it is a big deal.

The pro-growth policies that some of us have been promoting here on this side of the aisle, including tax reform and regulatory relief, have made a difference. Small business optimism is at an all-time high, according to the National Federation of Independent Businesses--NFIB. Most important to me, wages are finally going up. Over the last 10 years, it isn't just that the economy has been relatively flat, it is that wages have not increased.

In fact, if you take inflation into account, wages have been flat or even declining, on average. That is why a lot of people feel the middle-class squeeze: higher expenses, particularly healthcare costs, but also everyday costs. Healthcare costs are driving it but also housing costs, the cost of food, the cost of education.

By the same token, we had wages that were flat. That is a squeeze. So your take-home pay is not going up, but your expenses are going up. There was a lot of frustration around the country over the last several years about that.

Now we see wages going up. So 2.8 percent was the wage growth last month. That is the highest wage growth since mid-2009. So since mid- 2009, which is, remember, before the recession, we have not seen wage growth like this.

This is great news. I hope we continue to see that solid wage growth because that, ultimately, is what we ought to be looking for.

Since the first of last year, I have held over a dozen small business roundtables around Ohio, where you bring small businesses in to talk about the tax reform bill regulations and other issues they care about. Every single one of the small businesses that comes to these roundtables has a story to tell about how the tax reform helped them.

These companies are passthroughs, meaning they pay taxes individually, which is the case for the vast majority of small businesses. So they are seeing lower rates, but they are also seeing an advantage to the new laws on investment. If you invest money in your company, you can deduct it from your taxes now. You had bonus depreciation before; now you have 100 percent depreciation, and you can write things off immediately. That makes a huge difference, and it is exciting.

The Presiding Officer was talking today at lunch about being at one of the small businesses in Louisiana. It is the same story I have heard all over our States. This was a distillery, as I recall. In Ohio, our breweries and our distilleries are taking advantage of a specific part of the new tax bill that helps them on their excise taxes but also just the overall lowering of the rate, investing in their business, investing in technology, increasing the productivity of their workers as a result, which all economists say is the key to getting wages up. We are beginning to see that, and it is exciting.

This is the first year I have also visited 22 businesses directly-- not a roundtable discussion as I have done with small businesses. But I go to these businesses and talk to them about how they are using this tax bill. Again, everyone has good stories to tell. Some have added more jobs; some have increased wages and gone public about that. Fifth Third Bank would be an example or the Kroger Company in my hometown of Cincinnati--big businesses.

A lot of smaller businesses have done that as well, but they have done other things too. Some have delivered bonuses, some have expanded retirement benefits, and some have bought new equipment.

For a lot of small businesses, I will talk to them and say: What are you doing with this?

They say: We are actually taking these older pieces of equipment we have, these machines, and we are upgrading them, which, again, makes workers more productive, makes the company more successful, and allows wages to go up.

One small business I visited had a machine that was roughly 31 years old. They got the machine in 1986. I thought it was an amazing coincidence that this Tax Code, which hadn't been updated since 1986, was updated, and they were using the tax savings they got from that to take a machine that was bought that same year and upgrading it, modernizing it. It was about a $1 million investment for them, which they never could have made in a small business without the tax reform and tax cuts legislation. So it is working.

Sometimes companies are doing a combination of these various things. They might be increasing the 401(k) match and also adding more to their entry-level pay. So it is doing what was intended.

In the first quarter, we have numbers already for the amount of money that came back to our country--over $300 billion. Over $300 billion came back to the United States from overseas. That is what they call repatriation, money earned overseas that companies were keeping overseas before because they had no incentive to bring it back. Now they have an incentive to bring it back. What does that mean? It means it gets invested here, sometimes in new equipment and new plants, sometimes in people's wallets and pocketbooks back here. That money is being used to help create this better economy we are talking about.

By the way, that $300 billion, when compared to last year in the first quarter, is about 10 times more. This is because of the tax bill.

The lower tax rates for individuals mean that 90 percent of the people in America got a statement from their employer saying: Guess what. Uncle Sam is going to take less out of your paycheck. Their withholding changed. So 90 percent of workers in America have gotten something saying: You are going to have more of your hard-earned money staying in your pocket. You are going to be able to take it home, rather than have Uncle Sam take it out as part of your taxes.

As I said during the tax reform debate, when we had very spirited debates, some on the other side were saying that there was no middle- class tax relief in this legislation. I said that the proof is in the paycheck. Lower rates, doubling the standard deduction, doubling the child tax credit--those are tax cuts. They are real. Sure enough, 90 percent of Americans saw that in their paychecks. The proof is in their paycheck.

It is not really a political debate; it is a real life situation for people who are living paycheck to paycheck--most of the people I represent. So it is a big deal. For the median-income family in Ohio, that is $2,000 a year on average. That $2,000 a year means a vacation they otherwise couldn't take. It means investing more in their healthcare, investing more in their retirement, investing more in their kids. So it is working.

I noted earlier that wages are rising at the fastest year-over-year rate since mid-2009 and that wage growth is accelerating. Along with these lower tax rates--along with the changes we talked about in terms of doubling the standard deduction and doubling the child tax credit-- people are feeling more hope and opportunity and, due in part to this lower business rate and more competitive international tax system, companies are looking to hire more.

I mentioned that what I hear back in Ohio mostly now is this: We are looking for more workers. We are willing to hire people. We need the skills.

There was a Gallup Poll taken in May, and a record number of Americans said, ``Now is the time to find a quality job''--a record number of Americans because they see the help

wanted signs. In fact, the number of Americans who are employed part- time for economic reasons--who want to work full-time but can only find part-time work--is now the lowest it has been since December of 2007. So you have to go back more than 10 years to find the number of people employed part-time who want full-time work. That is the lowest it has been since December of 2007. That is good. We want people to work full- time, not part-time.

I believe we are going to continue to see this rising tide in our economy. I think there are some newer provisions in the Tax Code that are yet to be implemented that will help even more.

There is a provision in the tax bill called opportunity zones where, if you invest in some of the neighborhoods in Ohio that have had the highest, persistent, stubborn rates of poverty, then you get a tax break. That is going to help increase investment in some of the poor neighborhoods. Those opportunity zones are just getting started now, and that is going to help ensure that people who have fallen behind have a chance to catch up.

John F. Kennedy once famously said that a rising tide lifts all boats. It can. But you have to be sure that you are going into those kinds of neighborhoods and ensuring they have the opportunity to be lifted too. I think opportunity zones will help there.

Despite the strong and growing economy, there does remain a weakness in our workforce that will continue to hold us back; that is, a lot of Americans are not looking for work. They are literally on the sidelines. Labor economists call that a low labor force participation rate. It means that the percentage of people in the workforce looking for a job is relatively low.

So we have this strong economy, the lowest unemployment numbers we have had in years, going back to 1969; yet we have a lot of people in the shadows, on the sidelines, who aren't even looking for work, so they don't show up in the unemployment numbers.

If you took the labor force participation rate--again, the percentage of people in the workforce--and go back 10 years ago to just before the great recession and compare it to today, use the same labor force participation rate, what would you guess the unemployment rate would be today? It is not 3.7 percent. It is more like 8.5 percent.

As strong as this economy is, as good as things are, as optimistic as people are, the fact that wages are going up--all good things, and the tax bill is hugely responsible for that. It is helpful. It has pulled a lot of people back into work who had part-time work or were underemployed. It hasn't pulled people back into work altogether; there is still a big group of Americans, historically high numbers--probably 8 million men, as an example, between the ages of 25 and 55, able- bodied men who aren't working. That is wrong, and it is wrong for them because they are not getting the dignity and self-respect that comes from work, helping them to be productive members of society. The numbers for women are perhaps not quite as high--but also at relatively high levels.

It is also bad for our economy. We need these workers. We want these people in the workforce.

Why has that happened? I think there are a few reasons. I think one reason is that Americans don't have the skills we would hope they would have in order to meet the job requirements of today. What do I mean by that? Today, if you don't have a technical skill--whether you are in healthcare, whether you are in manufacturing, or whether you are in one of the service industries--it is hard to find a job. So to our young people here today: Get that skills training.

If you look at the unemployment in Ohio right now--OhioMeansJobs is a website you can go on and see that there are a lot of jobs being offered online right now, yet there are a lot of people unemployed. Why is that? You see that a lot of these jobs being offered are for things like a machinist or a welder or someone with IT skills--information technology skills. Coding is an example. If you have coding skills, you can get a job in Ohio. In healthcare, there are a lot of people who are being hired who have those technical skills, including coding skills, to provide for digitized healthcare records, as an example.

If you look at the jobs that are being offered and you look at this high unemployment, you say it doesn't make sense. Part of it is because the job skills aren't there.

There is a lot of exciting stuff going on in my State and in other States where there are colleges--particularly some of our community colleges--that are working closely with some of our businesses and also with some of our high schools. High schools have career and technical education now that is expanding in Ohio. I think we are doing a good job of getting more and more young people interested in career and technical education.

Senator Kaine, on the other side of the aisle, and I started a caucus to promote CTE. We passed legislation recently to expand Federal incentives for career and technical education and to improve the standards. That is good. We are making progress, but we are not there yet. There is still a lot of skills training that should and can go on in order to provide people with the tools they need to ultimately be successful in today's economy. So that is part of it.

Part of it I think is the dependency trap. What do I mean by that? There is an issue when you are on government support, when you are dependent on government, and you want to go to work. It is both the fact that there is a cliff in terms of losing the benefits, and also there is a mountain in terms of higher taxes.

One thing that some of us have worked on here--and we need to do more--is to say: How do you work with the States to provide for that transition? If someone wants to go to work and leave a government program, how do you have some way to transition so that you don't have this big cliff and this mountain ahead of you? That creates a disincentive.

I do think there is work to be done there, but I will tell you, I think the biggest single issue in terms of these relatively high numbers of people who are out of work altogether--the people who are on the sidelines--is actually the opioid crisis and the drug issue. Why do I say that? One, I see it back home. I go around my State; I spend a lot of time talking to people at treatment centers. I talk to people who are in recovery. I talk to people who are addicted. I talk to people who are experts in providing treatment for that longer term recovery. I talk to first responders. There are a lot of people in my State; we are probably in the top five in the country in terms of the percentage of people addicted, the number of overdoses per capita, the number of deaths per capita.

In America as a whole, we lost 72,000 people last year to drug overdoses. These are historically high numbers. These are record numbers, grim statistics. More people died last year of drug overdoses than we lost in the entire Vietnam conflict. Think about that.

A lot of these people are addicted, but they aren't part of the statistics you read about--the overdoses and deaths, as tragic as they are. There is another part of the statistic, which is the people who are not productive in life because they are not engaged anymore with their friends, their family, or their work. The drugs have become everything.

I can give you a couple of statistics that I think are shocking. One is from the U.S. Department of Labor. They did a study of men between 25 and 55 who are out of the workforce, asking: How could this be--over 8 million men out of the workforce altogether--particularly with low unemployment, the opportunities out there, the jobs that are being offered? They found that almost half of those men acknowledged taking pain medication on a daily basis--on a daily basis.

What does that mean? There was another study by the Brookings Institute. Brookings said that almost half of the people they surveyed said that they were taking pain medication on a regular basis. One said the day before; one said on a daily basis.

They also asked another question: How many of you are taking prescription drugs? Two-thirds of the people acknowledged taking prescription drugs, pain medication.

These are shocking statistics. By the way, I do not believe this is overreported; I believe it is underreported. Who is going to say that they are addicted to pain medication? That is one

reason within the legal system not to do that, but there are also other reasons not to do it. A lot of people still feel it is something they can't talk about. We have changed that to a certain extent. The stigma has been removed to a certain extent. In this body, I think we have helped by talking about drug addiction as a disease, which I believe it is. You need to treat a disease as you would other diseases. It is not a moral failing; it is a disease that has to be medically treated. But there are people who are not coming forward who feel that stigma, there is no question about it. Probably 8 out of the 10 people in my State who are addicted are not getting any kind of treatment.

I think this is another issue we have to face for all the right reasons--to help these people get their lives back on track, to help these people be able to achieve what God's purpose is for them, which certainly is not to be an addict and not to be actively using and not to be causing all the pain and destruction it causes all through our society.

The No. 1 cause of crime in my State of Ohio, in pretty much every county I represent, is this issue. It is not necessarily the drug use; it is the crime that goes along with it--the property crimes, theft, fraud, and so forth--to pay for the drug habit.

If you go to the emergency room in Ohio, it is a normal issue they talk about. In our neonatal units--sad but true--more and more babies are being born with what is called neonatal abstinence syndrome, which means their moms were addicted. These kids have to be taken through withdrawal as babies, provided morphine and other drugs just to get them through withdrawal. It is incredibly sad. We don't know what the long-term impact will be on these kids, but it is a huge problem. It is the No. 1 problem I see back home in our hospitals in taking care of our babies.

If you go to our prisons, our jails, go to our courtrooms, what is the No. 1 issue? Drugs, primarily opioids. Of the 72,000 people who died of overdoses last year, the biggest single killer was not just opioids, it was fentanyl--this new synthetic opioid that has come in mostly from China, mostly through the Postal Service. It is outrageous that that continues to happen. We are taking steps to address it.

My point is, all of us are affected by this. You may not think you are, although more and more people see it directly because their friends or family or they themselves are caught up in this, but all of us are affected, including our economy.

As good as the economic numbers are, I am so glad we passed the tax reform legislation because I really think it has helped spur this economic growth, and there is opportunity for so many people. It is increasing wages. It is doing so many good things.

The next step is, as I see it, to say: OK, how do we take these people who are not in a position to get on that first rung of the economic ladder, much less the second and third, and climb up because of their addiction--how do we get them back on track, get them to face up to their addiction and get into treatment, get them into that longer term recovery, which we know works better to get them off of their addiction and get them back into a productive life where they can reconnect not just with work but with their families, friends, their community, and their faith? The drugs become everything, as I have heard from so many addicts and recovering addicts.

The American Action Forum released a report earlier this month that found that Ohio lost about 86,000 workers and about $72 billion in economic growth from 1999 to 2015 due to opioid addiction. This affects all of us, and it certainly affects our economy. That is the next step we must make.

In 2016, Congress started to get much more engaged in this issue. We passed two great bills, one called the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse and I were the coauthors. This is broad, comprehensive legislation. Today, we were able to announce a number of grants to Ohio that are working to expand treatment to ensure that some of these gaps are filled where people get addicted, overdose, Narcan is supplied--the miracle drug that reverses the effects of that overdose--and yet they go right back into the community. We don't want that. We want to get them back into treatment. These grants will help.

We also passed legislation called the 21st Century Cures Act, which provides funding directly back to the States. CARA goes to these nonprofits and other programs that are working, evidence-based programs to help with treatment and recovery and prevention. Cures goes to the States directly and allows the States to spread out that funding where it will help. Every State is a little different and has different kinds of needs.

We started to see progress on the ground. Again, the fentanyl has come in and overwhelmed a lot of the progress I have seen. On the fentanyl side, we passed legislation just last week that finally says to our post office: You must screen these packages coming in from overseas because we know this poison is the No. 1 killer. There has been a 4,000-percent increase in fentanyl overdose deaths in my State of Ohio in the last 5 years. It is the No. 1 killer now. We know it is coming from the post office. It is coming to your P.O. box. It is coming to an abandoned warehouse from our post office. We finally said to them: You have to close this loophole because if there is a loophole, they don't have to provide law enforcement the data on these packages that they need to find the needle in the haystack, which is too hard to find without that data. Private carriers have to provide that data to law enforcement; the post office does not. That is all going to change when the President signs this legislation next week. We are going to start to push back to keep some poison out of our communities, but we need to do much more.

The legislation we passed this week also provides more funding for treatment. It gets rid of an outdated rule that says there can be only 16 beds in a treatment center if it gets Medicaid reimbursement. That is a vestige of years past during the deinstitutionalization of folks who had mental health issues, behavioral health issues, but it doesn't work today because we want these good treatment centers that are doing a good job to be able to expand the number of beds they have for residential treatment because that is what works for some people.

Unbelievably, today they have to turn people away, even though they are there, they are ready, and they can take these people, because there is a 16-bed limit. There are too many cases. I know of people in Ohio who have told me that when they were ready--in one case, a father told me that when his daughter was finally ready to go to a treatment center, he walked her down there. They went to the treatment center. She was ready to enter. She had come to that point in her life where she realized she needed to do this. They told her there was no room--no room at the inn--because of the 16-bed limit. In the next 2 weeks, while she was waiting to get into that treatment center, you know what happened--she used again. She was addicted. She overdosed, and she died in her parents' home. That father is very happy about this legislation.

It also includes language to help with regard to these moms and kids we talked about earlier. That is important as well. It helps to ensure that there is a safe plan for these mothers who are addicted to taper off from their use of drugs so that their babies are born in a healthy state and don't have to go through what I talked about earlier, which is incredibly sad to see, tragically, where literally these babies born with neonatal abstinence syndrome have to be taken through withdrawal.

It also includes the CRIB Act legislation, which is bipartisan, as were all these bills I am talking about. Senator Dick Durbin and I have worked on the IMD exclusion--the issue with the 16 beds--for many years. We finally got it done. The CRIB Act is one that provides support for these babies we talked about because often the babies can't go back to their folks. Their parents are addicted. Where are they going to go?

There are nonprofits that have sprung up that provide help for these babies, help to get them into the right foster care, perhaps to get them with a grandparent or a great-grandparent, which is happening more and more in my State because the parents are not

capable or able to take care of these kids. The parents need to focus, one would hope, on their own treatment and recovery. Sometimes they do, and sometimes they don't. The point is, the baby can't be with them, and these organizations are in a position to help. These organizations, like Brigid's Path in Dayton, OH, have volunteers who come in just to hold the babies, just to show the babies the love they need so desperately. They couldn't get reimbursement from the Federal Government. Now they can under the CRIB Act that we just passed. This will help the babies, the moms, with treatment, and keeping the poison out. It is helpful.

As we discussed this afternoon, in combination with a stronger economy that comes from the kinds of fiscal and economic policies we have pursued here, especially the tax reform and regulatory relief-- that combination can lead to great things because it can provide an opportunity, if people are ready to get on that next rung of the ladder, for them to find an opportunity for themselves and their family because they have dealt with their addiction. A rising tide can lift all boats, and this growing economy gives us an opportunity to bring people out of the shadows and into a productive life of work, family, and faith.

In the midst of the opioid epidemic, we have to do more to catch those who fall through the cracks and help those who are gripped by addiction find more meaning and purpose in their lives, and we now have that opportunity. That is what is exciting about it.

I am pleased that our new opioid legislation is going to be signed into law by the President next week. I am pleased to see the progress with the economy based on the policies we have passed here, to provide people with a little more take-home pay, to be able to give companies more incentive to invest, and to level the playing field internationally for American workers who are being disadvantaged. It is coming together, and it is working. Let's combine that with an equal focus on dealing with the opioid crisis, and we will see so many other people take advantage of their American dream.

I yield back my time.

Mr. President, I rise to talk about my vote on the confirmation of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to serve on the Supreme Court.

Sadly, over the past couple of weeks, the confirmation process has become a bitter partisan fight that has deeply divided this body and has divided our country in the midst of all the passion, the anger, and the emotion from both sides. Now I want to talk about something else. I want to talk about the facts. I want to talk about the facts as I know them.

First, I know Brett Kavanaugh. I have known Brett and his wife Ashley for more than 15 years since we worked together in the George W. Bush White House. I have seen them in tough situations. I have seen them tested. I have seen their character. I have known Brett not so much as a legal scholar or a judge or a professor but as a colleague and a friend and a father and a husband. I have known him as someone who is smart, thoughtful, and compassionate.

Among White House colleagues, I know that he is universally viewed that way. He was at the time, and he still is today as we have seen from the testimony of so many men and women who have worked with him. I also know that Brett Kavanaugh has been a widely respected public servant for nearly three decades, including the last 12 years as a judge on the DC Circuit Court--what most view as the second highest court in the land.

I know he has received praise from his fellow judges and his many law clerks, the majority of whom have been women, and from the students in his classes of Harvard, Yale, and Georgetown Law Schools--students from across the political spectrum--also from litigants who have been before him, including Lisa Blatt, who is a self-described liberal who has argued more cases before the Supreme Court than any other woman. When Lisa Blatt joined Condoleezza Rice and me in introducing Brett Kavanaugh before the committee, she said, ``He is unquestionably qualified by his extraordinary intellect, experience, and temperament.'' All of this seems to have been lost in the past couple of weeks.

I also know that Brett Kavanaugh is highly qualified to serve on the Supreme Court. In fact, frankly, I have

heard that from a number of my Democratic colleagues who were quick to say they don't support him for other reasons, but they don't question his legal experience and his qualifications. You really can't.

The American Bar Association, not known for being very friendly to Conservatives, has given Brett Kavanaugh its highest rating unanimously. I know that in more than 20 hours of testimony before the Judiciary Committee--in fact, I think it was 32 hours of testimony--he showed an encyclopedic knowledge of the Constitution, of Supreme Court cases, an appreciation for Supreme Court precedent, and, overall, has an impressive grasp of the law.

Only a couple of weeks ago, he had successfully navigated the arduous process of meetings, interviews, and tough questions during 32 hours in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee. As a result, he had the votes in the committee, and he seemed to be headed toward confirmation here on the floor of the Senate. After 12 weeks of consideration and 5 days of hearings--by the way, more days of consideration and more days of hearings than we have had for any confirmation of any judge for the Supreme Court in recent history--the committee was ready to vote. Just before the vote in committee came the allegations of sexual assault and calls for delay.

As wrong as it was for Members of the U.S. Senate to have kept the allegations of Dr. Ford's secret until after the normal process had been completed and then to have sprung it on the committee, the Senate, and the country, I thought that because of the seriousness of the allegations, it would also have been wrong not to have taken a pause and to have heard from Dr. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh, and we did. Chairman Chuck Grassley, of the Judiciary Committee, was accused by someone on my side of the aisle of bending over backward when he should have pushed ahead, but he reopened the process and allowed the painful ordeal to play out as, I think, we were compelled to do--painful for Dr. Ford, painful for Brett Kavanaugh, the Senate, and the country.

I believe sexual assault is a serious problem in our Nation, and many women and girls--survivors, victims--choose not to come forward, choose not to report it for understandable reasons. Therefore, I think we should take allegations seriously. We must take allegations of sexual assault very seriously, and I do. Dr. Ford deserved the opportunity to tell her story and be heard, and, of course, Judge Kavanaugh deserved the opportunity to defend himself. That is why I supported not only having the additional committee investigation and hearing but also of taking another week to have a supplemental FBI investigation after the normal Judiciary Committee process was completed. I watched that additional Judiciary Committee hearing, and I listened carefully to both Dr. Ford's and Judge Kavanaugh's testimony. I am sure many Americans did.

I have now been briefed on it and have read the supplemental FBI report, which arrived early this morning. I went to a secure room here in the Capitol. To do so, I went three times today to be sure I could be fully briefed on it and could read it. Again, my job, my obligation, is to assess the facts, and the facts before us are that no corroboration exists regarding the allegations. No evidence prepared before or in the supplemental FBI investigation corroborates the allegations--none.

Judge Kavanaugh, of course, has adamantly denied the allegations. His testimony is supported by multiple other statements. Simply put, based on the hearings, the Judiciary Committee's investigation, and the FBI's supplemental investigation, there is no evidence to support the serious allegations against Judge Kavanaugh. Of course, in his 25 years of public service, there had also been six previous FBI investigations.

In America, there is a presumption of innocence. When there is no evidence to corroborate a charge, there is a presumption of innocence that we must be very careful to pay heed to.

Just 1 day after Dr. Ford's allegations were made public, 65 women who knew Judge Kavanaugh in high school sent a letter to the Judiciary Committee in defense of his character. These 65 women put this letter together within a day's notice.

The letter stated:

Through the more than 35 years we have known him, Brett has

stood out for his friendship, character, and integrity. In

particular, he has always treated women with decency and

respect. That was when he was in high school, and it has

remained true to this day.

These are women who knew Brett Kavanaugh. They knew him in high school. Importantly, that is the Brett Kavanaugh I have known these past 15 to 20 years.

This confirmation debate could have and should have unfolded very differently. The process has become poisonous, and it is up to us in this Chamber to change it.

It is going to take a while for the Senate and the country to heal from this ugly ordeal, but for now let me make a modest suggestion. Let's step back from the brink. Let's listen to each other. Let's argue passionately, but let's lower the volume. Let's treat disagreements like disagreements, not as proof that our opponents are bad people. Let's see if we can glorify quiet cooperation--at least every once in a while--instead of loud confrontation.

Some may say this is trite or naive, but, my colleagues, we have crossed all these lines in recent weeks. For the state of this institution and for the country, we have to step back from the brink, and we have to do better.

The way this process unfolded risks candidates with the kinds of qualifications and character we all want deciding to think twice before entering public service. If the new normal is eleventh-hour accusations, toxic rhetoric like calling a candidate ``evil'' and those who support him ``complicit in evil'' and guilt without any corroborating evidence, who would choose to go through that? How many good public servants have we already possibly turned away by this display? How many more will we turn away if we let uncorroborated allegations tarnish the career of a person who has dedicated 25 of the past 28 years to public service and who has done so with honor, again based on the testimony of so many people across the spectrum, men and women?

These are questions the Senate is going to have to grapple with for possibly years to come, but right now I want to focus on something that hasn't gotten as much attention in the last couple of weeks, and that is what is known.

I know Judge Kavanaugh as someone with a deserved reputation as a fair, smart, and independent judge. I know him as someone who is universally praised by his colleagues for his work ethic, his intelligence, and his integrity. I know him as someone who respects everyone and someone whose first introduction to law came from listening to his mom practicing closing arguments at the dinner table. Perhaps most importantly--most importantly--I know him as someone who has the ability to listen. It is something we need more of in this country and on the Court during turbulent times.

In following facts, as I am obligated to do, I will support this nomination, and I will be proud to vote to confirm Brett Kavanaugh as the next Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.

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 understand, there is a bill at the desk that is due for a second reading.

Mr. President, in order to place the bill on the calendar under the provisions of rule XIV, I object to further proceedings.

I yield the floor.