Judicial Administration and Improvement Act of 2017

Mr. President--

Up to 5 minutes?

Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the resolution before us, which really ought to be titled the ``Kleptocrat Relief Act.''

My Republican colleagues today are trying to repeal a critical bipartisan rule initiated by Senator Lugar, a Republican from Indiana, and Senator Cardin, a Democrat from Maryland. It is a critical bipartisan rule to prevent corruption.

This transparency rule is part of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform law. It is one of the best anti-corruption tools that President Trump now has to keep his promise to, in his words, ``drain the swamp'' in Washington and around the world.

But now, in just week 2 of his Presidency, Republicans are racing to use an obscure law called the Congressional Review Act to wipe it out. The CRA was not intended to hand a new President the power to roll back regulations that protect workers, protect the environment, protect investors, and protect consumers.

In this case, Republicans are using the CRA to target rules that have gone through extensive years-long administrative and public review, including on issues that agencies were specifically ordered by this Congress to study and address.

Republicans' unprecedented use of the CRA is not about Congress performing due diligence or agency oversight, it is a gross abuse of power to make their big corporate allies happy. I heard my friend from Idaho talk about the Chamber of Commerce and the American Petroleum Institute. That is just a start.

The rule they are trying to repeal protects U.S. citizens and investors from having millions of their dollars vanish into the pockets of corrupt foreign oligarchs. It does that by requiring all oil, gas, and mineral companies listed on U.S. stock exchanges to disclose the royalties and the bonuses and the fees and the taxes and other payments they make to foreign governments.

This kind of transparency is essential to combating waste, fraud, corruption, and mismanagement, as Senator Isakson talked about the poverty he sees in these resource-rich countries.

Yet Rex Tillerson, whom this body just, I believe yesterday, confirmed with a pretty much partisan vote--Rex Tillerson and congressional Republicans want to strip it away. Rex Tillerson, in his years as CEO of ExxonMobil--and we will talk about that in a moment-- strongly opposed this rule, almost by himself, with ExxonMobil as the head of that company.

At Mr. Tillerson's confirmation hearing, Senator Kaine from Virginia introduced into the record a 2008 report by Republican Senate Foreign Relations Committee staff. That report was the basis--Republican staff, I assume at the behest of Senator Lugar and others--that report was the basis for what eventually became section 1504 of Dodd-Frank, known as the bipartisan Cardin-Lugar amendment to fight corruption in mineral- rich developing countries. That report concluded that many resource- rich countries are poor because their vast mineral resources often breed corruption. That corruption lines the pockets of the kleptocrats--read ``thieves''--increases poverty, increases hunger, and increases instability.

As Senator Lugar said:

Paradoxically, history shows that rather than a blessing,

energy reserves can be a bane for many poor countries,

leading to fraud, corruption, wasteful spending, military

adventurism and instability. Too often, oil money that should

go to a nation's poor ends up in the pockets of the rich or

is squandered on the trappings of power and massive showcase

projects instead of being invested productively and

equitably.

That is called the resource curse. It prevails all over the world today. For example, oil-rich Venezuela is running out of food and medicine. Resource-rich Nigeria is in an economic mess wracked by terrorism and poverty. Armed groups have fought for years

over mineral wealth in the Congo and elsewhere in Africa.

Resource-rich countries in Asia have similar problems. The natural resource sector in so many countries is famously corrupt--the world's single most corrupt industry, according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. But oil companies can no longer hide behind the excuse of confidentiality. Increasingly, companies are expected to disclose what they pay in taxes and other payments to governments whose natural resources they extract. That is what this language from Senator Lugar, Senator Cardin, and Senator Leahy did. That is what the rule does. That is what we should do. This Congress wants to undo that. This is now required under the laws of the United States and 30 other countries, as well as international initiatives. In other words, what we did here was followed by 30 other countries, and a number of more responsible energy companies, I would say, passed this language and began to implement these laws.

The Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative is a global standard that aims to put information about government revenues from natural resource deals into the public domain in 51 countries, including ours. This includes telling us what taxes the companies pay, which is key to ensuring citizens know what benefits they get--from Venezuela or Nigeria or Congo--from their own natural resources.

Let me offer some concrete examples of the kind of corruption we are talking about. This just turns your stomach.

In Equatorial Guinea, according to anti-corruption groups, oil companies, including Exxon, have had a long history of problems on this front. The regime of President-for-life Obiang, who executed his brutal uncle to gain power almost 40 years ago, has been tarnished with allegations of corruption, cronyism, brutal political repression, routine human rights violations, and drug trafficking for years and years.

Years ago, the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations released a report and held a public hearing which revealed that a number of oil companies--again, ExxonMobil; they keep coming up in this--were making direct payments into an account in the name of the Republic of Equatorial Guinea located at Riggs Bank in Washington, DC. Virtually all of the money in the account, tens of millions of dollars, consisted of royalties and other payments from oil companies, primarily--surprise--ExxonMobil, to the country of Equatorial Guinea for the right to explore and produce oil in that country. But instead of paying the money to the government or the national treasury of Equatorial Guinea, the companies sent the money to the account at Riggs Bank. That account was controlled by President-for-life Obiang and two of his relatives. The account signatories were the President-for-life, his son, and his nephew. Imagine that. Instead of paying the national treasury, the oil companies made payments into this account in another country, controlled by a dictator and his relatives. I can't believe we in this body support that. How could the citizens of Equatorial Guinea know how much royalty money was coming in for their oil in their country and where it was going when it was in a secret account controlled by a dictator? The answer, obviously, is they couldn't.

The report from the PSI--the committee that investigated--documented that some of the funds from that account were used to make suspicious transactions. The United States then investigated the President-for- life's family finances. Prosecutors noted that President-for-life Obiang's son ``received an official government salary of less than $100,000 a year but used his position and influence as a government minister to amass more than $300 million worth of assets through corruption and money laundering.'' He paid himself $100,000 but found a way to amass $300 million more--all in violation of the laws of his country and our country both.

In 2014, the son settled a case brought by Federal prosecutors. He agreed to sell his $30 million mansion in Malibu, his Ferrari, and various items of Michael Jackson memorabilia he had collected.

The New York Times reported earlier this month that he is still working to delay his trial on corruption charges in France, where prosecutors say he amassed a personal fortune of $115 million, which he used to indulge his tastes.

When he served as Agriculture Minister of Equatorial Guinea, prosecutors say he used his influence over the timber industry--next to oil, the most important export industry in the country--to line his pockets.

Last November, prosecutors in Switzerland seized luxury cars belonging to him, and last month, at the request of the Swiss, the Dutch authorities seized his 250-foot, $100 million yacht named the ``Ebony Shine'' as it was about to sail to Equatorial Guinea. He said the yacht belonged to his country's government. All the while, his people are starving.

You can't make this stuff up. If the bill before us were adopted, the Obiang family would be celebrating. They would be celebrating in Washington, in California, and in Equatorial Guinea.

In Nigeria, again according to Global Witness, a major oil deal struck by--surprise--ExxonMobil with the Nigerian Government is being investigated by Nigeria's Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, a law enforcement agency that investigates high-level corruption. The probe centers on a protracted and controversial deal agreed to by ExxonMobil and the Nigerian Government in 2009 to renew three lucrative oil licenses, which at the time accounted for around a quarter of Nigeria's entire oil production.

ExxonMobil agreed to pay $600 million to renew the licenses and construct a powerplant at a cost of $900 million to the company, making a total contribution of $1.5 billion. Yet documents suggest that the Nigerian Government may have valued the licenses at $2.5 billion and that the Chinese oil company CNOOC offered to pay $3.7 billion for the same licenses--over six times the amount reportedly paid by ExxonMobil.

Other incredible and notorious examples abound. It would be reason enough for us to act to try to help the millions of people around the world who are victims of this corporate collusion, but in today's world, the resource curse doesn't just impact far-off countries; it affects Americans every day. It has empowered anti-American dictators in Iraq, Libya, and Syria, situations which cost American lives and American taxpayer dollars. It worsens global poverty, which can be a seedbed and a fertile growing ground for terrorism against us and our allies. It leads to the instability that threatens global oil supplies. It raises gas prices at home.

That is why we need this rule--all of the above--to protect American national security interests by combating the corruption and secrecy, with all these oil companies at the table with them. That has caused conflict, instability, and violent extremist movements in Africa and the Middle East. As ISIS has demonstrated, nonstate actors benefit from trading natural resources in order to finance their terrorist operations.

Despite all this, the Republican-led House of Representatives, as Senator Crapo said, voted yesterday to repeal this bipartisan initiative--an initiative that holds Big Oil accountable and protects the American people. Today, the Senate Republican leadership is following suit. It is a little ironic in light of the fact that Candidate Trump, at almost every rally in my State, almost every rally in State after State after State where he was campaigning, talked about draining the swamp.

Since the rule's creation, ExxonMobil, led by Mr. Tillerson--now the Secretary of State--and Big Oil allies, such as the American Petroleum Institute, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the Heritage Foundation, have fought to kill it.

Who else opposes this rule besides Senate Republicans, House Republicans, and President Trump? There are the autocrats in Russia. We know about the connections between Russia and the Secretary of State. We don't know quite enough about the connections between our President and President Putin because we can't get the President's tax returns. We know something is going on. Everybody knows it. Nobody knows quite what.

Who else opposes it? Autocrats in Iran, where Advisor Flynn made some interesting and provocative comments today, autocrats in Venezuela, autocrats in Africa with oil wells, gasfields,

or copper mines who want to keep their payments a secret. It is working for them. It is working for the autocrats. It is working for Exxon. Apparently it is working for Republicans in the House and Senate too. I am not sure exactly how, but I know it is working.

More than 30 countries--mostly the United States, Canada, and European nations--have adopted similar anti-corruption standards. Senator Lugar, Senator Leahy, and Senator Cardin's law passed as part of Dodd-Frank, and the SEC is adopting this rule. More than 30 other countries in the world followed our lead, and some of the more responsible oil companies were prepared to comply. So to be clear, with Europe and Canada in the same disclosure system, the playing field is now level. It is working.

Many companies already report such payments under European rules and are doing just fine, so this is hardly causing them undue burdens in the regulatory framework that my colleagues like to talk about. That is why many in industry support the rule, despite the actions of Exxon, the bad actor here, and the CEO of Exxon--now, amazingly, our Secretary of State.

BP and Shell--two major, large oil companies--have publicly endorsed payment reporting and lining up U.S. rules with those in other markets. Foreign and state-owned oil companies from China and Brazil, including CNOOC, PetroChina, Sinopec, and Brazil's Petrobras, are required to disclose under U.S. rules, leveling the playing field for U.S. companies. Gazprom, Rosneft, BP, and Shell already report under UK rules. The largest mining companies in the world, including Newmont Mining, BHP Billiton, and Rio Tinto, have supported similar reporting. Oil, gas, and mining workers unions, such as United Steelworkers, back the rule.

Notice who doesn't back the rule: Exxon, the American Petroleum Institute, and autocrats in Iran, Russia, and Venezuela.

Investors also support it--including investor groups with $10 trillion under management--so they can better understand and manage the reputational, expropriation, sanction, and other risks facing firms in which they invest. It is supported by the American Catholic bishops, the Presbyterian Church--all kinds of religious groups.

Who is against it? Republicans in the House, Republicans in the Senate, the President of the United States, ExxonMobil, the Secretary of State, who used to be CEO of ExxonMobil, and autocrats in Iran and Venezuela. We get the picture.

All these groups who care about justice, who care about fair play, who care about doing business with predictable and fair rules, like BP and Shell, all of them support it--Global Witness, the ONE Campaign, Oxfam, and Publish What You Pay.

We need to be clear on one other thing my friend from Idaho said: This rule won't cost a single American job. Everything oil companies can legally do today is still allowed under the anti-corruption rule. They only have to do one more thing: They have to report their numbers to the Securities and Exchange Commission. How can that cost millions of dollars?

The Cardin-Lugar rule makes Big Business and government more transparent, fights corruption, and does it all without hurting taxpayers. It is a creative approach to global problems that our leaders did embrace until we had a President who wants to ``drain the swamp,'' he says--should be embracing, not rejecting at the behest of just a few actors.

Again, who is lobbying to overturn this rule? It is autocrats around the world. It is Exxon. It is the American Petroleum Institute. It is a very small number of companies, when so many people are on the other side.

If we repeal this measure today, shareholders, investors, and poor communities around the world will continue to see their money and natural resources stolen by crooked oligarchs. We will be undoing the moral leadership. This is in so many ways a moral question that Senator Cardin, Senator Lugar, and Senator Leahy brought to us bipartisanly, with broad support by both parties. We will be turning a blind eye to corruption, we will be betraying our principles, and we will be undercutting our allies in Europe and Canada who followed our lead and crafted their own rules based on ours.

Under the terms of the Congressional Review Act, any future ``substantially similar'' rule will be forever prohibited from being written by the SEC. That makes no sense.

I hope this effort fails. I know my Republican colleagues understand this because enough of my colleagues recognize the merits of this anti- corruption measure and they refuse to kowtow to the dinosaur wing of Big Oil. It is not even all of Big Oil; it is the dinosaur wing of Big oil. It is the autocrats. It is the American Petroleum Institute. It is the Chamber of Commerce. It is ExxonMobil.

I thank Senator Cardin and Senator Leahy for their work, and I thank former Senator Lugar from Indiana for the important work he did on this measure.

Mr. President, I appreciate the comments of my friend from Alaska--also from Cleveland--and those of my friend from Cincinnati, Senator Portman, about opioids. I appreciate his leadership in my State, the work he has done, and the work we have done together on opioid addiction. It is a tragedy, and I don't go much of anywhere in the State without finding someone who is affected, someone who is addicted in a family, or a close friend who has died.

As Senator Portman said, Ohio has more opioid deaths than any State in the country. We are the seventh largest State, but the State with the most deaths. It is troubling, and clearly we are not dealing with it as well as we should.

Mr. President, I rise to close the debate on this motion today on the Congressional Review Act to wipe out the SEC rule. I rise in opposition to the bill, as a number of colleagues on my side of the aisle have very strong feelings on it. With the exception of my friend from Idaho, the chairman of the Banking Committee, there weren't many Republicans who wanted to come to the floor for this, in part because I think it is just the supporters they have on their side don't make you want to rush to the floor and support them. Some called this the Kleptocrat Relief Act. I will give you a real quick history before I wrap up.

There is a provision in Dodd-Frank to deal with giving the President and others the best anticorruption tools we could have around the world, where countries that have lots of natural resources have been countries with all the wealth from natural resources. They are some of the most corrupt governments with some of the worst poverty anywhere on Earth.

This legislation in Dodd-Frank, and the rule that came out of it from the SEC, was going a long way to preventing corruption. What we saw was the support. Thirty countries in the world followed suit from our country. The companies that were affected, with a few very notable exceptions, were beginning to do what they knew they needed to do and should have done and that the rule called for. As a result, we were going in the right direction until this new administration, this new Congress.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record relevant letters from investors.

Mr. President, on one side of this argument, one side of this rule, we see in the end--and this kind of sums it up. We have these 30 countries that followed us and passed the rules and the laws the same as we did. We have on our side, the American Catholic Bishops, the Conference of Bishops, the Presbyterian Church, groups like the One Campaign and Oxfam--public interest groups that made their mission trying to end corruption and deal with the economic and social distress and devastation brought on by some of these companies and some of these kleptomaniacal--for want of a better term--governments. That is on the one side.

On the other side, we have my Republican friends in the Senate and House. We have Rex Tillerson, the new Secretary of State, who lobbied vigorously and unceasingly against this rule as president of Exxon. We have Exxon on the other side. We have the Chamber of Commerce and the American Petroleum Institute. And on that side for this bill--against the rule--we have autocrats in places like Russia, Iran, Venezuela. You can bet on this vote tomorrow morning, if 7 a.m. comes out the way it looks like it will, you can bet there will be celebrations in Russia, in Iran, and Venezuela, in all these countries where these kleptocrats, where these leaders who are so corrupt, where they benefited so much.

I think that really sums it up, how important it is that we defeat this bill, how important it is that this President, who came to town and has been in office less than about 2 weeks, his second week in office--his campaign was all about drain the swamp, and one of the first things he did, with his Republican House and Senate Members following along like sheep, they have done this. It is just incredible how they moved so quickly to side with the autocrats, to side with the Russians, to side with Big Oil, to side with ExxonMobil and these autocrats in places like Iran and Russia. It is not a good commentary on this body. I am sorry to see it.

I ask my colleagues to vote no.

I yield back my time.

Mr. President, I appreciate my colleague from Hawaii, both on the substance of the issue and on the Congressional Review Act and how it is an unsuitable tool in a situation like this because of how it bars the door for a simple way to replace or modify a regulation.

I am coming to the floor tonight to share my concerns about a basic challenge we have in the world. This basic challenge is that when you get a ruler of a country who is corrupt, they forge contractual relationships, particularly if they are rich in minerals or oil, and they pocket the money and they spread the corruption. It makes it virtually impossible for the interests of the people of that country to be represented by their government because whatever governing body they have keeps making decisions based on those corrupt payments.

Now, we are a nation that values government by the people--of, by, and for the people. That is the vision of our Nation, but that vision would not be fulfilled if the Members of this body were being paid by foreign companies to serve the interests of the foreign companies instead of the interests of the people. We can understand from our own perspective our own desire to have a government that serves our citizens and that other nations want to have a government that serves their citizens. That is what this particular bill and the regulation that flows from it were all about. It was section 504 of Dodd-Frank, the resource extraction rule, that was passed now 7 years ago.

It took quite a while to get the regulation into place. The first version came out in 2012, after a tremendous amount of consultation was struck down in court because it was challenged by one of the companies that did not want to have transparency in international payments. Then folks went to work again and produced a rule that went into effect this last year. Unfortunately, we are about to strike that down.

I was thinking about how one of the champions for this was Senator Dick Lugar of Indiana. I was so impressed by his thoughtfulness when I came to the Senate. He had been here quite a while, and he worked to really understand issues, and he worked to solve problems. He didn't work to obstruct an administration because it was of a different party. He didn't work to sabotage the work of this body because one party or the other was in the majority. He worked to solve problems. He had really a deep understanding of the challenges in the world.

He could see this from his considerable experience. He was on foreign relations for a very long time, and he served as its chair. He knew from his own work in that committee, from his own studies, from his own travels, and his own conversations--overseas conversations with foreign governments and conversations with our State Department and our Defense Department--that we had a significant issue in which contracts with large companies are used to defeat government of, by, and for the people in nations around the world. He wanted to do something about it. He had partnerships, and Members of our own body who are still serving here today were deeply involved in this.

It was a tremendous provision, but the American Petroleum Institute wasn't happy about it because it has worked really well for oil companies to not disclose and to make deals with ruling dictators and ruling families or ruling governing groups, whether they be in a so- called elected form or unelected form.

Well, finally, last year the rule was completed in June. They crafted a rule that, for the most part, made various stakeholders happy and it won broad international support. Dozens of other countries--including Canada, Norway, and countries of the European Union--followed American leadership. They adopted similar laws. So our particular law made it clear that if a company was listed on our stock exchange--on any of our exchanges--and it made a significant payment--$100,000 or more--it had to disclose that payment. That wasn't just U.S. companies. It wouldn't just have been U.S. companies. It was any company listed on our exchange, no matter where it was based. Other companies followed suit. So companies based in other countries were affected. So, basically, it was a vision that in short order took over the entire world, with developed countries coming together and saying that we are going to stop this process that destroys governments for the people in so much of the world.

It isn't just kind of a theoretical question of some liberal vision of how governments work. We are talking about the difference between the decisions of dictators to stash billions of dollars overseas or build health care clinics. We are talking about the difference between dictators buying hundreds of the world's most expensive sports cars or developing an education system in their countries. We are talking about the fundamental quality of life for millions and millions of people around the world. This provision, this resource extraction rule, went in an enormous direction in terms of making the world a better place. Shouldn't that be what we are about?

This challenge of foreign contracts with money diverted into the pockets of the dictators and the ruling class--the money that should go to the development of the country--is particularly a problem in resource rich countries with weak institutions. They have weak courts. They have weak investigative branches to find corruption. They have courts that essentially exorcise the ability to try people for which there is evidence, who should be charged and should be convicted. So the same corruption that affects the decisions that are made protects those who make those decisions. This means that if you have someone who grows up in this country and says: We have hundreds of billions of dollars of resources and nothing to show for it; so let's change that system; let's change that system and enable the people of this country to benefit from schools and health care and transportation; let's develop our nation, they are stymied by this complex web of undisclosed corruption. So that is what this bill is all about, and that is what this rule stemming from the section of the bill is all about.

Let's take, for example, a poster child for this resource curse. In many countries, it is known as the oil curse. Oil is a particularly prominent case. But the Democratic Republic of the Congo has not just some oil but a lot of minerals. It is a significant producer of the world's cobalt, diamonds, tin, gold, and other minerals. This problem of a corrupt dictator goes way back to decades ago. His name was well known around the world: Mobutu Sese Seko. He ruled from 1965 to 1997, so 32 years, three decades. It is estimated that he diverted from the country $4 billion to $15 billion. That is a lot of roads being built in a poor country. That is a lot of food for people who are near starvation. That is a lot of public school education. That is a lot of health care clinics. So one very rich man was stashing money in Swiss bank accounts rather than that money going to the government to do fundamental responsibilities for the people. The country has an estimated $24 trillion in mineral deposits. When we think about that, the $4 billion to $15 billion doesn't sound like very much.

Often, the way it works is these corrupt payments enable companies to get contracts far below cost, which is not a good thing, obviously, for these impoverished nations, to be essentially giving away their money because they are being bribed to do so.

So that is extremely disturbing to me, this particular issue being done here late in the evening, with very few of my colleagues here-- mostly colleagues who are trying to fight this rule. Those who are supporting the multilateral corporations, the multinational corporations that don't like to have disclosure, they are not here to talk about how this is damaging the lives of millions of people in the poorest countries around the world. Maybe we need to have a rule in the Senate that if you are going to damage the lives of millions of people, you have to actually be here to hear the debate.

This debate is limited to just 10 hours, 5 hours on either side. If one side gives back their time, it is just 5 hours. There are not a whole lot of conversations. Maybe we could limit the conversation to 20 minutes a person or 10 minutes a person so we get a lot of voices in.

Before we go about the process of destroying the lives of millions of people all around the world, maybe, instead of just listening to the lobbyists for a multinational bank in your office, you should be here on the floor to have a conversation about the damage you are contemplating doing. Maybe then we would have an actual debate here in the U.S. Senate--a place that used to be a place where people did come and listen to each other debate issues. Perhaps there are good arguments to the contrary that I haven't heard because my colleagues aren't here presenting them. And maybe out of that mutual exchange, we would find a path to do something other than using this crude and destructive tool to strike down this very important provision.

There are three groups who benefit from this disclosure rule. The first group who benefits is the investors in a company who want to invest in companies that have responsible practices. The disclosure gives them the ability to have that information.

The second group who benefits is consumers who want to buy products from companies that engage in responsible practices, and disclosure enables them to do that.

The third group, though, really is the most important group, and that is a group of citizens in the country who are being corrupted by these payments because when they hear that a company has a contract and has paid X amount of billion dollars for that contract, then the newspapers of that country and the citizens of that country can try to get additional information: Did you take the percentage of that that was supposed to go to the regional government and actually get it disbursed to the regional government? Did you take the percentage of that that was supposed to go to the local city or province and did it get there? They can start to see that there is this lump of money that is supposed to be serving the citizens, and they can ask questions about how it serves the citizens. What bank account did it go into--so they can follow the money and track the money. But they have no ability to do that if these payments are hidden. That is what this is about.

So it is about investors who want to do the right thing, consumers who want to use their marketing and purchasing power to do the right thing, but it is really about the citizens of that country not having their resources diverted when they desperately need the fundamental things, such as transportation and education and health care.

Well, Senator Lugar said recently that if we allow this rule to be repealed, it would be ``a real tragedy for democracy and human rights.''

I agreed with Senator Lugar when he said, ``It is hard to believe that this would be such a high priority right now.'' We have a lot of issues in the world that we are challenged by, including security issues. We have a lot of nominations to address and debate. Why is it such a high priority at this moment to tear down a provision that improves the quality of life for millions of people in some of the poorest countries in the world? Why is it so important at this moment to tear down a law that reduces corruption in governments around the world? Why is it so important right now to destroy this provision that helps create an opportunity for ``we the people,'' a government that we profess to believe in?

It is well known that the CEO of ExxonMobil traveled to Washington to personally lobby Senator Lugar on this section. He wanted this provision scrapped, and that individual is now our Secretary of State. That certainly disturbs me, that the day after he became Secretary of State, the provision he lobbied for as an oil executive is being accomplished here on the floor.

Because of his testimony in committee, there was some hope that he would stand up and fight for the fundamental visions of our country, the fundamental values and principles of our country, and if so, he would be sending out information right now saying: Stop what you are doing because I know how this works around the world and how it destroys ``we the people'' governments, and we shouldn't be doing it; that is, we should keep the provision we have right now.

Nigeria is another nation that has had a resource curse or oil curse. Last year, a deal was struck between ExxonMobil and the Nigerian Government--or it came under investigation last year by that country's anti-corruption and law enforcement agency, the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission. The investigation surrounds a 2009 agreement where an Exxon subsidiary and the Nigerian Government agreed to renew a 40- percent share in three new oil licenses. Exxon reached a deal to pay $600 million for those licenses, and it built a powerplant at a cost of $900 million, so it made a $1.5 billion investment. So a $1.5 billion investment--that sounds like a pretty high sum for a contract.

However, an outside group who was investigating corruption found that the Nigerian Government had valued those contracts at $2.15 billion--in other words, $1 billion more than what Exxon was paying. Furthermore, they found that wasn't just in theory because another bidder offered $3.75 billion, and that is more than twice what Exxon paid. But the Exxon deal was chosen.

Isn't there some sense that something is wrong when a government rejects a payment that is $2.25 billion more than the offer that was accepted? That is what happens with corrupt payments between powerful companies and dictators. That is what destroys government of, by, and for the people around the world.

It is estimated that over time--that is, since 1960, so after the last 57 years--$400 billion of Nigerian oil revenues have disappeared due to corruption--$400 billion disappeared. What would $400 billion do to improve the lives of Nigerians?

That is why transparency in these payments is so important. It affects impoverished people all over the world. We can have all of our aid programs, we can have our Food for Peace Program, we can have our Millennium Corporation, but this type of deal does so much more damage than all the good we do through our programs that we budget for and put money into.

If we enable, if we promote corruption around the world, we do enormous damage. That is why a bipartisan group of Senators, including Dick Lugar leading it, took this on.

How about Equatorial Guinea. It is one of Sub-Saharan Africa's largest oil producers, and it, like many other oil countries, has the oil curse. President Obiang has been in power since he ousted his uncle in a military coup in 1979 and declared himself President for life. Let's just say what he is: He is a dictator. His government has been known to detain arbitrarily and torture critics, to disregard elections. It has been prosecuted for using oil profits for financial gain of the President's family. The result is, although this country is one of the wealthiest African nations per capita, the majority of the Nation's citizens survive on less than $2 a day. Let me clarify that. It is one of the richest African nations per capita, but a large percent of the citizens survive on less than $2 a day because President Obiang and his extended network--his extended corrupt network--are stealing the resources of the country, and they are doing it often through contracts with oil companies like Exxon, which happens to be a major partner in exploiting the resources of Equatorial Guinea.

Less than half of Equatorial Guinea has access to clean drinking water, a fundamental need and a fundamental factor in health. Twenty percent--that is one out of every five children--die before reaching the age of 5. This is because of the corruption that is facilitated by undisclosed sums, reinforcing a dictator--a dictator whose family owns fleets of fancy sports cars, luxury yachts, private jets, massive properties in Europe, massive properties in Brazil, and properties right here in the United States. But one-fifth of the children die before age 5. That is why this is so important.

Let me conclude by saying that what we are doing here tonight in putting this forward with no real debate because my colleagues are not here--a few colleagues are here to give speeches like I am giving to say ``Stop, this is wrong,'' but our colleagues are not here to hear us. What is happening tonight is an enormous travesty. It is an enormous blight on the United States, which led the world in taking on this problem and now is abandoning not just that leadership but is abandoning the principle. The world is worse off for it.

I hope that my colleagues will somehow come to an inspiration or a revelation, that those who are not here listening to this will come to an understanding that something is wrong with this and will oppose this effort to repeal this very important provision. But I know that the heavy hand of corporate lobbying is behind the fact that this is on the floor tonight, and I am not optimistic. That saddens me a great deal.

Let us strive to have a process that honors the importance of the issues before us. This short debate, with virtually no one present, does not honor it and does enormous damage, and it is just wrong.

Mr. President, I rise tonight to talk about a problem that is affecting every single one of the States represented in this Chamber and every one of our communities. It is one that folks back home are, unfortunately, experiencing and, frankly, we don't talk enough about this in Washington. It is this epidemic of heroin and prescription drug abuse.

How bad is it? We just learned very recently that for the first time in 23 years, life expectancy in the United States has gone down, and there is no question that the surge in heroin and prescription drug addiction is one of the reasons. In fact, the demographic that saw the biggest drop in life expectancy was among middle-aged White women--the very group that has been hardest hit by the heroin and prescription drug epidemic in overdoses and overdose deaths. Unbelievably, this epidemic is actually driving down life expectancy in our great country.

It has been pretty dramatic. The number of heroin users in the United States has tripled since 2007, and the number of heroin overdoses has tripled just since 2012. It has gotten to the point where we are now losing one American life about every 12 minutes to this epidemic. So during this talk today, which will be about 12 minutes, we expect another American to die of a heroin overdose.

Congress has begun to act, and I applaud the House and the Senate for that. We have acted over the last year to do a couple things. One is that, in the appropriations bill that passed at the end of last year, we put more money aside for treatment. So States are now receiving grants--$500 million this year, $500 million next year. These grants are needed. It is going to the hardest hit States. It is going to States based on their need, which I think is very important, because some States are hit harder than others. My colleague from Ohio is here on the floor, and he has been very involved in this issue as well. My State has been one of those States hardest hit. Some think that Ohio now has the highest number of overdoses when we add prescription drugs, heroin, and synthetic heroin, like fentanyl.

Second, last summer Congress took what I think is the biggest step we have taken in decades in terms of fighting this issue when we passed the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act. The President signed it into law. It is already helping with regard to providing more prevention efforts, treatment, and long-term recovery. It is also helping our law enforcement and other first responders to be able to handle this growing crisis.

We fully funded this Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act--also called CARA--this year, and now we need to ensure that the new administration that has just come in continues to effectively implement this program as quickly as possible.

Just in the last few weeks, three of CARA's grant programs got up and running. One is funding for drug courts. Those who are involved with drug courts back home already know this, but it is a very effective way to take those who are in the criminal justice system because of a drug issue--prescription drug and heroin issues in particular--and get them into a diversion program where they can get treatment, with the risk of going back to incarceration if they do not stay clean. This is really working well in some of our communities in Ohio. They are also using interesting new techniques, including a medication called VIVITROL, to keep people off of their addiction.

Second, we have just put in place for the first time ever programs for recovery support services. Again, in this legislation, CARA, we funded long-term recovery. So it is not just a detox center, not just a treatment center that might be short term, which they usually are, but longer term recovery, including getting people into sober housing, providing them with people who will support them and encourage them. That, we have found out, keeps people from relapsing and is incredibly powerful.

Third, there has been a grant to empower States and local governments to help fight this epidemic.

This is all-important. It is real progress. But our work is far from done. In fact, there are five more CARA grant programs yet to be implemented.

Again, I call on the new administration to do so urgently. I know they are focused on this issue. We just need to get these programs up and going to help our communities right now.

Near my hometown of Cincinnati, OH, the Winemiller family of Wayne Township had a pretty tough Christmas. They were missing a son and a daughter because of heroin. Over Easter weekend last year, Roger Winemiller found his daughter Heather dead of a heroin overdose in their bathroom. She left behind an 8-year-old son. Then, just 5 days before Christmas, Heather's brother Gene--a father of three children under 18--died of a heroin overdose. Gene started abusing painkillers when he was in his early twenties. He became addicted, and when the pills were too expensive, he switched to heroin, which is cheaper and, really, more accessible.

Unfortunately, this is a fairly common story in my home State and around the country. We are told this is how four out of five heroin addicts in the United States started on heroin--prescription drugs.

Heather and Gene both got clean several times. Heather was clean for 3 years before she relapsed and died. These were vibrant people; they loved life. Heather loved gardening, and she was a huge Ohio State Buckeyes fan. Gene loved rock music, hunting, and fishing. But they both made the tragic mistake of trying these drugs, and it changed their lives forever.

Gene Winemiller's funeral took place at Blanchester Church of Christ in Blanchester, OH. I know Blanchester, OH, pretty well. It is a small community of about 4,000 people. The very next day, there was another funeral in that same church in this small town of 4,000 people for a heroin overdose. As Gene's dad Roger puts it, ``I can't emphasize enough: No one--no one--is immune from this epidemic.''

Unfortunately, he is right. It knows no zip code. It is in the rural areas. It is in the suburban areas. It is certainly in our inner cities. It is everywhere.

Take Cleveland, in Northeast Ohio, for example. Cleveland medical examiner Thomas Gilson said that ``2016 was an unprecedented year.'' The number of overdoses in Cleveland doubled in 2016 compared to 2015-- doubled. Overdoses are happening all over the Cleveland area. More than 150 heroin overdose deaths happened in the city and another 150 happened in the suburbs, kind of evenly split. It is everybody, every group, every age group--African American, White, Hispanic.

Take Dayton, OH, in Southwest Ohio, as another example. In Dayton last year, there were more than 2,500 overdoses, about 7 a day. About half of the victims were men, and about half were women--some in the cities and some in the suburbs, with 60 percent in their thirties and forties and 40 percent who were either younger or older than that. So this is happening all over our State and all over our country--in cities, suburbs, inner cities, and rural areas and to rich and poor, old and young alike.

In 2015, Ohio statewide experienced a record 3,050 drug overdose deaths, which is a 20-percent increase from 2014, and more than quadruple the number of overdose deaths in 2000. In 2015, we lost an Ohioan every 3 hours to this epidemic. Sadly, the toll was even higher in 2016. We don't have the final numbers yet.

One of Ohio's economic assets, of course, is our location. We are centrally located. It is great for transportation. They say half of America's consumers are within 1 day's drive from Cincinnati, Cleveland, and Columbus. Unfortunately, that central location also makes us very vulnerable to drug traffickers.

Last year, Ohio State troopers confiscated nearly 160 pounds of heroin. Depending on the potency, that could be equivalent to more than $50 million--or more than 180,000 injections--of heroin. That is nearly triple the amount of heroin seized the year before. The Ohio State Highway Patrol also confiscated a record-level number of illegal painkillers and methamphetamines last year.

We have to thank our law enforcement officers because they are saving lives every day by keeping this poison out of our communities, certainly, but also helping to reverse the overdoses with this miracle drug called naloxone or Narcan. In 2015, the last year we have numbers for, Narcan was administered 16,000 times. Think about that: 16,000 people were saved who could have died of an overdose, thanks to our first responders and their professionalism. We don't have numbers yet for 2016, but, again, it is going to be, unfortunately, far higher than that.

The Washington Post recently published a report on the heroin epidemic in Chillicothe, OH, where there were more than 300 overdoses last year, and where a single police officer, Officer Ben Rhodes, says that he used naloxone to reverse an overdose more than 50 times. One church in Chillicothe, Zion Baptist Church, recently had funerals for three overdose victims in 1 week. I know Chillicothe. It is a small town of about 21,000 people.

Heroin and prescription drug painkillers are flooding our communities to meet a rise in demand. CARA, this legislation I talked about, will reduce that demand by increasing access to treatment for those who need it and preventing new addictions from starting in the first place through better prevention and education efforts.

After CARA became law, I introduced bipartisan legislation to take another step. This is called the Synthetics Trafficking and Overdose Prevention Act, or the STOP Act. Again, it builds on CARA because it helps reduce the supply of drugs coming into our communities.

Some of the deadliest drugs coming into Ohio are synthetics--drugs such as fentanyl, carfentanil, or U4, essentially synthetic heroin that is made in a laboratory somewhere. Guess where these drugs are coming from: overseas. Boy, they are incredibly powerful. Fentanyl can be more than 50 or even 100 times as powerful as heroin. According to the Drug Enforcement Agency, it takes about 2 milligrams to kill you. Carfentanil is even more powerful than that--up to 10,000 times as powerful as morphine. It is so powerful that it is used primarily as a tranquilizer for large animals like elephants.

Heroin bought on the street today in Ohio and elsewhere is often laced with these drugs to make it more potent. Roger Winemiller, the Dad I talked about a few moments ago who lost his two kids, compares buying heroin to playing Russian roulette because you never know the potency of the drug that you are buying. Many of these spates of overdoses in our urban areas in Ohio are because of the mix with fentanyl and carfentanil.

These fentanyl deaths in Ohio have increased nearly fivefold in the last 3 years. Three years ago we had about 1 in every 20 overdoses in Ohio because of fentanyl. Now it is one in five. We expect it soon to be one in three. You can see where this is going.

I talked a minute ago about the trafficking of drugs on our interstate highways. That is a serious problem, but so is the problem of traffickers shipping these drugs through our mail system to our communities to meet this growing demand.

Just yesterday the U.S.-China Commission released a report about the trafficking of Chinese fentanyl into this country. The report says:

The majority of fentanyl products found in the United

States originate in China. . . . Chinese law enforcement

officials have struggled to adequately regulate the thousands

of chemical and pharmaceutical facilities [laboratories]

operating legally and illegally in the country, leading to

increased production and export of illicit chemicals and

drugs. Chinese chemical exporters . . . covertly ship drugs

to the Western hemisphere.

That is from a report just yesterday. Right now these drugs are difficult to detect before it is too late. Part of the reason is that, unlike private carriers such as UPS or FedEx, the Postal Service does not require information about packages. If you are a private carrier, you have to have electric customs data for packages coming into the country, saying where it is from, what is in it, where it is going. This means the U.S. Postal Service is a more attractive way for traffickers to get these dangerous drugs like fentanyl or carfentanil into our country. It shouldn't be this way. It doesn't have to be this way.

The STOP Act would close that loophole and make the Postal Service require advanced electronic data. Where is it coming from? What is in it? Where is it going? That information on these packages before they cross our borders would be incredibly helpful. It is common sense. It would help stop these dangerous synthetic drugs from being trafficked into the United States, and it would save lives. That is what our law enforcement officials are telling us.

I know the scope of this epidemic is daunting. It is in your State of Indiana. It is in my State of Ohio. Its consequences are hard to even think about because it is about the overdose deaths, but it is far more than that. It is about people not being able to live out their dream. It is about higher costs for law enforcement. It is about crime. It is about our workforce and people not being able to go to work and not being able to find workers who are drug free. It is about so much that affects our communities.

Yet there is hope. We have to work here in Congress to continue to promote legislation and policies that will help us to achieve the dream of turning this tide around. The STOP Act that I talked about is going to help keep some of that poison out of our communities and increase the cost of heroin. That is good.

These synthetic heroin increases are really concerning. Treatment is incredibly important, and it can work. I have met so many people across Ohio who have beaten their addiction--people who are now back on their feet, back with their kids, back with their families. It is hard, but with treatment and a supportive environment, particularly this longer term recovery, it can be done.

Last year I met with Aaron Marks in Columbus, OH, at a conference held by the Ohio Association of County Behavioral Health Authorities. Aaron is from Cleveland, a suburb called Beachwood. He began using prescription painkillers as a freshman at Beachwood High School. He was just 13 years old.

Again, it is a story that is all too common. Often because of an accident or injury, people start using these pain pills.

He was smart, had good grades. He got into the University of Cincinnati, a great school. One day at UC he ran out

of pills. A fellow student who was living in the same dorm room offered him something else. He said: It is cheaper; it is called heroin.

He tried it. Soon, he had sold virtually everything he owned to buy more. Finally, with the help of Glenbeigh treatment center in Cleveland, OH, Aaron got clean and has stayed that way for more than a decade. Aaron is now a successful manager of business development at American Express.

We can have a lot more success stories like Aaron's if we all engage--all of us. Washington, DC, is not going to solve this problem. It will be solved in our communities. It is going to be solved in our families. It is going to be solved in our hearts.

Washington, DC, can play a more constructive role. In passing this legislation, it makes sense to give people the tools they need to be able to fight this scourge. The role is put the right policies in place, like the STOP Act, like fully funding treatment, like fully funding CARA in the coming months. We can then bring down the demand for these dangerous drugs, and we can keep these poisons from coming into our communities and build on the progress that Congress has made over the past year. Let's not let up until we finally turn the tide of this epidemic and begin to save lives.

I yield back.

Mr. President, let me thank Senator Leahy for his comments. Ten years ago, I was privileged to be elected by the people of Maryland to represent them in the U.S. Senate. I came to the Senate with Senator Brown at that time. It was our first year. Senator Brown had the opportunity to serve on the Banking Committee. I had the opportunity to serve on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Today I hold the position on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that Senator Lugar held when I first went on the committee; that is, the ranking member of the committee.

I remember one of the very first hearings we had in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on resource, curse or blessing. It was a matter of concern to every single member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Democrats and Republicans. We saw the faces of people from nations in Africa who had a resource wealth, but they had the resource curse. The people were living in horrible poverty. Yet the country had mineral wealth--gas and oil--that was being exploited but not for the benefit of the people. It was being used to obtain income for their leaders to funnel corrupt practices. Senator Lugar, in October of 2008, authored a committee report of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee entitled ``The Petroleum And Poverty Paradox: Assessing U.S. And International Community Efforts To Fight The Resource Curse.''

We went through the regular legislative process as to how we could deal with the circumstance that we knew the United States must exercise leadership. As Senator Brown has pointed out the whole history and the importance of it--and all of the details--I just want to fill in some of the details as to how this came about because we were looking for a way in which we could turn the wealth of a nation to its people and cut off the corruption that it funded. The corruption was not just the obscenity of wealth being used by their leaders--as Senator Brown pointed out in Equatorial Guinea--it was also the fact that this wealth that was coming to these leaders was also being used for criminal activities, to finance illegal drug activities and to finance terrorism.

I take issue with my friend from Oklahoma and his comments. There has never been an effort in this legislation to affect the supply of any source of energy here or anywhere around the world. That is being done. The question is, Where does the money go that is being used to exploit these resources? Do they go to the people of the country where the resource is located or do they go for corruption? That is what we attempted to do--Senator Lugar and I and others. I thank Senators Leahy and Durbin, who was on the floor earlier and was one of our early leaders, Senators Menendez and Wicker. We did this not only in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee at the time I was chairman of the Senate U.S. Helsinki Commission--the Helsinki Commission, and Senator Wicker was helping, we worked in that organization to see how we could deal with transparency and how the American leadership could help the international effort to end the resource curse. As a result, legislation was authored and introduced in order to try to deal with this issue. Senator Lugar and I authored a bill, a bill that said we want to know where the money is going so we can track the money. We wanted to be able, for the people of that nation, to say: We know money is coming in now. Our leaders show us where the money is going.

That legislation was introduced. It was debated. It became part of the Dodd-Frank law. Quite frankly, it was supported in a rather bipartisan way, and it became law. Ever since its enactment, it has been fought by the American Petroleum Institute. I am not sure why because today other countries have adopted similar standards. This information is readily available as far as the way it is compiled by companies. Many oil and mineral companies today are supplying this information with no complaints, no problems, but it was fought.

Tonight we are debating the use of the Congressional Review Act. It was pointed out earlier tonight that before today, it only had been used once since its 1996 enactment. The reason is because it is a sledgehammer approach to dealing with issues that should be dealt with by a scalpel, but here is the real abuse. We are using the Congressional Review Act--which is supposed to be used when an agency goes rogue, when they start to do things that were never intended by Congress, were never authorized by Congress. Section 1504 was passed by Congress, and it has taken the SEC almost a decade to get the rules out. And we are saying they abused their power? Maybe they abused their power by delay, but they certainly haven't abused their power with what they have come forward with. They are carrying out congressional mandate as they should. It was never the intent of the CRA to be used for this type of a process. So I just urge my colleagues to recognize that this is not the right way we should be proceeding.

In September 2009, with Senator Lugar's help, I introduced legislation. It was bipartisan. Senators Merkley, Wicker, Schumer, Leahy, Durbin, Feinstein, Menendez, and others joined in that effort. The SEC was directed to develop rules on oil, gas, and mining companies as to how the disclosures could be made on the U.S. stock exchange so they could disclose their rights and payments made to foreign governments. That is what we mandated. Why do we want to know that? Because these royalties and payments were basically bribes to government leaders because it never went to the people. It was in the U.S. interest, not only because of how those funds were used against our principles and not only did it finance illegal activities, but it could have been a source for stable governments, which was important for U.S. interests that we have stable governments. It helps us in our foreign policy and national security. It also gives us a stable source of oil, gas, and minerals. Investors have the right to know. They have the right to know in what countries their companies are investing their stockholder investments.

It was a reasonable request by Congress. One of my colleagues indicated that it was held to be inappropriate by our courts. That was on a process issue. It was not on a substantive issue. That

was corrected. A new rule has come out, and now we are using a CRA in order to block it. The rule, as it is currently worded, provides for a reasonable period for enforcement. So it is not even going into effect immediately because we are allowing the companies to have ample time in order to comply with the rule.

I just want to make this point. It creates a level playing field. It does not put American companies at a disadvantage. This is a level playing field. Thirty countries already require this. The EU requires this. Canada requires this. Do you want to know why they did it? Because the United States led. We passed the law. I met with the Europeans. I met with the Canadians. They said: This is a good bill. You are our leaders. You are doing it. We are going to do it also so they did it. It is in effect in these countries. Oil companies and mineral companies have complied with it. They are fine. Guess what. It wasn't difficult. Shell, BP, France's Total, Russian's Rosneft, Lukoil, Gazprom--their huge giant--all have reported. It has not caused any competitive problems. They are not losing any proprietary rights, as has been suggested. There has been no harm done.

When I listen to the cost-benefit analysis and listen to our distinguished chairman talk about the data is not really available, the reason the data is not available is because we don't have disclosure. If we get the information, then we will be able to tell exactly how we can deal with the problems in Ghana or Nigeria or in Equatorial Guinea or problems in so many countries where the people are hurting with some of the worst poverty rates in the world. We will be able to find that information out, but if we don't know what is being paid by U.S. companies, how do you do a cost-benefit analysis? I don't know how you could possibly do it.

I heard the numbers, the cost of compliance, and I would challenge that. I would challenge the cost of compliance numbers because this information is already available. Companies know where their money is going. It is a normal business issue. I heard it is going to cost hundreds of millions of dollars of contracts. I don't want to minimize the cost, but as a percentage of the business they are doing, it is minor. The benefit we get if the money can go to the people and deal with these horrible conditions that we see in these resource-wealthy countries, then it is certainly worth the effort. That is part of our effort in dealing with other countries, to try to lift up the standard of living in so many of these countries.

So when we look at, again, what is at stake--what is at stake? And that is to allow the wealth of a country to go to its people for its stability. I have heard my colleagues say: Well, we are not against this. The law is still there. All we are talking about is this regulation. Once we pass this CRA, we are going to go back to work with the SEC and bring in a new rule. Do you really believe that? Do you really believe that if we pass this CRA, that we are going to see a new rule come out of the SEC? It has taken us 9 years to get to where we are right now. Do you really believe that with the law saying that the SEC cannot bring out a rule that is substantially the same in form, unless authorized by a subsequent law of Congress--do you really believe that will not be challenged in the courts with lengthy litigation before we will ever see another rule take effect?

Let us be clear about this. I am going to continue to do everything I can to make sure that the people of these nations get the wealth of their country. I am going to do everything I can. I am going to work with all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. I really do believe in the sincerity of my colleagues, that they believe in this transparency. It is going to be tested. I am going to come back and see where we can make sure that 1504 is enforced because if I heard my chairman--and I respect him greatly, we work on a lot of issues together--when the chairman says that he is going to make sure the SEC complies with all congressional mandates--this is a congressional mandate--and it is our responsibility to make sure the SEC complies with Section 1504. If our colleagues pass this CRA--and I hope you don't--it is our responsibility to make sure the SEC complies with 1504. I am going to be here urging in every way I can to make sure that happens.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the statement from Publish What You Pay, which talks about a lot of the different aspects and myths that have been said, be printed in the Record.

Let me conclude, for years, Congress has been fighting to shine a light on the billions of dollars paid by extracted companies to foreign governments. By taking away one of the only tools we have to shine a light on extracted payments' associated corruption, we are sending a message to corrupt leaders around the world that the United States does not care about corruption; that we won't hold them accountable, and that they should continue with business as usual: Exploiting their own people, and perhaps even funding terrorist organizations with some of their secret proceeds. It is not in our national interest to stop an anticorruption rule that bolsters America's national security, advances our humanitarian and anticorruption goals, and demonstrates U.S. moral leadership.

I urge my colleagues to join me in voting against this resolution of disapproval.

I yield the floor.

OK, as long as I get to speak after this issue is over.

Mr. President, I want to take a few minutes to comment on some of the initial reactions that I have heard from my Democratic colleagues on the President's nomination of Judge Gorsuch to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.

First of all, even before we had the nominee, there were many of the Democratic Members vowing to filibuster the nominee, site unseen. That, of course, is very unfortunate, as well as being ridiculous--in other words, saying you are going to filibuster somebody before you even know who the nominee is. But of course, given

how the minority has treated the President's Cabinet nominees so far, it is not exactly surprising that they would say this before the President even nominated somebody for the Court.

Then, of course, this week the President announced his nominee. Judge Gorsuch, of course, was confirmed by the Senate in 2006 without a single ``no'' vote and is universally respected as one of the finest and most fairminded judges in the country. In fact--get this--one of President Obama's Solicitors General called him ``one of the most thoughtful and brilliant judges to have served our Nation over the last century.''

Now, if an Obama Solicitor General says that and that is not mainstream enough, I don't know what is. After the President's announcement, something very interesting happened. Right out of the gate, there were a number of Senate Democrats calling for ``a hearing and a vote.'' Well, that certainly sounds very encouraging. The press picked up on these comments, and one newspaper even reported that after learning who the nominee was, there were already seven Senate Democrats opposed to filibustering this nominee.

At first glance, it appears those Democrats were trying to be consistent with their stance from last year that a nominee deserves a hearing and an up-or-down vote. But of course, now they conveniently seem to have dropped the up-or-down portion of that stand.

Now, isn't that a nice trick, a new trick. Take, for example, one of my colleagues, who last year said: ``The Constitution says the Senate shall advise and consent, and that means having an up-or-down vote.'' But oddly, just yesterday, that same colleague said: ``I support a 60- vote margin for all Supreme Court nominees.''

That is a very nice sleight of hand. But most of the Senators are not that gullible. The Washington Post Fact Checker certainly took notice of their wordsmithing. That has earned them two Pinocchios. When you look at the facts, a 60-vote threshold has never been a standard, as the minority leader said yesterday. Otherwise, we would not have two of the current justices sitting on the Supreme Court.

Of course, my colleagues tried unsuccessfully to filibuster Justice Alito. The Senate voted 72 to 25 to invoke cloture. He was then confirmed 58 to 42 on an up-or-down vote.

Justice Thomas, now on the Supreme Court for 25 years, was confirmed 52 to 48. There was no cloture vote on Justice Thomas's nomination. In fact, the Senate did not set any sort of a requirement that there be 60 votes for 7 of the 8 justices serving on the Court. So, if there has been any sort of requirement or practice in the Senate on Supreme Court nominees, it has, in fact, been that the nominee does not need 60 votes, although many of them received that kind of support.

We already know some Members have pledged to filibuster the nominee. This minority leader stated that part of the ``fair process'' is a 60- vote threshold. I suppose that if you are already committed to attempting a filibuster on a Supreme Court nominee before you even know who that person might be, then you might consider that part of a fair process.

Of course, we all know--all Republicans and Democrats know--that launching a filibuster against a Supreme Court nominee is not part of a fair process. It never has been. But I suppose we should cut our colleagues just a little bit of slack. They are having a hard time figuring out how to make good on their promise to attack the nominee no matter who it is, when they have now been presented with a nominee with impeccable credentials as well as broad bipartisan support.

This brings me to the second brief point that I want to make. Judge Gorsuch had barely finished speaking at the White House, and there were already attacks on the nominee by some on the left. Some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle had already taken to the Senate floor to attack and mischaracterize Judge Gorsuch's record. Though we expected it, these scurrilous attacks are untoward and obviously misplaced. After all, those on the left trot out the same tired arguments against every Republican nominee.

Now, you know, going back a few years--maybe, too far for some of you younger Members--they attacked Justice Stevens because he ``revealed an extraordinary lack of sensitivity to problems that women face.''

They called Justice Kennedy a sexist who ``would be a disaster for women.'' They said there was ``ample reason to fear'' Justice Souter. Of course, you know what turned out. Justices Stevens and Souter turned out to be favorites of the left, and too often Justice Kennedy has ruled the liberal way.

This morning, the Washington Post editorial board noted that, while we argued last year--meaning the paper argued last year--that the President should not fill a Supreme Court vacancy that occurs during a Presidential election year, Senate Republicans--quoting the Post-- ``refrained from tarring Mr. Garland personally.''

Now, in contrast, the paper noted that this dissent is unwarranted this early by writing this: ``Trashing Mr. Gorsuch as an outlandish radical, despite his impeccable credentials, the wide respect he commands in his field, his long service as an appeals court judge and the unanimous voice vote he received the last time the Senate considered him for the Federal bench is, at the very least, premature.''

Our friends on the other side of the aisle would do well to take note of the Washington Post's observation. So I would like to make this point. If the process we have witnessed for the President's Cabinet nominees is any guide, I am quite confident that we will hear all manner of reasons and arguments about why we should delay a hearing on Judge Gorsuch.

But as my friend and former chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Leahy, often noted, Supreme Court nominees don't have the opportunity to respond to personal attacks outside of their confirmation hearing. So I am going to consult with the ranking member on timing for the hearing. But I can tell you what we are not going to do. We are not going to delay this hearing, especially in the face of all of these attacks on his record and character, which, both for the record and for his character, are unjustified.

So I will conclude with this. I had the good fortune of meeting one- on-one with Judge Gorsuch yesterday. He is as impressive a person in person as he is on paper. I expect that as my friends on the other side of the aisle meet Judge Gorsuch and actually review his record, they will find him to be an imminently qualified and universally respected judge, whose decisions faithfully applying the text of the law place him well within the judicial mainstream.

Now, maybe people that say they want a mainstream judge wanted an activist judge who will read the text the way the judge wants it read for their own personal views, as opposed to the intent by Congress. But Judge Gorsuch is doing what any judge should do reading the law. He said: If any judge likes every decision he makes, then he is not a very good judge.

Now, this is what we are going to do. We are going to do our due diligence, and we are going to send a questionnaire to Judge Gorsuch in the next day or so. I will expect he will answer that questionnaire promptly, and then we will do what I said before the election, before we knew who was going to be the next President.

In fact, we thought it was going to be Secretary Clinton. When I say we, the country as a whole had that in their mind. There was no doubt about it. So I said before the election, as the one responsible for not having a hearing on the previous nominee, that, whoever was elected President, this process was going to move forward.

So we will have that hearing where Members can ask this nominee any questions they deem appropriate. We will vote on him in committee, and the full Senate will vote on his nomination. But given his exemplary record and the facts as we know them, I expect this nominee to be confirmed.

I yield the floor.