Floor Statements

Mr. President, in 2006, I was successful in enacting much needed updates to the IRS whistleblower program. Up until that time, the program was entirely a voluntary award program. There was also no central office within the IRS for handling whistleblower claims. Given this, there was little incentive for whistleblowers to step forward potentially risking their careers.

My 2006 amendments sought to bolster the IRS whistleblower program by making a special program targeted at going after high-dollar tax cheats, such as corporations. It did this by making awards mandatory in cases where a whistleblower discloses tax fraud totaling $2 million or more. Moreover, the 2006 amendments established the Whistleblower Office within the IRS to formalize and manage the program.

The IRS whistleblower program has turned into one of the most effective programs in addressing tax evasion--leading to the recovery of more than $3 billion in taxes that otherwise would have been lost to fraud. I firmly believe the program has the potential to collect even greater sums going forward. However, for this to occur, the IRS is going to have to completely embrace the program and start to view whistleblowers as their allies.

The Government Accountability Office, GAO, issued a report on the program in 2015 that expressed concerns that long timelines and poor communication may be discouraging whistleblowers. This is exactly what I have been hearing from whistleblowers for years. Too often whistleblowers are waiting in the dark for years with no communication on where their claim is in the system.

While the IRS has made improvements in this area, I fear that without further improvements some whistleblowers may start to question whether stepping forward is worth their time and effort. My concern is exacerbated by the fact that under current law, IRS whistleblowers have no protections against employer retaliation for good-faith disclosures.

That is why I am pleased to be joined by Senator Wyden today in introducing legislation that seeks to address these issues. The IRS Whistleblower Improvements Act would increase communication between the IRS and whistleblowers, while protecting taxpayer privacy, and provide legal protections to whistleblowers from employers retaliating against them for disclosing tax abuses.

To increase communication, our bill would specifically allow the IRS to exchange information with whistleblowers where doing so would be helpful to an investigation. It would further require the IRS to provide status updates to whistleblowers at significant points in the review process and allows for further updates at the discretion of the IRS. It does this while ensuring the confidentiality of this information is maintained.

Moreover, to protect whistleblowers from employer retaliation, our bill extends antiretaliation provisions to IRS whistleblowers that are presently afforded to whistleblowers under other whistleblower laws, such as the False Claims Act and Sarbanes-Oxley.

Too often, whistleblowers are treated like skunks at a picnic. This is unfortunate, as often the only way to discover fraud and abuse is for a whistleblower to step forward. It is time we roll out the welcome mat for IRS whistleblowers. Our bill takes a good step in that direction.

I urge my colleagues to join Senator Wyden and me in supporting this commonsense legislation.

Mr. President, this week is Sunshine Week, an annual nationwide celebration of the good that comes from peeling back the curtains on government. Sunshine Week coincides with the National Freedom of Information Day and President James Madison's birthday, both of which occur on March 16.

James Madison understood the value of an informed citizenry as a necessary check against those in power. We shouldn't forget his call for the people to ``arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives.''

More recently in our Nation's history, Justice Brandeis declared, ``sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants.''

These sentiments hold true to this day. A government that operates in darkness--and a public that's kept in the dark--sows the seeds of waste, fraud, and abuse.

In the face of secrecy and obstruction, the public has a vital weapon: the Freedom of Information Act, FOIA.

Over 50 years ago, President Lyndon Johnson signed FOIA into law, establishing the public's judicially enforceable right to government information.

Before FOIA, the people had to justify their need for information to the government, but after FOIA, the government has to justify its refusal to release information to the public. FOIA's enactment marked a crucial step toward a government more accountable to the people.

No doubt, FOIA manifests Congress's recognition of the need to carefully balance the public's right to know and the government's interest in protecting certain information from disclosure, but practice and history demonstrates this balance has all too often been tilted away from transparency.

Many in government have continued to find ways to undermine citizens' right to know under FOIA. Transparency should be the norm, not the exception; yet, when it comes to FOIA requests, we have continued to see a government culture of delay, deny, and defend. When this happens, FOIA's effectiveness is undermined and the public becomes even more skeptical of its government.

We have seen this in one way or another under every administration, both Republican and Democratic, since FOIA's enactment, but the trend toward secrecy and obstruction in recent years should alarm all of us.

According to a March 14 Associated Press report, ``The Obama administration in its final year in office spent a record $36.2 million on legal costs defending its refusal to turn over federal records under [FOIA.]''

In 2016, the Obama administration set records for ``outright denial of access to files, refusing to quickly consider requests described as especially newsworthy, and forcing people to pay for records who had asked the government to waive search and copy fees.''

To top it off, ``The government acknowledged when challenged that it had been wrong to initially refuse to turn over all or parts of records in more than one-third of such cases, the highest rate in at least six years.''

We simply cannot continue down this path.

Fortunately, a truly bipartisan and bicameral effort last year resulted in the enactment of the FOIA Improvement Act of 2016. I was proud to be a cosponsor of this important piece of legislation and to have worked closely with my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee, as well as the open government community, in ensuring its passage. It achieves some of the most meaningful and necessary reforms to FOIA in history.

We are already witnessing some of the positive impacts of these reforms.

For example, the National Security Archive, a nonprofit open government advocate, fought for years to achieve the public release of certain historical documents about the Bay of Pigs invasion. But time and again, they were met with legal hurdles put up by the Central Intelligence Agency, CIA.

This past October, however, the CIA released these historically significant documents. In doing so, the CIA's Chief Historian stated that the Agency is ``releasing this draft volume today because recent 2016 changes in the [FOIA] requires us to release some drafts that are responsive to FOIA requests if they are more than 25 years old.''

This is excellent news. It is just one example of the good that can result from bipartisan work toward a common goal for the American people. I look forward to hearing many other such stories of important information finally being made publicly available under FOIA, thanks to these recent reforms.

But we can't just rest on our laurels. No matter which party is in control of Congress or the White House, continuing oversight of FOIA-- and the faithful implementation of its amendments--is essential to ensure the law's effectiveness as a tool for the public good.

As chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I am proud during this Sunshine Week to join Senators Feinstein, Cornyn, and Leahy in sending letters to the Trump administration to learn more about specific steps taken to carry out the FOIA Improvement Act of 2016 and efforts underway to improve the proactive disclosure of information.

Compliance with both the letter and spirit of FOIA should always be a top priority of any administration, so I look forward to hearing back about progress made.

Before President Trump took office, I stood on this floor and urged him to reverse the secrecy and obstruction that defined the Obama administration's FOIA track record. Today I reiterate that call.

A new administration provides a new opportunity to get it right.

This Sunshine Week, let's recommit to working together toward improving open government, fulfilling FOIA's promise, and ensuring a more informed citizenry.

Mr. President, affirming the public's right to know how their government is run, Sunshine Week is an annual reminder of the importance of transparency and accountability in a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. In the spirit of government transparency, I am pleased to join a bipartisan group of colleagues to introduce the Sunshine in the Courtroom Act of 2017. This important piece of legislation furthers the public's access to court proceedings by permitting Federal judges at all Federal court levels to open their courtrooms to television cameras and radio broadcasts.

For decades, and with great results, States such as my home State of Iowa have allowed cameras in their courtrooms. In fact, all 50 States and the District of Columbia now allow some news coverage of proceedings, and it is time we join them. This openness in our courts improves the public's understanding of the legal system and what happens inside our courts.

However, our Federal judicial system unnecessarily remains a mystery to many across the country. The bill I am introducing today, along with Senator Klobuchar and a number of cosponsors from both sides of the aisle, will greatly improve public access to Federal courts by letting Federal judges open their courtrooms to television cameras and other forms of electronic media. Letting the Sun shine in on our Federal courtrooms will allow Americans to better understand the judicial process.

The Sunshine in the Courtroom Act will ensure that the introduction of cameras and other broadcasting devices into courtrooms goes as smoothly as it has at the State level. This legislation leaves the presence of the cameras in Federal trial and appellate courts to the sole discretion of the judges--it is not mandatory. The bill also provides a mechanism for Congress to study the effects of this legislation on our judiciary before making this change permanent through a 3-year sunset provision. The bill protects the privacy and safety of nonparty witnesses by giving them the right to have their faces and voices obscured. Additionally, the bill prohibits the televising of jurors and includes a provision to protect the due process rights of each party.

It is time to open the courthouse doors and let the light shine in on the Federal judiciary. Granting the public greater access to an already public proceeding will inspire greater faith in and appreciation for our judges who pledge equal and impartial justice for all.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, affirming the public's right to know how their government is run, Sunshine Week is an annual reminder of the importance of transparency and accountability in a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. In the spirit of government transparency, I am pleased to join a bipartisan group of colleagues to introduce the Sunshine in the Courtroom Act of 2017. This important piece of legislation furthers the public's access to court proceedings by permitting Federal judges at all Federal court levels to open their courtrooms to television cameras and radio broadcasts.

For decades, and with great results, States such as my home State of Iowa have allowed cameras in their courtrooms. In fact, all 50 States and the District of Columbia now allow some news coverage of proceedings, and it is time we join them. This openness in our courts improves the public's understanding of the legal system and what happens inside our courts.

However, our Federal judicial system unnecessarily remains a mystery to many across the country. The bill I am introducing today, along with Senator Klobuchar and a number of cosponsors from both sides of the aisle, will greatly improve public access to Federal courts by letting Federal judges open their courtrooms to television cameras and other forms of electronic media. Letting the Sun shine in on our Federal courtrooms will allow Americans to better understand the judicial process.

The Sunshine in the Courtroom Act will ensure that the introduction of cameras and other broadcasting devices into courtrooms goes as smoothly as it has at the State level. This legislation leaves the presence of the cameras in Federal trial and appellate courts to the sole discretion of the judges--it is not mandatory. The bill also provides a mechanism for Congress to study the effects of this legislation on our judiciary before making this change permanent through a 3-year sunset provision. The bill protects the privacy and safety of nonparty witnesses by giving them the right to have their faces and voices obscured. Additionally, the bill prohibits the televising of jurors and includes a provision to protect the due process rights of each party.

It is time to open the courthouse doors and let the light shine in on the Federal judiciary. Granting the public greater access to an already public proceeding will inspire greater faith in and appreciation for our judges who pledge equal and impartial justice for all.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to enter into a colloquy with the junior Senator from Utah and the junior Senator from Nebraska.

Mr. President, I have come to the floor several times over the past 8 years to discuss the constitutional principle of separation of powers between the legislative, executive, and the judicial branches. President Obama promised that he would act independently of Congress where he had to; his quote: ``Where they won't act, I will.'' I have come to the floor to discuss the many examples of Executive overreach that we have witnessed, from unilateral pursuit of climate change regulations to unconstitutional recess appointments.

As I have said before, the structure of our Constitution is a critical safeguard of our liberty. As Justice Scalia famously said:

Every banana republic in the world has a bill of rights.

Every President for life has a bill of rights. The real key

to the distinctiveness of America is the structure of our

government.

Now, I have served in the Senate for 36 years, so I have a deep appreciation of the different roles of the coordinate branches and for the fact that the people govern themselves through their

elected representatives, and my accountability to them is the defining characteristic of my role as one of their representatives in the U.S. Senate.

That is not true of judges in our Federal system who are not elected, and it is certainly not true of the executive agencies that administer the laws we write here in the Congress.

Judge Gorsuch is the President's nominee to serve as the next Justice of the Supreme Court. It seems to me that he really understands the important differences in these roles. Reflecting on the legacy of Justice Scalia, he remarked that ``the great project of Justice Scalia's career was to remind us of the differences between judges and legislators.''

So I am now going to turn to Senator Lee. I would like to have him discuss a question I put before him: How do you understand Judge Gorsuch to view differences between judges, legislators, and the executive under our Constitution?

Mr. President, I thank the Senator for his very thoughtful explanation. I know both as a Senator and as a lawyer, he takes the study of constitutional law very seriously. His point of view ought to be seen as an authority on the separation of powers, particularly. I think the way Senator Lee sees Judge Gorsuch is similar to how I do, but he knows the law a lot better than I.

It is clear that the questions about separation of power can arise in very complex and legally technical cases in the courts. But I think the principle is also a fundamental one. Judge Gorsuch has made this point himself, and I would like to quote a little of what he has said.

Recent Supreme Court cases ``permit executive bureaucracies to swallow huge amounts of core judicial and legislative power and concentrate federal power in a way that seems more than a little difficult to square with the Constitution of the framers' design.''

To quote again, on the role of the prosecutor and the role of Congress, he said: ``If the separation of powers means anything, it must mean that the prosecutor isn't allowed to define the crimes that he gets to enforce.''

So I want to ask my other colleague here for this colloquy, the Senator from Nebraska, a question that I am sure he can answer and has thought about a lot. These are not just legal technicalities that we are talking about, but the very fabric of our Constitution. I hope the Senator would agree.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator for his very thoughtful explanation. Senator Sasse and Senator Lee have laid out very clearly the Constitution's separation of powers, the proper role for judges, the proper role for Members of Congress, and when one can't interfere with the other. I think the Senator has laid out very clearly, and I agree, that Judge Gorsuch fits in very well with what judges are supposed to do, what the Supreme Court is supposed to do-- obviously not legislate. Members of the judiciary have a lifetime appointment. They can't be voted out of office. That is why, when people don't like what the Congress does, every 2 or 6 years as far as the House and the Senate are concerned, they get a chance to express that opposition and send somebody else to do the job, and they can't do that with whoever is on the Supreme Court.

I thank my colleagues for participating with me in this conversation we have had about the separation of powers and about their thoughts on Judge Gorsuch on the issue of judges judging and not legislating. His record demonstrates a firm grasp on the separation of powers that animates our Constitution. He is an independent judge who properly understands the judicial role. At a time when we hear renewed calls for an independent judiciary, I don't think we could have a better nominee to fit the bill.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be printed in the Record the concerns of the Summit Agricultural Group regarding three mergers in the agriculture industry. Specifically, this group is concerned with the mergers between Bayer AG and Monsanto, DuPont and Dow Chemical, and China National Chemical Corporation--ChemChina--and Syngenta AG. The paper states that ``the mergers of these international agrochemical and seed giants will significantly reduce competition and innovation in the agricultural sector, and will cause irreparable harm to the American farmer via increased input costs.''

As my colleagues are aware, I have long been concerned about concentration and competition in the agriculture sector. Increased concentration in the industry could significantly reduce choice and raise the price of chemicals and seed for farmers, which ultimately can affect choice and costs for consumers. Moreover, further consolidation could diminish crucial research

and development initiatives which drive have innovation and technological advances for the agricultural sector. I have also raised concerns about the competitive advantages that are likely to result from the ChemChina-Syngenta transaction.

I have written several letters to both the Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commission expressing my concerns and asking that they carefully review these mergers and collaborate, as appropriate, on their analysis of the impact on the agricultural industry. These regulators need to take a hard look at both the efficiencies and the benefits that the merging companies believe will result from these transactions, as well as the concerns raised by independent and small players in the market, farmers, and consumers.

Mr. President, the other body spent yesterday and well into the night to vote out bills that would repeal and reform ObamaCare. I do not know exactly what is going to

happen in the other body on that issue, but I would like to add some thoughts on the issue of repeal and replace.

ObamaCare has been a case of overpromise and underdelivery. People were told that their premiums would go down by $2,500. They have actually gone up by an average of $3,500. They were also promised that if they liked their doctors, they would be able to keep their doctors. Millions of people have had to change doctors. Then they were told that they could keep their healthcare plans, and millions of people have had to change their healthcare plans. In fact, ObamaCare has been a case of overpromise and underdelivery. The reality is much different.

ObamaCare is hurting more people than it is helping. I have heard from many Iowans about the tremendous premium increases and, most importantly, all about high deductibles and high copays that make ObamaCare not worth its consideration.

One farmer said his health insurance premium went from $20,000 to $30,000 in one year. Another family said their ObamaCare premium increased 144 percent over 3 years. The 2017 premium for three people was over $24,000, and families who did manage to purchase ObamaCare insurance found that they could no longer afford to use it because of sky-high deductibles and copays. Another Iowan said that his policy for his family of three increased from $15,000 a year to $23,000 in 1 year, with, more importantly, the policy's value being less because the deductible for that plan is nearly $6,000.

It is quite obvious, as you think of these situations, that very few people can afford some of the prices or afford the deductibles that we hear about. So I think it is a very clear summation to say that ObamaCare is not working.

According to Avalere, one-third of the country will have only one insurance carrier that offers ObamaCare plans next year. Since that analysis by Avalere, another insurance company has pulled out of ObamaCare and has left some parts of the country without any insurance companies whatsoever for the folks to choose from. So many insurance companies have dropped out of ObamaCare that there are places in the country where people have a subsidy, but no insurance plans to buy. That is like having a bus ticket and there is no bus to take you anywhere.

Even those who were strong supporters of the healthcare law, like, as an example, the Democratic Governor of Minnesota, have said--or he said--the ACA ``is no longer affordable to many Americans.''

The problem with ObamaCare is it did nothing to address the underlying causes of the high cost of healthcare; that is, what it costs for a hospital or doctor to purchase and maintain medical equipment, to purchase medicines, to carry malpractice insurance, and things like that. Rather than address the actual cost of care, President Obama chose to bypass real healthcare reform for an unsustainable entitlement and, of course, bureaucratic mandates, which have priced people out of the healthcare insurance market, rather than provide them with affordable and quality coverage.

It is time, then, as the House was working throughout the night, to deliver more accessible, more affordable healthcare to even more Americans. ObamaCare has failed on both of these points, with, I believe, 29 million people still not having health insurance.

It is time to reduce the role of the Federal Government in the healthcare system because I think that expanded role is one of the very basic problems we have with ObamaCare. It is time to spend less and get better quality care.

I urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to work across the aisle in a bipartisan way. They know the Affordable Care Act is not serving the purposes that it was intended to serve and is falling apart and, in a short period of time, it may collapse. I think the other side is trying to distract attention from the Affordable Care Act collapse, and they are doing it by using the usual scare tactics. It used to be those scare tactics were applied just to Medicare improvements, but now they are applied across the board of healthcare delivery in America.

It is time for the other party to step up instead of doubling down because it was their plan passed in March of 2010 that put us in this spiral we are in. It is time for statesmanship, not gamesmanship. It is time for the people who are responsible for ObamaCare to stop defending the un-Affordable Care Act and deliver Americans what was promised.

I look forward to working with all of my colleagues and, of course, our new President to deliver affordable healthcare to more Americans.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Alexander control 10 minutes of the remaining debate time on H.J. Res. 57.

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

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, the Committee on the Judiciary has adopted rules governing its procedures for the 115th Congress. Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 2, of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the Committee rules be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, before we vote on the resolution of disapproval, I want to reiterate several very important facts.

This resolution of disapproval is bipartisan. The resolution is also supported by 23 groups, mostly disability rights groups.

The disability groups believe that this agency--the Social Security Administration--and its regulation will unfairly stigmatize those with disabilities. Of course, they are right.

The American Civil Liberties Union has said this:

We oppose this rule because it advances and reinforces the

harmful stereotype that people with mental disabilities, a

vast and diverse group of citizens, are violent and should

not own a gun. There is no data to support a connection

between the need for a representative payee to manage one's

Social Security disability benefits and a propensity toward

gun violence.

The ACLU goes on to say:

Here, the rule automatically conflates one's disability-

related characteristic, that is, difficulty managing money,

with the inability to safely possess a firearm.

The agency regulation is defective in many ways. Namely, the regulation does not require the agency to prove a person is dangerous or mentally ill. The regulation also provides no formal hearing or due process before a person is reported to the gun ban list.

Supporters of the gun ban have said that repeal of this regulation will interfere with the enforcement of the gun prohibition laws. I want to say plainly and simply: This is hogwash. We should not let baseless scare tactics confuse this important issue.

Important Federal gun laws are still on the books, even if the agency rule is repealed. We aren't repealing any laws.

The new regulation is inconsistent with these existing Federal gun laws.

The agency still has a duty to report anyone who has actually been adjudicated as dangerously mentally ill to the gun ban list. That is also true of anyone convicted of a felony or a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence or involuntarily committed to a mental institution.

The Federal law requires this:

If a Federal department or agency . . . has any record of

any person demonstrating that the person falls within one of

the categories . . . shall . . . provide the pertinent

information contained in such record to the Attorney General.

This law remains in effect.

Repealing this regulation will merely ensure that disabled citizens' Second Amendment rights are, in fact, protected.

Those rights will no longer be able to be revoked without a hearing and without due process. It will take more than a personal opinion-- just a personal opinion of a bureaucrat--to abridge one's Second Amendment rights.

An existing statute requires agencies to report the individuals to the gun ban list who are ineligible to possess firearms. That requirement remains intact even if this regulation is repealed.

So it is plainly wrong to claim, as has been said, that if the regulation is disapproved, agencies will no longer have to report prohibited persons.

If the supporters of this regulation want to take away people's gun rights, then they need to acknowledge the government must carry the burden to actually prove a person--prove a person--is dangerously mentally ill. And the government must provide due process in that process.

They need to go back to the drawing board, in other words, because this rule is inconsistent with the very important Second Amendment rights to bear arms, own, and possess guns--buy and possess guns. Therefore, it must be repealed, and this resolution must be approved.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, on this side I yield back our unused time.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, today I come to the floor to address my colleagues about the bipartisan resolution of disapproval that I introduced on January 30, along with Senator Crapo and 24 other cosponsors. This resolution now has 32 cosponsors, and of course this resolution of disapproval is absolutely necessary.

The resolution of disapproval is a procedure, as we know, under the Congressional Review Act for repealing executive branch regulations. The regulation at issue here in this disapproval resolution was issued by the Social Security Administration under President Obama. This regulation unfairly stigmatizes people with disabilities. If the regulation is not repealed, it will allow the agency to very unfairly deprive Social Security recipients of their Second Amendment rights. The regulation would result in disability recipients being reported to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System as ineligible to own a firearm and, thus, have their Second Amendment rights violated.

This is essentially a national gun ban list. The agency accomplishes this by doing two things: determining if a person has a disorder on a vague ``mental disorders'' list, and, two, appointing a representative payee to manage benefit payments.

This process has been in place for years to merely assign a representative payee. That is merely someone who is authorized to deal with the bureaucracy on behalf of that Social Security recipient to help a recipient with their finances. Now it is being used to report beneficiaries to a list so that they cannot buy or own a gun. Of course, once on that list, individuals are prohibited, as I have already inferred, from purchasing, owning, and possessing firearms, thus violating Second Amendment rights.

The regulation is flawed beyond any kind of repair. It results in reporting

people to the gun ban list that should not be on that list at all. It deprives those people of their constitutional rights and, in a very important way, violates their constitutional rights without even due process.

Under current Federal law, one must first be deemed ``mentally defective'' before being reported to the gun ban list. However, the mental disorder list in this regulation is filled with vague characteristics that do not fit into the Federal ``mentally defective'' standard.

The disorder list is inconsistent with the Federal mentally defective standard. More importantly, the list was never designed to regulate firearms. As such, it is improper to use it for that purpose.

Many of the disorders on the list are unrelated to gun safety. For example, the disorders list includes eating disorders, disorders that merely impact sleep or cause restlessness, and even disorders that could cause ``feelings of inadequacy.''

Because the Second Amendment is a fundamental right, the government must have a very compelling reason to regulate, and the regulation must be very narrowly tailored. It unfairly stigmatizes people with disabilities. The government is essentially saying that a person with a disability, such as an eating disorder, is more likely to be violent and should no longer be allowed to own a gun.

There is no evidence to support that general idea and, consequently, people being denied constitutional rights without due process. And if a specific individual is likely to be violent due to the nature of their mental illness, then the government should have to prove it. It is pretty basic constitutional law: The government should have to carry the burden before denying a constitutional right.

The National Council on Disability--and that happens to be a nonpartisan and independent Federal agency--has said this:

The rule stigmatizes a group of people who are not likely

to perpetuate the kind of violence the rule hopes to address.

Furthermore, it deprives a much broader class of individuals

of a constitutional right than was intended by Federal law.

In addition, the American Civil Liberties Union has said:

We oppose this rule because it advances and reinforces the

harmful stereotype that people with mental disabilities, a

vast and diverse group of citizens, are violent. There is no

data to support a connection between the need for a

representative payee . . . and a propensity toward gun

violence.

That was a quote from the American Civil Liberties Union.

The Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities--and that is a coalition of 100 national disability groups--shares the same concerns about regulations, and I will quote from them:

The current public dialogue is replete with inaccurate

stereotyping of people with mental disabilities as violent

and dangerous, and there is a real concern that the kind of

policy change encompassed by this rule will reinforce those

unfounded assumptions.

In other words, those unfounded assumptions are about who might be disabled or not.

I ask unanimous consent to have these letters printed in the Record.

Mr. President, some of the supporters of the new gun ban have brought forth arguments to try to discredit the other side. They have said that repealing the agency rule will allow the mentally ill to acquire firearms.

Let me tell you why that is not true. Under this regulation, the Social Security Administration never, ever determines a person to be mentally ill before reporting them to this gun ban list. It does not provide due process before reporting them to the list. Once the agency places a person on this disorders list, it then moves to assign a representative payee. But that is a very flawed process as well.

The former Social Security Administration inspector general said the following last year in testimony before a committee about assigning a representative payee. This will be a very short quote from the inspector general: ``It's not a scientific decision; it's more of a personal opinion.''

It is quite obvious under our Constitution's due process clause that the personal opinion of a bureaucrat cannot be the basis for taking away a person's Second Amendment rights.

Further, a June 2015 internal Social Security report found significant shortcomings in the representative payee process, namely that--and I will quote from the Social Security report--``the Social Security Administration's capability determinations were undeveloped, undocumented, or insufficiently documented.''

A very legitimate question can be raised: How can any of us be comfortable allowing our fellow citizens to be subjected to such a process, a process that leads to the violation of constitutional rights? The regulation does not then require a formal hearing at any point.

Federal law and other regulations require that a formal hearing take place.

Mr. President, 18 U.S.C. 922(d)(4) requires adjudication before depriving someone of the right to own a firearm due to mental illness. There can be no adjudication if there is no hearing.

A 1996 ATF Federal Register Notice says ``the legislative history of the Gun Control Act makes it clear that a formal adjudication is necessary before firearms disabilities are incurred.''

The Obama administration knew that fundamental rights required constitutional due process. At the bare minimum, that requires a hearing. Yet, in this rule, no hearing is being afforded to that individual that will eventually have their constitutional rights abrogated. Of course, that ought to be considered not only a travesty but a travesty on the Constitution as

well. The constitutional due process is entirely nonexistent because there is absolutely no opportunity for an individual to challenge the proceedings against them.

The American Civil Liberties Union has echoed the same concerns, stating that ``the rule includes no meaningful due process protections prior to the Social Security Administration's transmittal of the names to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System database.''

The Second Amendment is very much being tossed aside without a formal dispute process to challenge the action before the constitutional right is abridged. On these facts alone, the regulation should be repealed. Yet there is more.

The regulation fails to establish that a person is a danger to themselves or a danger to others before taking away the constitutional rights the Second Amendment allows. If a rule premised on safety is to have any credibility, one would obviously think that the government needs to prove a person is dangerous, but this rule fails in that regard because it does not require the agency to find a person is, in fact, dangerous. The Second Amendment is a fundamental right requiring the government to carry the burden showing a person has a dangerous mental illness. This regulation obviously and simply does not achieve that requirement.

To be clear, however, if this regulation is repealed, Federal gun prohibitions will still exist. Individuals who have been determined to be a danger to themselves or others will still be prohibited from purchasing firearms. Also, individuals who are found to have a dangerous mental illness will be prohibited from purchasing a firearm. A person convicted of a felony or a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence will still be prohibited from purchasing, owning, and possessing a firearm. The same is true for those involuntarily committed to a mental institution.

As government expands, liberty contracts. It follows that with the expansion of government, power is centralized here, in this island surrounded by reality that we call Washington, DC, rather than with the American people. Often with that centralization of power, fairness does not necessarily follow, as demonstrated by this regulation. This Obama- era regulation is a perfect example of government wielding too much power--the power to deny people due process, the power to deny people their constitutional rights under the Second Amendment.

The process described herein is extremely problematic and necessitates being done away with by the passing of this resolution of disapproval. It is not clear that any of these disorders a person is labeled with has anything whatsoever to do with a person's ability to responsibly own a firearm, and there is insufficient due process to ensure that a person actually has a given disorder that would interfere with their safe use of a firearm. Notably, even if a representative payee has been assigned, the individual still maintains the capacity to contract.

Thus, the government is subject to a very low threshold to report names to the gun list and no burden of proof is required. By contrast, under this regulation, those who are reported to the list must prove the negative. They have to prove that the government is wrong. They must prove they are not a danger in order to get their name off that gun ban list. For the government to shift the burden to the citizen whose rights are being deprived is clearly unfair and unconstitutional. The failure to determine if a person is mentally ill or a danger to self or others is a material defect to this regulation, as is the failure to afford constitutional due process. There is no reasonable basis under this regulation to justify abridging that very important, fundamental constitutional right, and that is why this regulation must be repealed through the passage of this resolution of disapproval.

I yield the floor.

Order for Recess

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate recess from 12:30 p.m. to 2:15 p.m. today.

Mr. President, we have a very bad regulation that has been put out by the Social Security Administration that needs to be obliterated, so we are using a process called the Congressional Review Act to show Congress's displeasure with the Social Security Administration and to get this regulation off the books.

Now, there has been a lot of talk about how the Congressional Review Act is the wrong vehicle to repeal the disastrous regulation. So I want to quote a contrary opinion from the National Coalition for Mental Health Recovery saying this:

The CRA--

Meaning the Congressional Review Act--

is a powerful mechanism for controlling regulatory overreach,

and NCMHR urges its use advisedly and cautiously. In this

particular case, the potential for real harm to the

constitutional rights of people with psychiatric and

intellectual disabilities is grave as is the potential to

undermine the essential mission of an agency that millions of

people with and without disabilities rely upon to meet their

basic needs. Therefore, in this instance, NCMHR feels that

utilizing the CRA to repeal the final rule is not only

warranted, but necessary.

I would add to it that it is obviously necessary.

I ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, there has also been talk about how supposedly dangerous it will be if this Social Security regulation is terminated. I don't see how that can possibly be realistic if the Social Security Administration doesn't even determine whether a person is dangerous in the first place--and ``dangerous'' meaning in regard to whether or not they ought to be able to make use of the constitutional right of the Second Amendment to own and possess firearms.

Others in this debate continue to mention that mentally ill people will be able to acquire firearms. Now this is very important. The Social Security Administration does not determine a person to be mentally ill prior to reporting their names to the gun ban list, and being on the list denies you your constitutional rights. The agency has confirmed this in writing to my office:

Yes, you are correct. The Social Security Administration

does not diagnose individuals as mentally ill.

Supporters of this gun ban failed to address why individuals are not provided formal due process before reporting their name to the list. Supporters have also failed to talk about how the regulation is inconsistent with the statutory standard of ``mental defective.''

An existing statute requires agencies to report individuals to the gun ban list who are ineligible under current law for possessing firearms. That requirement does not require the existence of any regulation to be effective. So it is plainly wrong to claim, as was said this very day by the people opposed to what we are doing, that if the regulation is disapproved, agencies will no longer have to report prohibited persons. The reverse, in fact, is true.

The regulation usurps unlawful authority to report people to the gun ban list who are not barred from owning guns under current law and that the agency is prohibited from reporting under current law, especially without the adjudication that is required under current law.

Opponents of the regulation base their opposition on the language of the regulation, existing law, and the Constitution, citing the Constitution to say that you don't have a constitutional right to own arms under the Second Amendment, which is contrary to two recent Supreme Court decisions that verify that that applies to an individual. That is why the regulation's supporters must resort to arguments that lack legal and factual foundation.

Supporters of this gun ban also fail to address how overly broad this regulation is, as written. It will capture innocent Americans, denying innocent Americans their constitutional rights. Sadly, then, we know how this will play out if this regulation were allowed to go forward because we have the example of the Department of Veterans Affairs reporting hundreds of thousands of veterans to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System without adequate due process. That is the same system that Social Security was going to report people to.

Veterans were reported just because some lonely bureaucrat wanted to report them, with no opportunity to first have a neutral authority hold a hearing, finding that that individual is dangerous or actually has a dangerous condition. These were veterans who needed financial help managing their benefit payments.

It is common sense that needing help with your finances should not mean that you have surrendered a fundamental constitutional right of self-defense that you have under the Second Amendment.

Just like the Social Security Administration, the VA does not determine whether a veteran is dangerous before reporting his name to the gun ban list and denying that veteran his Second Amendment constitutional rights to own and possess firearms. The VA regulation is eerily similar to what the Social Security Administration wants to do.

On May 17, 2016, Senator Durbin and I debated my amendment that would require the Department of Veterans Affairs to first find veterans to be a danger before reporting their names to the gun ban list. Now that is common sense; isn't it? You ought to find out if they are really dangerous before they are denied a constitutional right.

During the course of that debate, Senator Durbin admitted that the list was broader than it should have been. He said:

I do not dispute what the Senator from Iowa suggested, that

some of these veterans may be suffering from a mental illness

not serious enough to disqualify them from owning a firearm,

but certainly many of them do.

Senator Durbin also said:

Let me just concede at the outset, reporting 174,000 names

goes too far, but eliminating--

As my legislation proposed to do--

174,000 names goes too far.

For the record, though, it wasn't really 174,000 names going too far. It was actually 260,381 names that the VA sent to the gun ban list. Now that happens to be 98.8 percent of all names that are in the alleged ``mental defective'' category.

The Department of Veterans Affairs reported more names by far than any other agency without sufficient justification. Senator Durbin's staff and mine have met over these issues since that debate, and I appreciate and thank him for that outreach.

Now we have the Social Security Administration problem and, through the Congressional Review Act, we can do something about it. We don't have to pass a separate piece of legislation, like we are going to have to do to straighten out the VA. So the Social Security Administration is about to make the same mistake as the VA unless we stop it right here and right now.

If this regulation is not repealed, the agency has informed my staff that approximately 15,000 to 75,000 beneficiaries of Social Security may be reported annually, denying them their constitutional right to bear, possess, and own firearms. That figure of 15,000 or even more so--the higher figure of 75,000--will add up very quickly.

In my earlier speech today on this topic, I made clear that the agency regulation is defective in many ways; namely, the regulation does not require the agency to find a person dangerous or mentally ill. The regulation provides no formal hearing before a person is reported to the gun ban list.

Supporters have also said that repeal of this regulation will interfere with enforcement of gun prohibition laws. Such a position is without any merit--denying people constitutional due process.

As I made clear in my earlier speech, important Federal gun laws are still on the books, even if the agency rule is repealed. This is so because this new regulation is actually inconsistent with those existing Federal gun laws. For example, individuals who have been determined to be dangerous or mentally ill will be prohibited, as will those convicted of a felony or a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence, and the same for those involuntarily committed to mental institutions.

While discussing the faults and defects of the rule, I think it is important to highlight that the issues I have pointed out are also the solution to the problem. If the supporters of the agency rule want the Social Security Administration to report individuals to the gun ban list, changes need to be made. Individuals must first be determined by a neutral authority after a fair hearing meeting the requirements of the U.S. Constitution. If they are dangerous and have a dangerous mental illness, then they could constitutionally be denied that right. Constitutional due process is a very important part of that process.

If we do not act, the agency will erroneously report tens of thousands of people per year to the gun ban list, and not one of them will have been adjudicated to be dangerous after a hearing with due process, not one of them will have been adjudicated to be mentally ill after a hearing with due process, and all of them will have had the government's burden shifted to them to prove they are not dangerous in order to get their name off the gun ban list. It is common sense, isn't it? It ought to be that you are innocent until proven guilty. If you can't have a gun, common sense tells me you ought not have

to prove that you can have a gun to the government; the government has to prove that you should not have a gun.

Any way you look at it, the regulatory scheme is patently unfair. If the government wants to regulate firearms, it needs to produce a clearly defined regulation that is very narrowly tailored to identify individuals who are actually dangerous and who actually have a dangerous mental illness. The government must also afford constitutional due process.

What we are dealing with here is a fundamental constitutional right backed up by two Supreme Court decisions in the last 10 years. With that type of constitutional status, the Second Amendment requires greater effort and greater precision from the government in order to fairly regulate how the American people exercise that constitutional right. This regulation simply doesn't meet that standard.

I urge my colleagues to support the resolution of disapproval.

Mr. President, I don't know whether anybody else is coming to seek the floor. If I am infringing upon somebody else's time, I will yield the floor, but in the meantime, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss some criticism I have heard about the nominee to fill the seat on the Supreme Court. That nominee is Neil Gorsuch.

My colleague, the minority leader, met with the nominee last week. Afterward, he told reporters that he had ``serious, serious concerns'' about the judge. Well, I guess I shouldn't be surprised--after all, it seems the minority leader had concerns about the nominee even before the nominee was announced.

Before Judge Gorsuch was announced, the minority leader made clear that any nominee must be ``mainstream.'' But it became clear immediately that this nominee is widely regarded as a mainstream judge with impeccable credentials. Liberal law professor Laurence Tribe says that ``he's a brilliant, terrific guy who would do the Court's work with distinction.'' Alan Dershowitz, who certainly is no conservative, says that Judge Gorsuch will be ``hard to oppose on the merits.'' Even President Obama's Acting Solicitor General, Neal Katyal, said Judge Gorsuch ``would help to restore confidence in the rule of law.'' The chorus goes on.

Apparently, because the nominee is so obviously mainstream, the benchmark for my colleague's concerns keeps changing. The minority leader has conveniently developed a new test. Now he says the benchmark is independence: ``The bar for the Supreme Court nominee to prove that they can be independent, has never, never been higher.''

Well, fortunately for the minority leader, Judge Gorsuch passes that bar with flying colors, just like he passed the ``mainstream'' test with flying colors. The nominee's record makes clear that he is an independent and fairminded judge who is deeply committed to the separation of powers.

Here is just one example from his many opinions on this point. Just last year, Judge Gorsuch had to decide a case about the authority of the Board of Immigration Appeals, or the BIA, which answers to the Attorney General. The BIA wanted to change the Attorney General's power to waive immigration requirements for illegal immigrants, and it wanted the new rules to apply to undocumented immigrants whose waiver applications were already in the works. The nominee said no to this executive agency. To be clear, Judge Gorsuch was asked to decide whether an executive agency in charge of immigration laws could change the law on a whim in a way that many believed was unfair to immigrants who had already sought waivers. He said no.

With due respect to my friend the minority leader, there is no doubt that Judge Gorsuch would say no to this or any other part of the executive branch that oversteps its bounds.

Here is what the nominee wrote about the separation of powers and executive branch overreach. For him to defer to the executive agency in that case would be ``more than a little difficult to square with the Constitution of the framers' design.'' That is because doing so would allow agency bureaucracy to ``swallow huge amounts of core judicial and legislative power,'' which the Constitution assigns to separate branches of government. So the nominee was concerned about the separation of powers. He was concerned about people whose liberties might be impaired, and because of those concerns, he said no to the immigration agency's policy whim of the day.

Judge Michael McConnell, a former colleague of Judge Gorsuch on the Tenth Circuit, makes the same observation about this case. He says the scope of executive power arguably ``will be the most common Supreme Court issue of the coming decade.'' He says the nominee analyzes that issue in a way that is faithful to the Constitution and to the independence of the judiciary, and he points to the nominee's thinking on this question. Judge Gorsuch wrote:

What would happen . . . if the political majorities who run

the legislative and executive branches could decide cases and

controversies over past facts? They might be tempted to bend

existing laws, to reinterpret them . . . [this would] risk

the possibility that unpopular groups might be singled out

for this sort of mistreatment--and [would] rais[e] along the

way, too, grave due process, fair notice, and equal

protection problems. . . . It was to avoid dangers like

these, dangers the founders had studied and seen realized in

their own time, that they pursued the separation of powers.

That is the writing of an independent judge who believes in the separation of powers.

You know, there is a bit of irony to some of the criticism I have heard leveled against Judge Gorsuch. On the one hand, I have heard that he will have to be independent and that he won't rubberstamp the President's agenda. On the other hand, I have heard that he will be way too tough on the executive branch as it fulfills the President's agenda. It is quite obvious that, common sense tells us as we look at those two arguments that we can't have it both ways.

Judge Gorsuch has shown he is faithful to the separation of powers in the Constitution. That means he will be an independent judge who will say no when the other branches of government overreach.

You don't need to take my word for it. Listen to President Obama's Acting Solicitor General, Neal Katyal. He is no fan of the President's Executive order, but he says that Judge Gorsuch ``will not compromise principle to favor the President who appointed him.'' Instead, the Solicitor General said the nominee ``would help to restore confidence in the rule of law.''

Judge Gorsuch's record and reputation leave no room to doubt that he is a mainstream, independent judge. He will apply the law fairly, and he won't be afraid to say no when the Constitution requires it.

Every time my colleague the minority leader has set out a standard for filling this Supreme Court seat, this judge has met it. He is mainstream. He is independent. And when my colleague chooses a new standard, I bet the nominee will also meet that new standard.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that floor privileges be granted this Congress for Darren Dodd, a detailee from the U.S. Secret Service, and Saleela Salahuddin, a detailee from the Department of Justice.

Mr. President, there is a very good radio reporter in smalltown Iowa named Robert Leonard, or ``Dr. Bob,'' as he is known, who interviews me every month. I recently read an opinion piece he wrote in the New York Times where he gives his take on the perspective of rural America toward the role of government. This perspective is often lost in policy debates in our Nation's Capital. In this piece, Dr. Bob gives very thorough and intellectually honest commentary that more people should read.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the New York Times article entitled, ``Why Rural America Voted for Trump'' by Robert Leonard dated January 5, 2017.

Mr. President, first of all, I rise to speak in favor of the Senate confirming Senator Sessions to the position of Attorney General, chief law enforcement officer of our country, but I do want to say thank you to the Democratic minority of my committee because they did not boycott the meetings. They debated. They debated too long, from my point of view, but they debated, and we were able to do our work in a businesslike way. So I want to thank all of them for their participation.

Now I will take a few minutes to speak in strong support of my friend and our colleague Senator Jeff Sessions to serve as the 84th Attorney General.

Last week, the Judiciary Committee spent over 6 hours debating the nomination. Every single Democrat opposed the nomination, but this wasn't, of course, much of a surprise. During our committee debate, Senator Graham correctly pointed out that, based on the standard the Democrats established, it appears no Republican could ever earn their support.

It is no secret that our Democratic colleagues don't like the new President. They are doing what they can do to undermine the new administration.

With respect to Senator Sessions, my Democratic colleagues disagree with a number of policy positions he has taken over the years, but this year seems to be unlike previous administrations, where Senators supported Cabinet nominees even if they disagreed with the nominee on policy grounds. That is what happened in 2009, when Senator Sessions and I both supported Eric Holder for Attorney General, even though we disagreed with him on many policies.

So after listening to all the reasons they are opposing this nomination, I can boil their objections down to these points:

Even though many of my colleagues have known this good man for years, even though many of my colleagues have worked closely with him to pass important bipartisan legislation, even though many of them have praised him in the past for his integrity and for being a man of his word, even though Senator Sessions has pledged to support and defend all laws passed by Congress, even those he disagrees with, when it comes time to stand up in support of this good man, they are unwilling to take him at his word.

This is very troubling because all of us in the Senate know Jeff Sessions. Some of us have known him for decades. Regardless of what my colleagues are willing to admit publicly, we all know him to be a man of deep integrity, a man of his word, and a man committed to fairness, to justice, and, most importantly, to the rule of law.

We all know that when Senator Sessions served as an assistant U.S. attorney, as a U.S. attorney, and as attorney general for his home State of Alabama, he worked hard to promote the rule of law and to bring justice to both victims and perpetrators. We know he has a deep commitment to the rule of law, something an Attorney General must possess or he could not be the chief law enforcement officer of the United States. In other words, that law or that position is all about carrying out and having a commitment to the rule of law. As I said, much of Senator Sessions' hearing focused on his record as a legislator.

Now, it is true Senator Sessions has voted on legislation in ways that the left doesn't like, and of course I have even disagreed with him from time to time, but we all understand that every time we cast a vote, we are voting the way we see as the best for our country. I think we all also understand that very rarely is any bill a so-called perfect piece of legislation.

At one time or another, every single Member of this body has opposed legislation based upon a principle objection to a particular provision.

So, of course, Senator Sessions has voted differently than his Democratic colleagues. Now, that is common sense. That is to be expected. This is the Senate. We are all about debating policy and for long periods of time. That is how the Senate works.

We all know the role of an Senator and the role of Attorney General are very, very different. A legislator debates policy and votes on legislation. The Attorney General enforces the laws, as enacted. All of us in the Senate understand that difference. Senator Sessions understands the difference better than most.

In addition to serving as a Senator for 20 years, he served in the Department of Justice for 15 years, a Department dedicated to law enforcement and to the rule of law and following what Congress directs law to be.

I am disappointed in my colleagues who have suggested Senator Sessions will not be able to put aside his policy differences that he established here in the United States and enforce the law, even if he voted against that law.

This is especially troubling after he specifically committed to us during this confirmation hearing that if he is confirmed, he will follow the law, regardless of whether he supported that statute as a policy matter.

The criteria for this nomination is, will this man, whose integrity is beyond reproach, enforce the law as he said he will?

Senator Sessions answered that question directly during his hearing. He stated this:

The Justice Department must remain ever faithful to the

Constitution's promise that our government is one of laws and

not of men. It will be my unyielding commitment to you, if

confirmed, to see that the laws are enforced faithfully,

effectively, and impartially.

He goes on to say:

The Attorney General must hold everyone, no matter how

powerful, accountable. No one is above the law, and no

American will be beneath its protection.

Now, whether he said those things one time or dozens of times--and it is more apt to be dozens of times during the day and a half of hearings that we had on him, plus the speeches that were given--it can't be much clearer than what he just said.

But even after he made this promise, Members asked Senator Sessions if he would defend the laws that he had voted against, and he answered in the affirmative, stating:

I would defend the statute if it is reasonably defensible.

It is passed by Congress, it would be the duty of the

Attorney General, whether they voted for it or support it, to

defend it.

He was questioned about a host of hot-button policy issues. Time and again, his answer was the same. He will enforce the law. This will actually be quite different from the Obama administration, which refused to enforce laws it didn't like. They did this while the people who are now in the minority--the Democrats--turned a blind eye when they didn't enforce the law.

Senator Sessions also made clear that he possesses the independence necessary for the Attorney General. I have often heard Senator Sessions ask Executive nominees, including nominees for Attorney General, whether they will have the fortitude to stand up to the President who appointed them. So I asked him the same question during my time of questioning in the committee. I asked if he will be able to say no to President Trump, and he said:

I understand the importance of your question, I understand

the responsibility of the Attorney General, and I will do so.

You simply have to help the President do things that he might

desire in a lawful way and have to be able to say, ``No,''

both for the country, for the legal system, and for the

President to avoid situations that are not acceptable. I

understand that duty. I have observed it through my years

here, and I will fulfill that responsibility.

Senator Sessions' commitment to be independent from the President when it is necessary and his promise to enforce the law is exactly what this Nation needs right now. We haven't seen much of this over the past 8 years.

The Department has been politicized over the past 8 years, and that has caused great harm. The leadership of the Department of Justice has undermined our confidence in the rule of law by picking and choosing which laws it will enforce. I am looking forward to turning a new page at the Department under our friend's leadership as Attorney General. It is desperately needed, particularly at this time.

Last weekend, in particular, it showed us how critical it is to have someone leading the Department who is committed to following the law. Last week, then-Acting Attorney General Sally Yates announced that she wouldn't present arguments in defense of the President's recent Executive order, even though she admitted there was a defense to be made. As soon as she did this, Democrats ran to her defense and sang her praises, but after Senator Sessions' hearing, I would have expected Democrats to come to the opposite conclusion. During his hearing, they asked Senator Sessions whether he would enforce a law that he didn't like over and over and over. But last week, Ms. Yates refused to enforce a law--why?--because she didn't like it, and the Democrats lauded her ``bravery'' and ``courage.''

They lauded her ``courage.''

Now, let's be very clear. She didn't say that she can't constitutionally defend the President's order or offer good-faith defenses of its legality in the court. Instead, this is what--she explained her decision by saying her job is not the same as the job in the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel. She said, importantly, OLC, meaning Office of Legal Counsel, does not address whether any policy choice embodied in an Executive order is wise or just. That seems to suggest, of course, that the decision on whether to defend an Executive order or statute in court turns on whether the Attorney General believes the law or order is wise or just. But with all respect to Ms. Yates, that wasn't her job. The Department's job is to enforce the law, just like Senator Sessions, becoming Attorney General, said he would enforce the law. Ms. Yates' obligation was clear. If she couldn't defend the order in good conscience, the only proper course was to resign.

This unfortunate situation with Ms. Yates highlights why it is important to swiftly move to confirm an Attorney General who will be faithful to the Constitution and uphold the law regardless of policy preferences.

Ultimately, it comes down to this: There is no one more qualified than Jeff Sessions for this position. He served in the Department for 15 years. He served as attorney general for his home State of Alabama, and for 20 years he served on the Senate Judiciary Committee, which has oversight over the Department of Justice.

We all know Senator Sessions is a man of his word. We all know he will enforce all the laws on the books, regardless of whether he supported them. Both Republicans and Democrats know he will make an excellent Attorney General, and the Nation will be served well by his appointment. I urge all of my colleagues to vote in favor of the nomination.

I yield the floor.