Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, February 7, 2017, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, February 7, 2017, at 10 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, February 7, 2017, off the Senate floor immediately following the vote scheduled at 12 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the 115th Congress of the U.S. Senate on Tuesday, February 7, 2017, from 2:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m., in room SH-219 of the Senate Hart Office Building.

Mr. President, there has been a lot of discussion about Senator Sessions' nomination on this floor in the last 24 hours. Before we vote, I want to offer a couple of observations about the unfairness in some of the statements.

First, I was hoping to limit my remarks to all of the reasons why I believe Senator Sessions will make an outstanding Attorney General, but instead I feel very compelled to say a few words about some of the attacks that have been leveled against Senator Sessions here on the floor, where he has served the people of Alabama faithfully for 20 years.

A number of Senators have come to the floor to talk about Senator Sessions' hearing in 1986 when he was nominated to be a Federal judge. Now, it happens that I was in the Senate in 1986, at that time by 6 years. I was on the Judiciary Committee in 1986, by that time for 6 years, and I want you to know I saw what happened. I don't have time to go into all the details here, but I will tell you this: Jeff Sessions' hearing in 1986 was an absolute ambush. In fact, it was a planned ambush. He was unfairly attacked then and he is being unfairly attacked now. I will give just two examples.

First, in the last 24 hours, we have heard Senator Sessions attacked for a voting rights case that he pursued as U.S. attorney in Alabama. We have heard a lot about that case. Of course, those who have raised the Perry County trial don't tell you Senator Sessions was actually asked to pursue that case by two African-American candidates who believed that ballots cast by African-American voters had been altered. The bottom line is that he was vindicating the voting rights of African-American voters whose voting rights had been compromised.

Second, we have heard Senator Sessions criticized for testimony in his 1986 Judiciary Committee hearing about the Voting Rights Act. It has been said on this floor and it has been said repeatedly that Jeff Sessions called the Voting Rights Act ``intrusive,'' but those speaking in the last 24 hours don't know what he actually said. He did use the word ``intrusive,'' but then he said the Department of Justice had to do it ``because it would not have happened any other way.''

He said further: ``Federal intervention was essential in the South.'' He said it was an intrusive piece of legislation ``because it was a necessary piece of legislation, I support it.'' That is right. He said the Voting Rights Act ``was a necessary piece of legislation, I support it.'' That is what he said. But if you have been listening the last 24 hours--you wouldn't know any of that by listening to those who have come to the floor and talked all about that case in 1986.

Like I said, I was here way back then. I saw what happened to that man who is going to be our next Attorney General, who would go on to join the Senate for these 20-some years and become our colleague and our friend. So you can understand why it is very frustrating to me to listen to all of those attacks, and it is particularly frustrating to hear it from Members who were not even here in 1986.

With that, let me just say this in closing: Senator Sessions has served with us for 20 years. Every Member of this body knows him to be a man of integrity. Almost all of us have been on the other side of a policy debate with Senator Sessions at one time or another. I know I have. What we know from those debates is that whether Senator Sessions agrees with you or not on any policy question, he handles the debate fairly, he handles the debate respectfully, and he handles the debate honorably.

Senator Sessions answered our questions in the Judiciary Committee for 10 long hours. He gave us his word on the critical issues that should decide our vote on this nomination. Most of that was centered around the fact that he is a man devoted to the law, and he is devoted as the chief law enforcement officer of our country to enforce the law, even if he didn't vote for it and even if he disagreed with it.

We know from the questioning that Senator Sessions will be independent when he said when he has to say no to the President of the United States, he will say no to the President of the United States. We know Senator Sessions then, as I have said, will enforce the law faithfully, without regard to person, for all Americans.

Motivated by those principles, Senator Sessions will make a very fine Attorney General, and most people in this body know that--even those who are going to vote against him.

I am pleased to cast my vote in favor of his nomination, and of course I urge my colleagues to do the same thing.

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.

Madam President, last evening, I had the pleasure of being at the White House when President Trump introduced his nominee to be Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, Judge Neil Gorsuch, who happens to be serving on the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. It shouldn't surprise anybody that President Trump delivered on a promise made during the campaign, when he listed 21 people he would choose from. Everybody knew ahead of time what sort of a judge he would put on for this vacancy or any future vacancy.

Judge Gorsuch's decade of service on the Tenth Circuit has earned him a reputation as a brilliant, principled, and mainstream judge, just exactly the sort of mainstream that Senator Schumer must have been thinking about when he said he wants a mainstream judge.

It has already been widely reported that he was unanimously confirmed by a voice vote to the Tenth Circuit in 2006.

There are still 31 Senators in this body who voted for the judge at that particular time; 12 of them are Democrats, and one of them is Senator Schumer. Judge Gorsuch was supported, of course, by both of his home State Senators for the Tenth Circuit. One happened to be a Republican, and one a Democrat. He has been recognized as a great jurist by Members from both parties. For instance, when he was sworn into the Tenth Circuit, Senator Salazar, then a Democratic Senator from Colorado, remarked that the judge ``has a sense of fairness and impartiality that is a keystone of being a judge.''

The judge happens to be fourth generation Coloradan. He is eminently qualified to be the next Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. His decades of experience span many facets of our legal system. A graduate of Columbia University and Harvard Law School, the judge was also a prestigious Marshall scholar at Oxford. He served as Principal Deputy Attorney General at the Department of Justice.

Judge Gorsuch also knows the Supreme Court well, having clerked for Supreme Court Justices Byron White and also Anthony Kennedy, who is still on the Court.

He currently serves with distinction on the Tenth Circuit, where he has established himself as a mainstream judge with a reputation as a fair and brilliant jurist. As a mainstream jurist, Judge Gorsuch enjoys broad respect across the ideological spectrum. At the confirmation hearing for his current judgeship on the Tenth Circuit, he was introduced by Republican Senator Allard from Colorado and Democratic Senator Salazar from Colorado. Senator Salazar, of course, isn't exactly a conservative firebrand, having most recently served as head of the transition team of Secretary Clinton.

At his hearing in 2006, William Hughes, Jr., a Democratic candidate for the House of Representatives, authored a strong letter of recommendation for Judge Gorsuch stating:

I have never found, nor thought, Neil's views or opinions

to be tainted or swayed by any partisan leanings. Quite to

the contrary, his approach to all things professional and

personal has always been moderate and practical.

There are plenty of other examples of strong bipartisan support for Judge Gorsuch. Even observers in the press recognize his reputation for fairness. Just last week the Denver Post endorsed the judge, saying: He ``has applied the law fairly and consistently.''

Judge John Kane, a colleague on the District Court of Colorado, appointed by President Carter, says this about Judge Gorsuch:

[He] listens well and decides justly. His dissents are

instructive rather than vitriolic. In sum, I think he is an

excellent judicial craftsman.

After his nomination was announced last evening, the highest praise so far came from President Obama's former Solicitor General, Neal Katyal, who described the nominee this way:

Judge Gorsuch is one of the most thoughtful and brilliant

judges to have served our nation over the last century. As a

judge, he has always put aside his personal views to serve

the rule of law. To boot, as those of us who have worked with

him can attest, he is a wonderfully decent and humane person.

I strongly support his nomination to the Supreme Court.

To me, following the law wherever that law and case may lead is perhaps the most important attribute for a Supreme Court Justice to possess. That principle guided Justice Scalia's decisionmaking and it is also how Judge Gorsuch has said judges should approach the law.

The judge once wrote, quoting Justice Scalia:

If you are going to be a good and faithful judge, you have

to resign yourself to the fact that you are not always going

to like the conclusion you reach. If you like them all the

time, you are probably doing something wrong.

That gets back to something very basic. A judge is supposed to be dispassionate. A judge is supposed to leave their personal views out of it. A judge looks at the law on the one hand and the facts of the case on the other and makes the decision based on just those two things. So from what I have learned so far, the judge's judicial record reflects this philosophy of being dispassionate, following the Constitution and the laws passed by Congress. I think he said last night something like this: A judge is supposed to judge and a legislature is supposed to legislate, and a judge should not be legislating.

Judge Gorsuch doesn't legislate from the bench, nor does he impose his own beliefs on others. To quote from a speech at Case Western, he said that judges should strive ``to apply the law as it is, focusing backward, not forward, and looking to the text, structure, and history to decide what a reasonable reader at the time of the events in question would have understood the law to be--not to decide cases based on their own moral convictions or the policy consequences they believe might serve society best.''

I believe it is this fundamental sense of fairness and sense of duty in upholding the Constitution and the laws passed by Congress that has led Judge Gorsuch to be a highly regarded jurist.

After the tragic passing of Justice Scalia, we made it clear that the Senate would wait for the American people to have a say in the future of the Court. I said even before the election that no matter who won the Presidential election, we would move forward with the new President's nominee. I maintained this position even on the eve of the election, and I maintained that position even when everyone seemed to believe that our next President would be Secretary Clinton. I have been consistent.

Unfortunately, some of my Democratic colleagues--the very Senators who held all those rallies chanting ``we need nine''--have already said they intend to do everything they can to stop this eminently qualified judge. That is very, very unfortunate. I hope and trust that approach won't be uniform on their side.

So I look forward to moving forward with a hearing, when we will learn a great deal more about Judge Gorsuch, and I look forward to an up-or-down vote on his nomination.

I thank the Senate, and I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 15 minutes.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to honor an Iowa teacher who has clearly had a major impact on his students and his community because I was contacted by a number of Iowans regarding their desire to find some way to recognize him. The following is what they told me.

A teacher of 39 years at Columbus High School in Waterloo, IA, Gary Schneiders has been awarded the

McElroy Trust Gold Star Teacher of the Year in the Cedar Valley and Teacher of the Year at Columbus High School.

During his time at Columbus, Gary Schneiders has taught world history, applied economics, current world history and advanced placement European history. Through his world history and European history classes, Mr. Schneiders has taken it upon himself to educate his students about the many sacrifices our military men and women have endured throughout history.

This February, Gary Schneiders will be leading his 12th group of students to France and Belgium for a 12-day trip ``To Experience, To Learn, To Honor, To Remember.'' This is the theme each year for his AP Euro trip. Mr. Schneiders leads the students along World War I's Western Front starting in Verdun, France. His students experience the battlefields and trenches of the First World War. They visit some of the great museums and monuments honoring the soldiers who fought in the war. Most importantly, they go to many of the cemeteries and memorials to the many soldiers who fought for the various countries in that Great War. At the American memorials and cemeteries like Flanders Field and the Meuse Argonne, the largest American cemetery in Europe, the students lay flags and roses at each Iowa soldier's headstone. They also lay a wreath at the memorial itself, where Taps and the National Anthem are played. Because World War I is little remembered these days, the American cemeteries see very few visitors from the United States. The administrators of these memorials and cemeteries are excited to see Mr. Schneiders each year with his fresh class of students.

During the latter part of the AP Euro trip, Mr. Schneiders takes his students to the beaches of Normandy. He shows the students firsthand what difficulties our soldiers had in taking the beaches. On their last day in Europe, Mr. Schnieders takes his students to Omaha Beach and the Normandy American Cemetery. Mr. Schneiders takes his students down to Omaha Beach so they can see the distance our soldiers had to cover while carrying heavy packs and under constant fire. The students then go up to the top of the beach where the Normandy American Cemetery and Memorial is located. The students again put American flags and roses at each soldier from Iowa. They also take the sand they brought from Omaha Beach and wipe it over the name on each headstone so the name of the soldier and the State of Iowa becomes easily visible. The students again lay a wreath and Taps and National Anthem are played throughout the cemetery.

Two weeks after returning home, Gary Schneiders and his students put on a presentation for the local veterans and community. The students set up various multimedia exhibits to share the experiences from their trip. This has become a great event each year for local veterans and the community.

To conclude, I was told that Gary Schneiders' dedication to his school, veterans, and his students has been invaluable to his community. If Gary Schneiders has anything to do with it, his students will continue ``To Experience, To Learn, To Honor, To Remember'' our veterans. So I congratulate Gary Schneiders on his dedication to his school, students, veterans, and community.

Mr. President, the resolution of disapproval I am introducing today via the Congressional Review Act repeals a Social Security regulation that unfairly stigmatizes people with disabilities. It also violates the fundamental nature of the Second Amendment.

The Second Amendment recognizes the God-given right to self-defense. In order to take away that right, the government must have a compelling interest. Furthermore, the law of regulation to achieve that compelling interest must be narrowly tailored. In other words, the government better have one heck of a good reason for going against the Second Amendment.

The Justice Department, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and the Social Security Administration have not protected Second Amendment rights adequately under the previous administration. Our fundamental Second Amendment rights were constantly under attack.

For example, hundreds of thousands of veterans have been reported to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System without due process. Of course, that system amounts to a national gun ban list for those reported erroneously. Veterans were reported without first having a neutral authority find them to be a danger to self or others and thus have a legitimate right to deny them their Second Amendment rights. According to the government, the veterans needed a fiduciary to manage benefit payments. That is not a sufficient reason under the law. Needing help with your finances--simply needing that help--should not mean you have surrendered your fundamental right of self-defense, and it doesn't mean that you are a danger to the public.

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 name to the

gun ban list. During the course of that debate, Senator Durbin admitted that the list was broader than it should have been. Senator Durbin said: ``Let me just concede at the outset, reporting 174,000 names goes too far, but eliminating 174,000 names goes too far.''

For the record, there were 260,381 names from the Veterans' Administration sent to the gun ban list for allegedly being in the ``mental defective'' category. Now, it just happens that this was 98.8 percent of all the names in that category. So the Veterans' Administration reported more names by far than any other agency.

Senator Durbin's staff and mine have met over these issues since that debate. I appreciate and thank Senator Durbin for that outreach, and I want to work together with him to solve these problems for the VA. But now, the Social Security Administration is about to make the same mistake as the Veterans' Administration; that is, unless we stop them right here and right now with this resolution of disapproval. If we don't stop this, it could lead to hundreds of thousands of Social Security recipients being improperly reported to the gun ban list.

At its core, Social Security's new regulation allows the agency to report people to the gun ban list under two circumstances. First, the beneficiary needs to have someone designated to help manage benefit payments. That sounds like the VA; right?

Two, the beneficiary has an affliction based on a broad ``disorders list.'' But the process for designating someone to help a recipient manage Social Security benefits is not a process that is very objective. But the process for designating someone to help a recipient manage their Social Security benefit should be objective.

The former Social Security Administration inspector general said the following last year in testimony about this process that offends us here in the Senate and is the reason of this resolution: ``It's not a scientific decision, it's more of a personal opinion.''

This ``personal opinion'' of a bureaucrat cannot be the basis for taking away a person's fundamental Second Amendment right to bear arms.

Further, the second element--the so-called ``disorders list''--is a convoluted mess of afflictions that may or may not cause someone to be considered dangerous. Many of the listed disorders also do not impact gun safety at all. For example, some afflictions deal with anxiety disorders, fear of large crowds, or a lack of self-esteem. The list is complex, the list is long, and the list is not designed to regulate firearms. Rather, the list is designed to regulate whether a person can manage his or her beneficiary payments--in other words, can they handle money.

But here is the essential question that the Federal Government is incapable of answering. If they aren't dangerous, why does the Social Security Administration, like the VA, want to take away their guns?

The National Council on Disability, a nonpartisan and independent Federal agency, has come out against the Social Security Administration's rule and in favor of the repeal that this resolution of disapproval will accomplish. The Council has repeatedly stated its concerns about the agency failing to determine that people are dangerous before reporting their names to the gun ban list.

It has been the National Council on Disability's ``long-held position that restrictions on gun possession and ownership based on psychiatric or intellectual disability must be based on a verifiable concern as to whether the individual poses a heightened risk of danger to themselves or others.''

The Council has also stated that the rule ``unnecessarily and unreasonably deprives individuals with disabilities of a constitutional right, it increases the stigma for those who, due to their disabilities, may need a representative payee.''

Another organization, the Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities, a coalition of 100 national disability groups, shares the same concerns about the regulation about which we are having this resolution of disapproval: ``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.''

With that being said, even the ACLU wrote a letter in opposition to the agency regulation. I ask unanimous consent that these letters, as well as others, be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Simply stated, the agency rule uses a massive regulatory net that captures innocent individuals who should be left alone. Just because a person is assigned a fiduciary does not make that person or those persons dangerous. Whenever the government tries to eliminate fundamental constitutional rights, it is required to narrowly tailor its regulatory action so that innocent people are not impacted. The Social Security regulation fails in that regard.

That is why both the National Council on Disability and the Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities have called specifically for using the Congressional Review Act to repeal the final rule. That is what our introduction of resolution will accomplish.

Constitutional due process is wholly lacking. For example, the agency does not afford a beneficiary a formal hearing before his or her name is reported to the gun ban list.

Now, think about that. The Second Amendment, which recognizes a fundamental constitutional right, is being simply ripped away without a formal dispute process to initially challenge the action. Instead, the beneficiary must wait until their name is already on the gun ban list, and only then can the beneficiary appeal the decision by the grace of the government. This process effectively reverses what should be a burden on the government. The government should not be able to strip a fundamental constitutional right without due process and then place the burden on the citizen to try to restore it.

A hearing should be afforded before the infringement of a fundamental right, not afterward. The burden must be on the government to prove its case. That simply is the American way--our Constitution's way.

The Social Security Administration regulation falsely claims that it requires an adjudication before reporting names to the gun ban list, but there is no hearing afforded to the Social Security recipient before placing a name on the gun ban list. Of course, without a hearing, that process cannot honestly be called an adjudication. In other words, the Social Security Administration is blowing blue smoke when they say that. Without an adjudication, the process violates Federal law.

Here is the kicker. In order for beneficiaries to remove their names from the gun ban list, they have to prove they are not dangerous. Guilty until proven innocent, and the burden is on you to prove your innocence. Any way you look at it, that is totally unfair, a violation of the Constitution, but common sense ought to tell everybody it is just plain wrong.

The Federal Government, under the Obama administration, treated Social Security recipients with contempt and disregard when this rule was put out. With our resolution of disapproval, we can effectively terminate this unconstitutional government regulation, which the new Trump Administration supports. I encourage all of my colleagues to support our efforts.

Mr. Speaker, today I want to recognize Thomas D. Homan, who will step down this month as U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Executive Associate Director for Enforcement and Removal Operations. Mr. Homan has served in law enforcement for 36 years, including 33 years enforcing our Nation's border and immigration laws. He began his career in 1981 as a police officer in New York. In 1984, he became a U.S. Border Patrol agent with his first assignment in the San Diego sector. In 1988, he became a special agent with the former U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service in Phoenix, AZ. There, he climbed through the ranks, first to supervisory special agent, and later to deputy assistant director for investigations.

In 1999, Mr. Homan became the assistant district director for investigations in San Antonio, TX. Upon the creation of ICE in 2003, Mr. Homan was named as the assistant special agent in charge in Dallas, TX. He was later promoted to deputy special agent in charge. In March 2009, Mr. Homan accepted the position of Assistant Director for Enforcement at ICE headquarters in Washington, DC. He was subsequently promoted to Deputy Executive Associate Director in 2010 and was again promoted in May 2013 to lead ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations as its Executive Associate Director.

In December 2015, Mr. Homan was awarded the Presidential Rank Award for Distinguished Service. He has served this country for many years and has had a notable career in helping to protect the homeland.

I ask that my colleagues join me in offering our appreciation for his service and congratulations on his retirement.

Mr. Pisesident, I have fought for years to protect our Nation's seniors from abuse and exploitation, initially, as former Chairman of the Senate Aging Committee, former Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, and more recently, as Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

This past June, I chaired a Judiciary Committee hearing on Protecting Older Americans from Financial Exploitation. At the hearing, we heard about numerous scams in which seniors were targeted time after time, resulting in their being defrauded, often with devastating consequences. We also heard that many older Americans don't report instances of elder abuse or exploitation due to embarrassment, a refusal to acknowledge that they were victimized, or reliance on the perpetrator as their caretaker.

Sadly, these accounts of elder abuse are nothing new. What has changed is that the scams targeting seniors are becoming increasingly sophisticated. That is one of the reasons why elder financial exploitation has been dubbed ``the crime of the 21st century.''

I have made it a top priority to get the Federal Government to step up its efforts to fight the abuse, neglect, and financial exploitation of our Nation's seniors.

Last year, I called on the Justice Department to outline its efforts to prevent and respond to instances of elder abuse. First, I sent a letter to the Department to find out what it's doing to protect seniors from a new and particularly troubling form of exploitation: the photographing and online publication of nursing home residents in embarrassing and compromising situations.

I also sent a letter to inquire about the Department's efforts to fight imposter scams, in which fraudsters pose as employees of the IRS or another government agency, in order to deprive ordinary Americans of millions of dollars of their hard earned money. And as tax season approaches once again, it's critical that folks watch out for these deceitful scams.

I also asked about the data the Department is collecting on financial exploitation, as well as how this data is being used to support Federal efforts to protect America's seniors.

In its response to my inquiries, the Justice Department effectively admitted that it falls short in several respects. The Department said that it ``does not collect data on the prevalence of elder financial exploitation nationwide.'' Further, the Department said that it can't provide statistical information on the number of cases it has prosecuted for elder financial exploitation.

What all this means is that we are not getting the full picture of elder financial exploitation.

We do know that some older Americans' trusting and polite nature, combined with their hard-earned retirement savings, make them particularly attractive targets for fraudsters. We also know that the abuse and exploitation of older Americans is on the rise and it can take many forms.

Financial exploitation is the most widespread form of elder abuse, costing America's seniors between an estimated $2.9 billion and $36 billion annually. But, sadly, its costs aren't limited to the negative effect on seniors' bank accounts. Victims suffer all sorts of negative effects, including diminished health, loss of independence, and psychological distress.

It is estimated that up to 37 percent of seniors in the United States are affected by some form of financial exploitation in any 5-year period.

In my home State of Iowa, so-called grandparent scams are on the rise. In these scams, fraudsters present themselves to an older American as a grandchild in distress, hoping to convince the grandparent to send cash or give out a credit card number.

Con artists are also using sweepstakes scams to steal money from seniors. A senior is called and told they have won a prize or sum of money. But before they can claim the supposed prize, the victim is required to pay taxes or processing fees. Once the money is paid to cover the taxes and fees, however, no prize ever materializes.

Other instances of elder financial exploitation are more personal in nature and have especially devastating effects. Some victims are pressured into signing over a deed, modifying a will, or giving a power of attorney. Americans have lost their farms, homes, and life savings to this form of fraud.

In short, elder abuse and exploitation is a serious problem, and it demands a strong response. It requires all of us to work together in a collaborative way.

So, today I am proud to introduce the Elder Abuse Prevention and Prosecution Act. I thank my colleagues--Senators Blumenthal, Tillis, Klobuchar, and Cornyn for collaborating with me on this comprehensive and bipartisan bill's development and for joining as original cosponsors. It takes a multi-pronged approach to combating the abuse and financial exploitation of our nation's senior citizens.

We have heard a need for specialized prosecutors and more focused efforts to combat abuse and exploitation. That is why the bill directs the Attorney General to designate at least one federal prosecutor in each U.S. Attorney's Office to serve as an Elder Justice Coordinator for that district.

To ensure that elder abuse is a priority for the Federal Trade Commission and the Justice Department, the bill also calls for each agency to have an Elder Justice Coordinator.

We also need to send a strong message that efforts to target our Nation's seniors won't be tolerated. That is why the bill enhances elder victims' access to restitution and increases penalties for criminals who use telemarketing or email in their schemes to defraud seniors.

The bill also requires that the Justice Department partner with the Department of Health and Human Services to provide training and technical assistance to State and local governments on the investigation, prevention, prosecution, and mitigation of elder abuse and neglect.

Finally we have heard about the need for more data on financial exploitation

and the government's response. Gathering accurate information about elder abuse is not only crucial to understanding the scope of the problem, but it is also essential in determining where resources should be allocated. So, the bill helps to accomplish that.

It requires that data be collected from federal prosecutors and law enforcement in cases where an older American was the target of abuse or exploitation.

These and other reforms included in the bill are the product of a truly bipartisan effort, as well as insight from key stakeholders and those who've been battling elder financial exploitation on the front lines.

This 21st century crime requires a 21st century response. The Elder Abuse Prevention and Prosecution Act takes a strong step toward protecting our Nation's seniors, and I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. President, for too long, American families, farmers, and job creators have suffered under President Obama's regulatory onslaught. His administration threw caution to wind, pumping out regulation after regulation and further entangling the government into Americans' daily lives.

In November, the American people issued a strong rebuke to President Obama's overreach and his administration's way of doing business.

They want a new direction. They want more accountability. They want more transparency. They want the government off their backs so that they can get back to making this country great again.

President-elect Trump has committed to working with Congress to roll back the regulatory overreach of the Obama administration, and to making the government more answerable to the people.

So, I rise today to introduce an important piece of legislation that will help achieve these goals and ensure a more accountable and transparent government going forward.

By some estimates, Federal Government regulations impose over $2 trillion in compliance costs--on the American economy. The cost of complying with all these regulations falls particularly heavy on small businesses.

It is no wonder why many American businesses have shut down or moved overseas. How many innovators dreamed of starting a small business but decided against it when faced with the burden and uncertainty of our regulatory state?

We have to do better.

The Federal Government should do everything possible to promote job creation. To accomplish that, common sense would tell us that the government needs to remove bureaucratic barriers rather than put up new ones.

But as we all know, the Obama administration showed time and again that it would rather push forward with its regulatory agenda than ease the burden on our economy and job creators.

Adding insult to injury, the Obama administration often kept folks in the dark about new regulatory initiatives.

Through secretive litigation tactics, the administration took end- runs around our nation's transparency and accountability laws. It is a strategy known as sue-and-settle, and regulators have been using it to speed up rulemaking and keep the public away from the table when key policy decisions are made.

Sue-and-settle typically follows a similar pattern.

First, an interest group files a lawsuit against a federal agency, claiming that the agency has failed to take a certain regulatory action by a statutory deadline. The interest group seeks to compel the agency to take action by a new, often-rushed deadline. All too often, the plaintiff-interest group will be one that shares a common regulatory agenda with the agency that it sues, such as when an environmental group sues the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA.

Next, the agency and interest group enter into negotiations behind closed doors to produce either a settlement agreement or consent decree that commits the agency to satisfy the interest group's demands. The agreement is then approved by a court, binding executive discretion.

Noticeably absent from these negotiations, however, are the very parties who will be most impacted by the resulting regulations.

Sue-and-settle tactics undermine transparency, public accountability, and the quality of public policy. They can have sweeping consequences. For example, the Obama administration's so-called Clean Power Plan, which is the most expensive regulation ever to be imposed on the energy industry, arose out of a sue-and-settle arrangement.

These tactics also undermine congressional intent.

The Administrative Procedure Act, APA, which has been called the citizens' ``regulatory bill of rights,'' was

enacted to ensure transparency and accountability in the regulatory process. A key protection is the notice-and-comment process, which requires agencies to provide notice of proposed regulations and to respond to comments submitted by the public.

Rulemaking through sue-and-settle, however, frequently results in re- aligned agency agendas and short deadlines for regulatory action. This makes the notice-and-comment process a mere formality. It deprives regulated entities, the States and the general public of sufficient time to have any meaningful input.

The resulting regulatory action is driven not by the public interest, but by special interest priorities, and can come as a complete surprise to those most affected by it.

Sue-and-settle litigation also helps agencies avoid accountability. Instead of having to answer to the public for controversial regulations and policy decisions, agency officials can just point to a court order entering the agreement and say that they were required to take action under its terms.

We should also keep in mind that these agreements can have lasting impacts on the ability of future administrations to take a different policy approach--such as to remove regulatory burdens on farmers. Not only does this raise serious concerns about bad public policy, it also puts into question the constitutional impact of one administration's actions binding the hands of its successors.

Sue-and-settle, and the consequences that come from such tactics, is not a new phenomenon. Evidence of sue-and-settle tactics and closed- door rulemaking can be found in nearly every administration over the previous few decades.

But without a doubt, there was an alarming increase under the Obama administration. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce found that just during President Obama's first term, 60 Clean Air Act lawsuits against the EPA were resolved through consent decrees or settlement agreements.

And since 2009, sue-and-settle cases against the EPA have imposed at least $13 billion in annual regulatory costs.

But we now have an opportunity to curb these abuses, and an incoming administration that has committed to reining in the regulators.

That is why today I am introducing the Sunshine for Regulatory Decrees and Settlements Act. Senators Blunt, Inhofe, Cornyn, Cruz, Fischer, Rubio, Flake, Hatch, and Tillis are cosponsors of this important bill. And I'm pleased that Representative Doug Collins introduced a companion bill today in the House.

The Sunshine bill increases transparency by shedding light on sue- and-settle tactics. It requires agencies to publish sue-and-settle complaints in a readily accessible manner.

It requires agencies to publish proposed consent decrees and settlement agreements at least 60 days before they can be filed with a court. This provides a valuable opportunity for the public to weigh-in, which will increase accountability in the rulemaking process.

The bill makes it easier for affected parties, such as States and businesses, to intervene in these lawsuits and settlement negotiations to ensure that their interests are properly represented. It requires the Attorney General to certify to a court that he or she has personally approved of the terms of certain proposed consent decrees or settlement agreements. And it requires courts to consider whether the terms of a proposed agreement are contrary to the public interest.

The bill also makes it easier for succeeding administrations to modify a prior administration's consent decrees. That way, one administration won't be forced to continue the regulatory excesses of another.

The Sunshine for Regulatory Decrees and Settlements Act will shine light on the problem of sue-and-settle. It will help rein in backroom rulemaking, encourage the appropriate use of consent decrees and settlements, and reinforce the procedures that Congress laid out decades ago to ensure a transparent and accountable regulatory process.

I thank my colleagues for their support of this bill.

Mr. President, for too long, American families, farmers, and job creators have suffered under President Obama's regulatory onslaught. His administration threw caution to wind, pumping out regulation after regulation and further entangling the government into Americans' daily lives.

In November, the American people issued a strong rebuke to President Obama's overreach and his administration's way of doing business.

They want a new direction. They want more accountability. They want more transparency. They want the government off their backs so that they can get back to making this country great again.

President-elect Trump has committed to working with Congress to roll back the regulatory overreach of the Obama administration, and to making the government more answerable to the people.

So, I rise today to introduce an important piece of legislation that will help achieve these goals and ensure a more accountable and transparent government going forward.

By some estimates, Federal Government regulations impose over $2 trillion in compliance costs--on the American economy. The cost of complying with all these regulations falls particularly heavy on small businesses.

It is no wonder why many American businesses have shut down or moved overseas. How many innovators dreamed of starting a small business but decided against it when faced with the burden and uncertainty of our regulatory state?

We have to do better.

The Federal Government should do everything possible to promote job creation. To accomplish that, common sense would tell us that the government needs to remove bureaucratic barriers rather than put up new ones.

But as we all know, the Obama administration showed time and again that it would rather push forward with its regulatory agenda than ease the burden on our economy and job creators.

Adding insult to injury, the Obama administration often kept folks in the dark about new regulatory initiatives.

Through secretive litigation tactics, the administration took end- runs around our nation's transparency and accountability laws. It is a strategy known as sue-and-settle, and regulators have been using it to speed up rulemaking and keep the public away from the table when key policy decisions are made.

Sue-and-settle typically follows a similar pattern.

First, an interest group files a lawsuit against a federal agency, claiming that the agency has failed to take a certain regulatory action by a statutory deadline. The interest group seeks to compel the agency to take action by a new, often-rushed deadline. All too often, the plaintiff-interest group will be one that shares a common regulatory agenda with the agency that it sues, such as when an environmental group sues the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA.

Next, the agency and interest group enter into negotiations behind closed doors to produce either a settlement agreement or consent decree that commits the agency to satisfy the interest group's demands. The agreement is then approved by a court, binding executive discretion.

Noticeably absent from these negotiations, however, are the very parties who will be most impacted by the resulting regulations.

Sue-and-settle tactics undermine transparency, public accountability, and the quality of public policy. They can have sweeping consequences. For example, the Obama administration's so-called Clean Power Plan, which is the most expensive regulation ever to be imposed on the energy industry, arose out of a sue-and-settle arrangement.

These tactics also undermine congressional intent.

The Administrative Procedure Act, APA, which has been called the citizens' ``regulatory bill of rights,'' was

enacted to ensure transparency and accountability in the regulatory process. A key protection is the notice-and-comment process, which requires agencies to provide notice of proposed regulations and to respond to comments submitted by the public.

Rulemaking through sue-and-settle, however, frequently results in re- aligned agency agendas and short deadlines for regulatory action. This makes the notice-and-comment process a mere formality. It deprives regulated entities, the States and the general public of sufficient time to have any meaningful input.

The resulting regulatory action is driven not by the public interest, but by special interest priorities, and can come as a complete surprise to those most affected by it.

Sue-and-settle litigation also helps agencies avoid accountability. Instead of having to answer to the public for controversial regulations and policy decisions, agency officials can just point to a court order entering the agreement and say that they were required to take action under its terms.

We should also keep in mind that these agreements can have lasting impacts on the ability of future administrations to take a different policy approach--such as to remove regulatory burdens on farmers. Not only does this raise serious concerns about bad public policy, it also puts into question the constitutional impact of one administration's actions binding the hands of its successors.

Sue-and-settle, and the consequences that come from such tactics, is not a new phenomenon. Evidence of sue-and-settle tactics and closed- door rulemaking can be found in nearly every administration over the previous few decades.

But without a doubt, there was an alarming increase under the Obama administration. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce found that just during President Obama's first term, 60 Clean Air Act lawsuits against the EPA were resolved through consent decrees or settlement agreements.

And since 2009, sue-and-settle cases against the EPA have imposed at least $13 billion in annual regulatory costs.

But we now have an opportunity to curb these abuses, and an incoming administration that has committed to reining in the regulators.

That is why today I am introducing the Sunshine for Regulatory Decrees and Settlements Act. Senators Blunt, Inhofe, Cornyn, Cruz, Fischer, Rubio, Flake, Hatch, and Tillis are cosponsors of this important bill. And I'm pleased that Representative Doug Collins introduced a companion bill today in the House.

The Sunshine bill increases transparency by shedding light on sue- and-settle tactics. It requires agencies to publish sue-and-settle complaints in a readily accessible manner.

It requires agencies to publish proposed consent decrees and settlement agreements at least 60 days before they can be filed with a court. This provides a valuable opportunity for the public to weigh-in, which will increase accountability in the rulemaking process.

The bill makes it easier for affected parties, such as States and businesses, to intervene in these lawsuits and settlement negotiations to ensure that their interests are properly represented. It requires the Attorney General to certify to a court that he or she has personally approved of the terms of certain proposed consent decrees or settlement agreements. And it requires courts to consider whether the terms of a proposed agreement are contrary to the public interest.

The bill also makes it easier for succeeding administrations to modify a prior administration's consent decrees. That way, one administration won't be forced to continue the regulatory excesses of another.

The Sunshine for Regulatory Decrees and Settlements Act will shine light on the problem of sue-and-settle. It will help rein in backroom rulemaking, encourage the appropriate use of consent decrees and settlements, and reinforce the procedures that Congress laid out decades ago to ensure a transparent and accountable regulatory process.

I thank my colleagues for their support of this bill.

Mr. President, because----

Yes, for one moment.

Mr. President, it is because of ObamaCare that the health insurance markets in this country are badly damaged. They have gotten worse each year. They are now near collapse.

You were told 8 years ago that if you like your health insurance, you can keep it. Millions can't. If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. Millions of Americans were not able to keep their doctor. You were told that your health insurance premiums would go down $2,500. They have actually gone up probably $3,500. Some people don't have a choice in plans. Some counties don't even have a plan in the exchange. If you could get a plan, you might not be able to afford it. If you could afford the plan, you might not be able to use it because of the high copayments you have to have. So it is not a very good situation.

It took 6 years for the health insurance market to get as bad as I just described. It will take time for those markets to be restored. The next few years in health care will be challenging if ObamaCare is repealed or even if it is not repealed. If ObamaCare is not repealed, it will be even longer before Americans have access to a functioning health insurance market and the insurance plans they want.

When it comes to health care, every second counts. We owe it to the American people who are sick or who could get sick, as well as families and businesses trying to plan for the future, to start fixing that problem right now. That is the result of the election. That is what the Senate is going to do.

The Affordable Care Act, which could more appropriately be called the Unaffordable Care Act, has been a case of over-promise and under- delivery. People were told that their premiums would go down and that if they liked their doctor, their hospital, or their health care plan, they could keep all of it. The reality is much different. More than half of the country had two or fewer insurance plans from which to choose this year. Some regions had no insurance plans available at all. Even those who were strong supporters of the health care law, like the Minnesota Governor whom I like to quote, have

said the Affordable Care Act ``is no longer affordable to many Americans.''

In my State of Iowa, the Affordable Care Act premium increases this year were over 40 percent for many individuals. Few people, of course, can afford that. Families that did manage to purchase Affordable Care Act insurance found that they could no longer afford to use it.

One Iowan recently called my office and told me that his premiums have increased 400 percent in 3 years. He also said that his deductible went up to--can you believe it--$14,000. Last year, one of his children had a major medical problem, and they had to pay for all of that care out of their pocket--not from the insurance. The family paid $12,000 for the Affordable Care Act insurance, which did not pay for any health care. Of course, that just doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

The problem is that the Affordable Care Act did nothing to address the underlying causes of the high cost of health care; that is, what it costs for a hospital or a doctor to purchase or maintain medical equipment, purchase medicines, carry malpractice insurance, and a lot of other costs they have.

Rather than address the actual cost to care, President Obama and his colleagues chose to bypass real health care reform for an unsustainable entitlement and bureaucratic mandates that have priced people out of the health insurance market, rather than provide those same people with affordable and quality coverage.

So we are at it now. It is time for real health care reform, not the misguided policies that we were promised 8 years ago that now have turned out to be what I describe as misguided policies. It is time to deliver to Americans what we were promised. It is time to provide accessible, affordable health care to all Americans. But my colleagues on the other side of the aisle need to work with us. They know that the Affordable Care Act is falling apart. They know it is unaffordable.

As we have heard in speeches this week, the other side is trying to distract attention from the Affordable Care Act collapse by using scare tactics, like you recently heard. It is time for the Democrats to step up, instead of doubling down. It is time for statesmanship, not gamesmanship. It is time for the Democrats to stop defending the ``un- Affordable Care Act'' and deliver Americans what was promised.

I look forward to working with my colleagues and the Trump administration to deliver affordable health care to all Americans in the tradition of the Senate, which is what didn't happen in 2009. It was strictly a one-party program put before the Congress to pass. That is why it has failed--because so many of the people who could have made a good bill pass in 2009 were shut out of the process because this body had 60 Democratic Members and they didn't have to pay any attention to Republicans.

They spent maybe 8 or 9 months trying to work with the Republicans to negotiate a bipartisan deal. But before that was completed, they said: Take it or leave it. The Republican minority at that time was not going to be dictated to, and we were pushed out of the room.

Then what ended up being the Affordable Care Act was written in the big black hole of Senate Majority Leader Reid's office, without the bipartisan input which has made so many social programs in America successful. I would name the Social Security Act. I would name civil rights legislation, Medicare legislation, and Medicaid legislation, which all had broad bipartisan support to get them passed. In the case of the Civil Rights Act, a higher proportion of Republicans voted for it than Democrats voted for it--just one example.

That is the tradition of the Senate when you have major social legislation that has been successful, and that is why the Affordable Care Act was not successful--because it was strictly a partisan approach that was used to have it become law.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, many of my colleagues know I have been fighting for years to end the abuse of the H-1B visa program and help disadvantaged U.S. workers who are harmed by that program. Today I wish to draw the attention of my colleagues to a recent incident that highlights how some employers are potentially using legal avenues to import foreign workers, lay off qualified Americans, and then export jobs overseas. I was shocked by the heartless manner in which U.S. workers were injured in the case I am about to describe.

First, I wish to remind my colleagues about how the H-1B program is supposed to work. Under the terms of the H-1B program, U.S. employers may import into the United States each year up to 65,000 so-called specialty occupation workers. The jobs being filled must be a job for which a bachelor's degree is necessary. Even though the annual cap is 65,000, the actual number of foreign workers being imported is much more because of numerous exemptions. In fiscal year 2012, for example, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services approved a total of 262,569 H-1B petitions--way above the legal limit of 65,000 or I should say the supposed limit of 65,000.

About 60 percent of H-1B workers come to fill computer-related occupations. Every year the list of the top 10 H-1B employers is dominated by foreign-based companies offering information technology or IT consulting services to the clients.

Under the law, H-1B employers are also required to: No. 1, pay the workers the greater of the prevailing wage for that job in that area or the wage the employer pays to similarly qualified U.S. workers doing the same job and at the same time--or the No. 2 condition--provide working conditions that will not adversely affect other similarly employed U.S. workers.

Additionally, H-1B employers may not displace a U.S. worker within the period beginning 90 days before and ending 90 days after the date of filing any H-1B petition by that employer.

Now I will describe what the program lacks. Most people believe employers try to recruit Americans before they petition for H-1B workers. Yet under the law, not all employers are required to prove to the Department of Labor that they tried to find an American to fill the job first. That is right. American workers do not get the first chance at these jobs in the United States, and if there is an equally or even better qualified U.S. worker, the company does not have to offer him or her that job.

I have pushed for changes in the legislation in that law. In fact, I offered several pro-U.S. worker amendments during consideration of the immigration bill in 2013. Every amendment I offered was defeated. The majority at that time--meaning the Democratic majority, and it was a bipartisan majority that helped defeat it--defeated these pro-American worker amendments. They pushed through S. 744, the 2013 immigration bill, without this significant, much needed change.

Let me describe to my colleagues the appalling instance referenced above.

I have described what the H-1B law was and how, during the immigration debate of 2013, I tried to amend it and improve it, and I wasn't successful. I started my remarks tonight by talking about the abuse of H-1B, the law not being followed, overseas companies bringing workers in here for an American company to employ, and then in turn these jobs are going to be shipped overseas. So now I wish to describe this appalling incident I referenced earlier.

Last August, Southern California Edison started laying off 400 American workers from its IT department. The company replaced them with foreign H-1B workers. According to the company, 100 additional American workers who will also be replaced by H-1B workers will leave supposedly voluntarily. According to Computerworld, the final major batch of layoffs is scheduled for March 6 or March 7.

The foreign workers who are replacing the American workers at Edison are employees of two overseas-based IT consulting companies that are also two of the largest users of H-1B visas. In 2013 one of the two companies paid the largest immigration fine in U.S. history. That company paid $34 million in a civil settlement after allegations of systemic visa fraud and abuse.

The jobs being filled by H-1B workers are manifestly not jobs for which Americans are unavailable. I say that because the jobs are currently filled by skilled American workers. It is disturbing that not only have these American workers been laid off, but also some of them have reportedly had to train their very own replacements.

A columnist for the Los Angeles Times writes that by laying off hundreds of its American IT staff and replacing them with relatively low-wage foreign contract workers, Edison stands to save as much as 40 percent in wage costs per laid-off worker. One

laid-off Edison worker told the columnist that company supervisors told a group of workers last year: ``We can get four Indian guys far cheaper than the price of you.''

Worse yet, most of the 500 jobs that had been held by Americans will eventually just move overseas. According to the Los Angeles Times, Edison admits that eventually about 70 percent of the work will shift overseas permanently.

Edison describes the 400 layoffs as a ``transition'' to the foreign IT consulting companies that ``will lead to enhancements that deliver faster and more efficient tools and applications for services that customers rely on.''

Then it adds further: ``[T]hrough outsourcing, [Edison's] information technology organization will adopt a proven business strategy commonly and successfully used by top U.S. companies that [Edison] benchmarks against.''

With respect to replacing American workers with H-1B workers, Edison says the company ``is not hiring H-1B workers to replace displaced employees.'' Edison's cynical defense is built upon a very shameless exploitation of a loophole in the H-1B laws. That loophole says that technically Edison isn't the H-1B workers' employer; the two foreign consulting companies are. The H-1B workers are just contracted out for extended, potentially multiyear periods from the foreign consulting companies to the American company, Edison. Thus, Edison argues that it is not subject to the requirements under the immigration laws that I spoke of earlier. They argue that because they are not the employer who petitioned directly for the H-1B workers, they--Edison--don't have to abide by the working condition requirements or the 90-day rule.

The condemnation of this attack on American workers has been very quick and, quite frankly, bipartisan. On February 10 over 300 members of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers rallied in Irvine, CA, in support of their fellow Edison employees. Several Members of Congress have expressed concern about the situation. On February 17 the Economic Policy Institute sent a letter to the Secretary of Labor asking him to investigate the Edison layoffs. Specifically, the institute asked the Secretary of Labor to determine whether Edison, the foreign consulting companies, or any of the parties involved in these layoffs violated the requirements that the hiring of H-1B workers not ``adversely affect the wages and working conditions of U.S. workers comparably employed.''

I echo the request of the Economic Policy Institute. The prohibition on adversely affecting U.S. workers can reasonably be applied to situations, such as in the Edison case, where the H-1B workers are contractors at a worksite rather than employees.

I also draw your attention to a powerful February 16 Los Angeles Times editorial entitled ``End H-1B visa program's abuse.'' The Los Angeles Times calls Edison's action ``part of a years-long trend among companies of misusing H-1B visas to undercut wages and offshore high- paying American jobs.'' The Los Angeles Times concludes that the H-1B program, although perhaps well-intentioned, is ``broken'' and that ``Congress needs to fix it.'' And, of course, I could not agree more, as evidenced by all the amendments I offered in 2013 on the immigration bill.

This situation with Southern California Edison is not new. It is happening time and time again. American workers are losing out because the law is not strong enough to protect them, so it needs to be fixed.

Any proposal to reform the H-1B program must include substantially increased protections for U.S. workers such as I have proposed many times in the past. These protections must at a minimum include the requirement that companies first recruit here at home before they import more foreign workers. We also need to reform the H-1B wage requirements so that U.S. workers' wages would no longer be undercut by H-1B workers' wages. There also needs to be more oversight of the program, including random audits of those who use the program.

Tightening the law to ensure that U.S. workers have the first opportunity at high-paying, high-skilled jobs in this country is a no- brainer. Yet there is so much opposition to this philosophy. I just cannot believe the opposition. As I stated earlier, the majority in the last Congress--and that happened to be a bipartisan majority--pushed for changes to the H-1B program but voted against every single amendment I offered to ensure that U.S. workers were given priority.

Now there is a lot of fanfare and a lot of talk about a high-skilled bill that has been reintroduced in the Senate that would increase the annual number of H-1B visas. The sponsors of the bill claim it will ``boost our competitiveness in the global economy.'' This bill only makes the problems worse. It doesn't plug the loopholes. It doesn't make sure American workers are put before foreign workers. It doesn't ensure that employers don't use the program to pay cheaper wages, which then in turn disadvantages U.S. workers.

The H-1B program could be a very worthwhile program. According to the original intent, I obviously would support it because we want workers to do the jobs that need to be done in America, but it should first be people who are already here.

Our employment-based immigration programs could have served and could again serve a valuable purpose if used properly. However, they are being misused and abused. They are failing the American worker. Reforms are needed to put integrity back into the programs and to ensure that American workers and students are given every chance to fill vacant jobs in this country. So I am putting my colleagues on notice that I am committed to this effort. As chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I don't intend on allowing legislation to move through this body without reforms to the H-1B program that protect American workers.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President and Members of the Senate, as chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, I have mentioned publicly that I am open to certain Federal sentencing, or prison, reforms, and I have tried to make it very clear that I am very opposed to others.

Today I wish to address the realities of drug sentencing in the Federal criminal justice system. I do so because there are many myths that surround this topic.

The myth is that there are thousands of low-level drug offenders, such as people smoking marijuana, in Federal prison for very long terms. This is supposed to mean a waste of Federal tax dollars, overcrowding, and unfairness to people who should not be in prison. These myths are often used to justify lenient and, frankly, dangerous sentencing proposals in the U.S. Senate. One of those proposals is the so-called Smarter Sentencing Act.

It is time to set the record straight, and that is why I am here. It is important to know how many people are in Federal prison for drug possession, who they are, and why they are in prison. Then it will be clear why it is unwise to make wholesale, one-way lenient changes in drug sentencing. In fiscal year 2013, the most recent year we have statistics, according to the U.S. Sentencing Commission there were 2,332 drug possession cases in the Federal prison. Almost 94 percent involved marijuana, more than 86 percent were against noncitizens, and 88 percent of the cases arose along the southwest border, so it is clear why so many noncitizens were charged. Federal drug possessors were rarely prosecuted for small quantities.

The median amount of drug possession in these southwest border cases, which are 88 percent of the Federal drug possession cases, was about 48 pounds. Understand, we are not talking about a few ounces of possession of marijuana. The average is 48 pounds. Can you imagine being in possession of 48 pounds of illegal drugs? These are not low-level, casual offenders by any stretch of the imagination. Moreover, well over 90 percent of the drug possession cases are along the southwest border. So more than 80 percent of all Federal drug possession cases were brought in the State of Arizona.

In that district, the U.S. attorney will agree to charge a drug trafficker with only drug possession if the offender is a first-time offender who acted only as a courier. Again, the median quantity of the amount of possession is 48 pounds, and many who actually committed trafficking there are charged only with mere drug possession.

Since 88 percent of all Federal drug possession cases derive from the southwest border, only 270 simple drug possession cases arose anywhere else in the United States. Get this, please. The odds of an American being subject to a Federal prosecution for drug possession in any given year are less than 1 in 1 million. It is also imperative to remember that mandatory minimum sentences are not an issue in these cases. The average Federal sentence for drug possession is 5 months; that is, only 5 months--I say that for emphasis--not the years of imprisonment some of the proponents of lenient sentencing would have us believe.

The brevity of Federal drug possession sentences is emphasized by how in the vast majority of these cases the median amount of drugs at issue was 48 pounds. In the 270 cases not along the border, the median amount of drugs the offender possessed was only 4 grams. The average sentence was 1.3 months. Most of those convicted were sentenced to probation.

There is no basis whatsoever to advocate change in Federal mandatory minimum sentencing laws based on drug possession cases since they are not subject to such mandatory minimums. Anyone who raises drug possession as an argument against Federal mandatory minimum sentences is using a stalking horse to lower sentences for much more serious offenders.

There is no separate Federal offense for what is called possession with intent to distribute. Those who possessed with that intent are treated the same as those who distribute. We need to look at drug distribution sentences in the Federal system as well.

Drug trafficking cases are sometimes subject to mandatory minimum sentences. For instance, just under half of all drug courier offenders were subject to mandatory minimum sentences, but under 10 percent were subject to mandatory minimum sentences at the time of their sentencing.

There are two main reasons so few of these offenders are actually sentenced to a mandatory minimum. The first is they may fall within the safety valve Congress has enacted to prevent mandatory minimum sentences from applying to low-level, first-time drug offenders or, second, they may have provided substantial assistance to prosecutors in fingering high-level offenders in a drug conspiracy.

That is an intended goal of current Federal sentencing policy, to put pressure on defendants to cooperate in exchange for a lower sentence so evidence against more responsible criminals can be attained. As a result, even for drug couriers the average sentence is 39 months. That seems to be an appropriate level.

We are not sending huge numbers of nonviolent drug offenders to Federal prison under lengthy mandatory minimum sentences. I want to make it very clear, this is the biggest sentencing myth of them all. When Federal drug sentencing is discussed, we need then to keep in mind the facts. There are hardly any nonviolent drug-offending Americans in Federal prison for mere drug possession. The quantities of drugs underlying the vast majority of Federal possession cases are high and sentences are fair. For drug courier distribution cases, only 10 percent of offenders are subject to mandatory minimum sentences at the time of sentencing.

I hope you will be on notice and be on guard. Don't let anyone tell you Federal mandatory minimum sentences are putting large numbers of nonviolent offenders in jail for long periods of time at great taxpayer expense. Don't let anyone tell you such offenders are the reason for the increase in Federal drug prisoners over the years. Don't let anyone tell you harsh mandatory sentences for low-level nonviolent offenders are decimating various communities.

Apart from the clear evidence from the Sentencing Commission regarding Federal drug offenders, I want to draw attention to the responses to questions from witnesses before our Judiciary Committee just this month. Testifying before the committee, Milwaukee County Sheriff David A. Clarke, Jr., stated: ``Federal mandatory minimum sentences have struck terror into the hearts of career criminals . . . and have provided longer periods of respite from the impoverished and crime-riddled communities that can least afford their return.''

The sheriff said he feared the effect in his inner-city community of changing Federal drug mandatory minimum sentences. I have told my colleagues I am going to be open to lowering some Federal mandatory minimum sentences but only where specific situations may warrant that and if we can add or raise new ones for such offenses as arms export control violations, financial crimes, and child pornography possessions. Those three categories do not have to be extremely long sentences under present law, but too many judges are systematically sentencing these offenders to probation. Especially when the Supreme Court has taken away any other means of making sure judges do not let these offenders walk, mandatory minimum sentences are the only way Congress can require these offenders serve any time at all.

I am trying to inform my Senate colleagues through the use of facts. In doing that, by looking at the facts, we will not make unwise and dangerous changes to our Federal sentencing laws. I ask my colleagues to stick to the facts and avoid repeating myths. I pointed out those myths. It is a myth to say sentences for drug possession and nonviolent offenders justify the Smarter Sentencing Act. That bill does not apply to possession at all. Many drug offenses necessarily involve violence. Drug conspiracies operate with the threat or the use of force.

Whatever the offense charged, if the offender has a history of violent crime, he is a violent offender, and the sentence will and should reflect that fact. It is a myth to say the Smarter Sentencing Act would save money. All it would do is shift costs from incarceration to the victims who bear the cost of the crimes that earlier released offenders would commit. That is one of the reasons the bill is dangerous.

The Congressional Budget Office also says it would add billions of dollars in mandatory spending, regardless of what upfront discretionary savings there may be. I would ask my colleagues to get this: It is a fact the Smarter Sentencing Act would cut sentences for a range of heroin offenses, including importation and dealing, while the entire Nation is in the midst of a heroin epidemic and a rising number of deaths from heroin overdoses.

I would ask my colleagues to get this: It is a fact from the heads of the FBI and the Drug Enforcement Agency and Federal police organizations that mandatory minimum sentences spur cooperation from defendants and enable the successful prosecution of high-level drug criminals who cause most of the tremendous harm. That includes cooperation from defendants charged with narcoterrorism.

I would ask my colleagues to get this: It is a fact the so-called Smarter Sentencing Act would cut in half the mandatory minimum sentences Congress put in place for distributing drugs to benefit terrorists or terrorist organizations. It would cut in half the mandatory minimum sentences for members of Taliban, Al Qaeda, ISIS or Hezbollah who deal drugs that fund terrorism. That would mean less cooperation to bring charges of narcoterrorism, get terrorists off the streets, and obtain intelligence to help prevent future attacks.

As President Obama's U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York has remarked, ``[T]here is a growing nexus between drug trafficking and terrorism, a threat that increasingly poses a clear and present danger to our national security.

So I ask my colleagues to get this: It is a fact that the so-called Smarter Sentencing Act is dangerous not only because of its effect on increased crime and victimization but on national security as well.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.