Floor Statements

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, border security is one of the Federal Government's most important responsibilities, and the Federal Government has no better partners than local law enforcement agencies from border communities like those in my home State of Arizona. These officers and deputies serve on the front lines. They provide critical assistance to the missions of Federal agencies.

Unfortunately, these efforts are expensive and the locals end up picking up most of the tab. For example, local law enforcement agencies hold those facing immigration violations at county-operated jails, and they provide medical care for the undocumented inmates while they are in custody. In providing these services, Arizona's counties have incurred more than $310 million in costs associated with criminal undocumented immigrants since 2009. That is $310 million since 2009.

Despite these enormous costs, the Federal Government has left many local jurisdictions to shoulder the burdens of illegal immigration on their own. This is particularly frustrating when so many of our local law enforcement agencies are already struggling to carry out basic duties on overstretched budgets.

I hope we can all look forward to a time when we have the appropriate resources for securing the border, the means for those seeking to fill the needs of our economy to enter the country legally, a remedy for those who are here already illegally, and also a way for employers to ensure that those whom they hire are legally present.

These critical steps toward solving our immigration problems will require Congress to act. However, in the meantime, we can't continue to allow the Federal Government to pass off immigration responsibilities onto cash-strapped local agencies.

That is why I wish today to introduce a bill to reauthorize and reform the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, better known as SCAAP. This bill is cosponsored by my friend and colleague, John McCain, and is supported by the Arizona Sheriffs Association.

SCAAP is a Federal program that reimburses State, local, and Tribal law enforcement for the costs associated with incarcerating and caring for criminal undocumented immigrants while in custody.

To ensure that local law enforcement receives sufficient reimbursement under SCAAP, my bill would make some commonsense reforms under the program. The bill would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to reauthorize SCAAP through fiscal year 2021. Reauthorizing this program will provide local law enforcement agencies in Arizona and across the country with the certainty that any costs incurred from incarcerating criminal immigrants will be covered by Federal reimbursements.

Our State, local, and Tribal law enforcement agencies are committed to partnering with the Federal Government on immigration enforcement. But that partnership can't succeed unless the Federal Government provides the necessary reimbursements for those services.

As Cochise County Sheriff Mark Dannels said:

Arizona's counties continue to struggle under the fiscal

strain of anemic growth in rural areas and cost-shifts from

the State of Arizona. Housing criminal aliens without federal

assistance diverts needed resources away from our

communities' public safety priorities.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this letter from the Arizona Sheriffs Association in support of my bill to reauthorize SCAAP be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, the SCAAP program is the foundation of the immigration partnership between local law enforcement and the Federal Government for keeping our communities safe. I urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation to reauthorize and reform the SCAAP program.

Mr. President, border security is one of the Federal Government's most important responsibilities, and the Federal Government has no better partners than local law enforcement agencies from border communities like those in my home State of Arizona. These officers and deputies serve on the front lines. They provide critical assistance to the missions of Federal agencies.

Unfortunately, these efforts are expensive and the locals end up picking up most of the tab. For example, local law enforcement agencies hold those facing immigration violations at county-operated jails, and they provide medical care for the undocumented inmates while they are in custody. In providing these services, Arizona's counties have incurred more than $310 million in costs associated with criminal undocumented immigrants since 2009. That is $310 million since 2009.

Despite these enormous costs, the Federal Government has left many local jurisdictions to shoulder the burdens of illegal immigration on their own. This is particularly frustrating when so many of our local law enforcement agencies are already struggling to carry out basic duties on overstretched budgets.

I hope we can all look forward to a time when we have the appropriate resources for securing the border, the means for those seeking to fill the needs of our economy to enter the country legally, a remedy for those who are here already illegally, and also a way for employers to ensure that those whom they hire are legally present.

These critical steps toward solving our immigration problems will require Congress to act. However, in the meantime, we can't continue to allow the Federal Government to pass off immigration responsibilities onto cash-strapped local agencies.

That is why I wish today to introduce a bill to reauthorize and reform the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, better known as SCAAP. This bill is cosponsored by my friend and colleague, John McCain, and is supported by the Arizona Sheriffs Association.

SCAAP is a Federal program that reimburses State, local, and Tribal law enforcement for the costs associated with incarcerating and caring for criminal undocumented immigrants while in custody.

To ensure that local law enforcement receives sufficient reimbursement under SCAAP, my bill would make some commonsense reforms under the program. The bill would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to reauthorize SCAAP through fiscal year 2021. Reauthorizing this program will provide local law enforcement agencies in Arizona and across the country with the certainty that any costs incurred from incarcerating criminal immigrants will be covered by Federal reimbursements.

Our State, local, and Tribal law enforcement agencies are committed to partnering with the Federal Government on immigration enforcement. But that partnership can't succeed unless the Federal Government provides the necessary reimbursements for those services.

As Cochise County Sheriff Mark Dannels said:

Arizona's counties continue to struggle under the fiscal

strain of anemic growth in rural areas and cost-shifts from

the State of Arizona. Housing criminal aliens without federal

assistance diverts needed resources away from our

communities' public safety priorities.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this letter from the Arizona Sheriffs Association in support of my bill to reauthorize SCAAP be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, the SCAAP program is the foundation of the immigration partnership between local law enforcement and the Federal Government for keeping our communities safe. I urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation to reauthorize and reform the SCAAP program.

Mr. President, I rise in support of my resolution of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act of the FCC's broadband privacy restrictions. As chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee's Privacy Subcommittee, I have spent more than a year closely examining this issue.

In February of 2015 the FCC, under then-Chairman Tom Wheeler, took the unprecedented step of reclassifying broadband providers as ``common carriers'' under title II of the Communications Act. In other words, on a 3-to-2 party-line vote, the FCC decided that internet service providers should be treated like telephone companies for regulatory purposes. The decision encroached on the Federal Trade Commission's jurisdiction to regulate ISP privacy policies, stripping these companies of their traditional privacy regulator.

Recognizing that his actions to impose net neutrality on ISPs created regulatory uncertainty, last spring Chairman Wheeler began to float the idea of implementing new FCC privacy rules. The FCC decided, again on a 3-to-2 party-line vote, to move forward with the rule change just before election day. The whole process was unsettling, to say the least.

The FCC ultimately decided to commandeer an area of regulatory authority for itself, without any meaningful check on this unilateral action. Once it initiated the bureaucratic power grab, it proceeded to establish new rules restricting the free speech of its regulatory target.

I submitted comments to the agency expressing my constitutional concerns about its proposed rule. I wasn't alone in doing so. Noted Harvard law professor Larry Tribe, hardly one to be confused for a conservative, did the same. But the rules were finalized nonetheless.

While the FCC recently took a step in the right direction by staying the application of the privacy rules, these midnight regulations are still hanging out there. Congress needs to repeal these privacy restrictions in order to restore balance to the internet ecosystem and provide certainty to consumers.

These regulations have altered the basic nature of privacy protection in the United States. For decades, the FTC policed privacy based on consumer expectations for their data, not bureaucratic preferences. These consumer expectations were just common sense: Sensitive data deserves more protection than nonsensitive data.

Unfortunately, the FCC rules dispensed with this commonsense regulatory approach. Under the new rules, what matters isn't what the data is but, rather, who uses it. This creates a dual-track regulatory environment where some consumer data is regulated one way if a company is using it under the FCC's jurisdiction and an entirely different way if its use falls under the FTC, or the Federal Trade Commission.

This is all confusing enough, but it gets worse. In the consumer technology sector, innovation is the name of the game. Companies are constantly rolling out new products and competing to win over consumers. By the same token, consumers are always on the lookout for the newest gadget or app. But the FCC's privacy order makes it increasingly difficult for consumers to learn about the latest product offerings from broadband providers. Instead of being notified about faster and more affordable alternatives for their family's home internet needs, under the FCC's privacy order, Arizonans might get left in the dark.

The FCC's heavyhanded data requirements restrict the ability of broadband providers to offer services tailored to their customers' needs and interests, and they lead to inconsistent treatment of otherwise identical data online. When a regulation diminishes innovation, harms consumer choice, and is just all-around confusing, it is a bad regulation. The FCC's privacy rule for ISPs is a bad regulation.

When it chose to impose needlessly onerous privacy regulations on broadband providers while leaving the rest of the internet under the successful FTC regime, the FCC unfairly picked one politically favored industry--the edge providers--to prevail over a different industry-- broadband.

Repealing the FCC's privacy action is a crucial step toward restoring a single, uniform set of privacy rules for the internet. The FTC's privacy rules are the result of an ongoing, data-driven effort to understand and protect consumer expectations. That is the FTC. The FCC's rules, on the other hand, are the hasty byproduct of political interest groups and reflect the narrow preferences of well-connected insiders.

To sum all of this up, the FCC's midnight privacy rules are confusing and counterproductive. This CRA will get rid of it, pure and simple. But let me say what it won't do. Despite claims to the contrary, using this CRA will not leave consumers unprotected. That is because the FCC is already obligated to police the privacy practices of broadband providers under section 222 of the Communications Act, as well as various other Federal and State laws.

Both Chairman Wheeler and Chairman Pai agree on that point. Just last week, Chairman Pai wrote to my friends on the other side of the aisle confirming this legal fact.

This resolution will not disrupt the FCC's power, nor will it infringe on the FTC's jurisdiction elsewhere. Neither will it affect how broadband providers currently handle consumer data. Broadband providers are currently regulated under section 222, and they will continue to be after these midnight regulations are rescinded.

Passing this CRA will send a powerful message that Federal agencies can't unilaterally restrict constitutional rights and expect to get away with it. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution of disapproval.

I yield back the remainder of my time.

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

Mr. President, as I did 2 weeks ago and will continue to do until he is confirmed, I rise to support the nomination of Neil Gorsuch to serve on the Supreme Court. Judge Gorsuch is an accomplished, mainstream jurist, and I look forward to helping to make sure that he receives an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor.

Next week, my colleagues and I on the Judiciary Committee will hold confirmation hearings on Judge Gorsuch. I look forward to hearing his testimony. I am confident that he will impress the country with his knowledge of and respect for the law, just as he has impressed me and my colleagues.

But before the hearings get under way, I thought I would use this opportunity today to highlight an additional aspect of his life and his jurisprudence that make him an ideal nominee to serve on the High Court. So far I have spoken on the floor about his fitness to fill Justice Scalia's seat, as well as his defense of the separation of powers and his support for religious liberty. Today I would like to discuss a more personal aspect of Judge Gorsuch's background--the fact that he is a westerner. As an Arizonan, I cannot overstate how important it will be to have a fellow westerner serving on the Supreme Court.

Where you are from influences your understanding of cultural and regional sensitivities. When you look at the current makeup of the Supreme Court, there is an unmistakable lack of geographic diversity. Of the eight current Justices, five of them were born in New York or New Jersey, and that number was six before Judge Scalia's passing. Granted, Justice Kennedy is from Northern California, but to be frank, much of Northern California is about as culturally western as Justice Breyer's hometown of Boston.

The Supreme Court is in desperate need of a western perspective. Judge Gorsuch fits that bill. When I had the opportunity to meet Judge Gorsuch in my office last month, we discussed our respective western backgrounds. I talked to him about my days growing up on a cattle ranch in rural Arizona. He told me that his heart has always been in the American West. You can learn a lot about a person by how they spend their time with their friends and their family, and there is no mistaking this aspect with Judge Gorsuch. He is a westerner through and through.

He told me about his home outside of Boulder, where his daughters raise and show chickens and goats. I was pleased to learn that each year he takes his law clerks to the National Western Stock Show in Denver, one of the Nation's largest rodeos. By now, I think we have all seen the picture of him fly fishing with Judge Scalia. While all this demonstrates how much he has embraced the western lifestyle, what makes Judge Gorsuch a true westerner is more than just where he lives or where his personal interests are. Judge Gorsuch's western values are evident in his jurisprudence, which reflects a strong commitment to public service. Arizona has had its share of distinguished public servants. In fact, it was from this very desk that the late Barry Goldwater, one of Arizona's favorite sons, steered the public policy debate

for years after he chose to leave a successful career in the private sector. Judge Gorsuch's career reflects the same ethos.

Early on, a young Neil Gorsuch rocketed to the top of the legal profession, becoming a partner in one of Washington's most elite law firms. But instead of enjoying the comforts of a lucrative private sector career, he left it all behind for a high-responsibility, low- profile job at the Department of Justice.

After his time at DOJ, Neil Gorsuch could have easily retired or returned to a white-shoe legal practice. Instead, he returned to his home State of Colorado to serve as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. Throughout his tenure on the Federal bench, Judge Gorsuch's western disposition has shone through in his jurisprudence.

I have already spoken of his skepticism toward the administrative state, with its executive bureaucracies, which, he cautions, ``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.''

He shares a healthy skepticism over an overly intrusive and heavy- handed bureaucracy with millions of his Federal westerners. Judge Gorsuch recognizes how Federal regulations interfere with the ability of Western States to govern themselves, whether it is a former administration's Clean Power Plan, its ozone rules, or even management of the Mexican gray wolf.

In numerous opinions, Judge Gorsuch has given voice to many of the frustrations experienced by his western neighbors. From his criticism of an overly assertive DC court that often feels compelled to intervene from 2,000 miles away to his recognition of excessive litigation that arises from the complexities of split-estate property rights out West, he speaks our language.

These are perspectives any westerner is familiar with, but they may not be obvious to others, including folks from New York and New Jersey. If confirmed, Judge Gorsuch will already bring generational and religious diversity to the Court. Perhaps more than anything, it will be his western perspective that most enriches the debate in the years to come.

As I have said before, Judge Gorsuch deserves fair consideration by those who serve in this body, and he deserves an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor. He should be confirmed overwhelmingly, and I am confident that he will be.

Joining us on the floor today are several members of the Senate from Western States. I see that the Senator from Wyoming has joined us. I think he has some thoughts about Neil Gorsuch and his nomination to the Court.

Will the Senator yield?

You point out the sensitivities that you have when you come from the West. A lot of it has to do with, if you are in a rural area in particular, you are--as my family grew up--working on the land. Much of that land is either owned by or controlled by the Federal Government, the State government, or Tribal governments in Arizona's case. In fact, 85 percent of the State of Arizona is publicly owned. So when you live in the West and you work the land on a ranch or farm, you are dealing specifically with Federal regulators and Federal property managers. I think those who were raised in the West and have lived here understand the impact of the Federal Government's decisions. The administrative state has an outsized impact on those who live in the West, and I think that is evident in the jurisprudence you see from Judge Gorsuch.

How much of Wyoming is publicly owned?

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

Mr. President, within a matter of days, our national debt will top $20 trillion, notching another ominous milestone in our Nation's long-running addiction to spending. How did we get here?

A decade ago, taxpayers learned that many of their elected representatives were complicit in an insidious practice that rotted the legislative branch to its core, and that is congressional earmarking. Called a ``gateway drug'' by our distinguished former colleague from Oklahoma, Senator Tom Coburn, earmarks have long exacerbated the Federal Government's spending addiction.

As old as the Republic, earmarks have always been used by generations of politicians as currency to curry favor with well-connected special interests. After public outrage reached a critical mass, both the House and the Senate instituted bans on earmarking, ending what had been a corrupt pay-to-play culture in Congress.

In order to preserve this important check against the corrupting influence of earmarks, I recently sent a letter to President Donald Trump respectfully urging him to veto any legislation containing earmarks that reaches his desk. I thank my colleagues, Senators John McCain, Mike Lee, Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, and Ben Sasse, for cosigning this letter.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the following letter.

To explain the urgency behind my letter to the President, I wish to remind my colleagues in this body, many of whom were not in the Congress before enactment of the moratorium, just how bad the earmarking epidemic became.

For the uninitiated, the term ``earmark'' is a euphemism for when lawmakers work to circumvent the regular, normal appropriations process in order to secure special funding for projects in their home districts or their States. This resulted in Federal tax dollars being doled out to Members of Congress on a whim, bypassing normal rigorous Federal and public vetting.

Instead of focusing on oversight responsibilities or devising legislative solutions for the Nation's most pressing challenges, lawmakers and staffers devoted thousands of man-hours toward filling earmark requests. Congressional appropriators and appropriations committees transformed into what were termed ``favor factories,'' abandoning oversight responsibilities to focus on rationing out pork. To me, that was one of the most insidious parts of the whole earmarking era.

We have oversight responsibilities in Congress. There is a huge Federal budget on which we should be providing oversight, but instead of poring over agency spending and searching for waste in our trillion- dollar discretionary budget, Members and staff devoted countless hours to roughly 2 or 3 percent of the Federal budget. There was so much focus on just doling out what represented 1 or 2 or 3 percent of the Federal budget that we basically neglected the rest of the Federal budget in terms of oversight.

In less than 20 years, the number of earmarks in the Transportation bill alone grew from 152 to 6,300. President Reagan, I believe, in 1988 famously said that he vetoed the highway bill because he hadn't seen that much pork since he handed out ribbons at the county fair. There were 152 earmarks in the Transportation bill that year, and by 2005 it was 6,300. That is an increase of more than 4,000 percent.

Examples of earmarks range from a quarter billion dollars for a bridge to nowhere in Alaska--everybody became familiar with that one; $50 million for an indoor rainforest in Iowa, paid for by taxpayers across the country; and half a million dollars for a teapot museum in North Carolina. All of these earmarks added up, eventually totaling about $29 billion a year.

It was in this environment that, along with a small group of like- minded colleagues, I set out to put an end to this form of transactional politics that had infected the Halls of Congress. Our mission was to place a permanent moratorium on congressional earmarks.

It took unprecedented revelations of widespread corruption and illegality and ultimately the jailing of lawmakers, staffers, and lobbyists before the public's outrage forced Congress to clean up its act. But even brazen instances of public corruption didn't stop Congress from dragging its feet on reforms, and the majority party, my party, paid the price at the polls in 2006.

The dominant mood of the electorate at that time--that of mistrust in government institutions--is strikingly reminiscent of the drain-the- swamp mentality that permeated last November's election. But despite this surging anti-insider sentiment across the ideological spectrum, there is now a chorus of lawmakers from both sides of the aisle working behind the scenes to lift the congressional earmark moratorium. These earmark defenders will trot out arguments ranging from constitutional prerogative to the insignificance of earmarks relative to the entire Federal budget. They will say: It is OK to earmark. We are only earmarking 1 percent of the Federal budget.

But all of these defenses ring hollow. The constitutional power of the purse is not a blanket mandate for Congress to spend freely; rather, it is a fundamental duty to prevent the executive branch from wasting taxpayer dollars. By using earmarks to funnel billions of dollars to special interests, Congress ceases to be a check on the executive branch. We have become no better than the free-spending bureaucrats whom we rail against.

While we were ultimately successful in securing earmark bans in both the House and the Senate, today we are seeing far too many cracks in those foundations. With so many in Congress now willing to sacrifice fiscal discipline, we have to remain vigilant against the return to business as usual. We can't afford to forfeit the hard-fought progress we have made.

The Senate Republican conference's vote earlier this year to preserve the earmark ban was an important step in the right direction, but we need to do more. That is why I sent the letter to President Trump, and it is why, should earmarks return, I intend to challenge each one of them on the Senate floor. Just as I did in my time in the House, I will file amendments to force debate and force votes on these earmarks. That way, Members can publicly defend their earmarks to the hard-working taxpayers they represent.

As we look forward to the future, I have been encouraged by the President's recognition of Washington's addiction to spending and his administration's commitment to finally doing something about it. I look forward to working with the administration to make the Federal Government leaner, more transparent, and more accountable to the taxpayers it serves.

Border Adjustment Tax

Mr. President, I take the floor today to express my concern with the border adjustment tax. The border adjustment tax is quickly becoming the centerpiece of a planned overhaul of our tax and trade policies. I am certain that I am not the only one hearing that this approach could make everyday consumer products more expensive at the very places middle-class families shop the most. From the aisles at big-box stores to the checkout lines in grocery stores, household staples could be pushed out of reach for those who can least afford it.

In addition, there are concerns that this new policy could disrupt global supply chains and make it harder for our country's largest private sector employers to grow and to do business.

There are those who suggest that the known downsides to the new tax will be a wash because the U.S. dollar will be stronger; however, others are not so comfortable gambling the purchasing power of the average consumer on the unpredictability of international currency markets.

At first glance, the plan seems simple enough: Tax companies in the United States less and tax goods made overseas more. That seems simple. According to supporters, this would boost our exports, incentivize companies to locate operations here in the United States, and it would reduce our trade deficit. Unfortunately, it turns out that is not so easy. Looking inward, we simply do not produce everything we need here in the United States. That is why we trade with other countries in the first place. And for the things we do make here, those products often require inputs from all over the world. In fact, whether it is raw material or specialty parts, roughly 50 percent of our Nation's imports consist of inputs for U.S. production and manufacturing. Let me say that again. Roughly 50 percent of our Nation's imports consist of inputs for U.S. production and manufacturing, many times for products that are then shipped overseas.

Because of our trade deals with other nations, these inputs are cheaper than they would be otherwise. Cheaper inputs mean lower production costs for U.S.-based businesses, which in turn allows these companies to expand production and to reduce prices.

What will happen if we place a 20-percent tax on all imports? Looking beyond our borders, we should also consider the reaction such a tax is sure to trigger amongst our trading partners. If the protectionist trade policies of the past have taught us anything, it is that countries tend to retaliate when they believe trade obligations have been violated. When we increase barriers to trade, nobody wins.

Do I agree that we should work to make U.S. businesses more competitive? Absolutely. Do I agree that we need to reform our Tax Code? You bet. Tax reform and pro-growth trade policies have been at the top of my list of priorities throughout my tenure in Congress.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to lower corporate and individual tax rates, eliminate costly tax earmarks, and make our Tax Code flatter, simpler, and more conducive to growth. There will always be winners and losers in a robust debate on reforming the Tax Code. We ought to make sure the middle class isn't in the losing column.

I yield back the remainder of my time.

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

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

Mr. President, I rise with a heavy heart to mark the passing of a pillar of the Arizona law enforcement community. When people think of the Old West, they often picture a Stetson-wearing lawman sitting astride his horse, keeping watch over his community.

For generations of residents in Southwestern Arizona, that lawman was Yuma County Sheriff Ralph Ogden. With his towering frame and trademark mustache, Sheriff Ogden looked every bit the part. Despite having an imposing physical presence, Sheriff Ogden was a kind, compassionate man, beloved by his deputies and celebrated by his community.

After 4 years of distinguished service in the U.S. Marine Corps, Ralph Ogden began his 42-year law enforcement career as a dispatcher and a jailer in Parker, AZ. A dedicated public servant, he would eventually serve as chief deputy for 12 years. Ralph would go on to be elected to five consecutive terms as sheriff, with his 20-year tenure the longest ever in Yuma county history.

Sheriff Ogden always understood the importance of getting to know the community he served. He encouraged his employees to get involved in charities, religious groups, and service organizations. He valued teamwork. He recognized that no one can succeed on

their own. This philosophy of always having some other person's back was something he carried with him throughout his time in the sheriff's office, and it was reflected in the way he treated those around him.

I was fortunate to get to know Ralph over the last few years and learned a lot of what I know about the border and about law enforcement from that great man.

Sheriff Ogden was known to write personal birthday and anniversary cards for each of his employees, just to show that he valued their service and their friendship and to show they were important to him.

When asked about the benefits of serving law enforcement, Sheriff Ogden said that when you go home tired and beat after a long day, you sleep well knowing that you did some good. Sheriff Ralph Ogden did a lot of good. I know he is resting well.

I yield back my time.

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

Mr. President, with a heavy heart I wish to mark the passing of a pillar of the Arizona law enforcement community.

When people think of the Old West, they often picture a Stetson- wearing lawman sitting astride his horse, keeping watch over his community.

For generations of residents in southwestern Arizona, that lawman was Yuma County Sheriff Ralph Ogden.

With his towering frame and trademark mustache, Sheriff Ogden looked every bit the part.

Despite his imposing physical presence, Sheriff Ogden was a kind, compassionate man, beloved by his deputies and celebrated by his community.

After 4 years of distinguished service in the U.S. Marine Corps, Ralph Ogden began his 42-year law enforcement career as a dispatcher and jailer in Parker, AZ.

A dedicated public servant, he would eventually serve as chief deputy for 12 years.

Ralph would go on to be elected to five consecutive terms as sheriff, with

his 20-year tenure the longest in Yuma County history.

Sheriff Ogden always understood the importance of getting to know the community he served and encouraged his employees to get involved in charities, religious groups, and service organizations.

He valued teamwork and recognized that no one can succeed on their own.

This philosophy of always having each other's back was something he carried with him throughout his time with the sheriff's office, and it was reflected in the way he treated those around him.

Sheriff Ogden was known to write personal birthday and anniversary cards for each of his employees, just to show that he valued their service and friendship and that they were important to him.

When asked about the benefits of serving in law enforcement, Sheriff Ogden said that, when you go home tired and beat after a long day, you sleep well knowing you did some good.

Sheriff Ralph Ogden did a lot of good, and I know he is resting well.

Mr. President, as I did last week and as I will continue to do until he is confirmed, I rise to support the nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch to serve on the Supreme Court. Judge Gorsuch is an accomplished, mainstream jurist. I look forward to helping make sure he receives an up-or-down vote here on the Senate floor.

After meeting with Judge Gorsuch and learning more about his judicial philosophy, I continue to be impressed by his humble respect for the law and by his commitment to service.

Before the Judiciary Committee begins our hearings, I want to highlight aspects of his jurisprudence that qualify him to serve on our Nation's highest Court and make him an ideal candidate to fill such a consequential position.

Earlier this month I spoke about his fitness to fill Justice Scalia's seat, as well as his respect for the separation of powers. Today I would like to focus on his approach to religious freedom.

I have always supported religious freedom as a universal principle. It doesn't matter if we are defending our own First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion here at home or standing up for the religious freedoms of people under repressive regimes abroad, our country has always valued the right of individuals to practice their faith as they please.

Just as religious freedom is part of our national character, it also provides insight into the character and judicial philosophy of a prospective justice. When I had the privilege of meeting with Judge Gorsuch last week, I asked him about his thoughts on religious freedom. I was struck by his ability to plainly articulate his understanding of the law and the Constitution. He explained his religious liberty opinions by telling me that he simply went ``where the law led him.'' His explanation was indicative of his fundamental approach to interpreting the law. Judge Gorsuch doesn't make the law; he follows the law. He reads the Constitution as the Framers understood it. He interprets laws the way they were written.

Lately, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have been vocal about the importance of respecting our independent judiciary. I couldn't agree more. They have decried the perils of discriminating on the basis of religious belief. Well, they are in luck. The Supreme Court nominee before us would be a staunch defender of independent courts and religious freedom. All they have to do is help us confirm him.

I don't blame them for wanting to do their homework on a Supreme Court nominee. They should, as should we all. They will find that studying Judge Gorsuch's record will make for enjoyable reading.

On the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, Judge Gorsuch has authored a number of judicial opinions respecting the fundamental principles of religious liberty. His most notable was a concurring opinion in the Hobby Lobby case. In this landmark legal case interpreting the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Judge Gorsuch ruled that the Federal Government cannot force individuals to assist in conduct that violates their deeply held religious convictions. I note that this law used to be noncontroversial. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act was introduced by Senators Ted Kennedy and then Congressman Chuck Schumer. It was passed almost unanimously in 1993 and signed into law by President Bill Clinton.

In his concurrence, Judge Gorsuch wrote: ``The [Religious Freedom Restoration Act] doesn't just apply to protect popular religious beliefs: it does perhaps its most important work in protecting unpopular religious beliefs, vindicating this nation's long-held aspiration to serve as a refuge of religious tolerance.''

Religious tolerance--that is what our country stands for, and that is what Judge Gorsuch stands for. Judge Gorsuch's position was later vindicated by the Supreme Court. The Court agreed that it is the government's job to protect an individual's ability to practice their religion, not to instruct them on how to practice their religion.

In closing, let me reiterate that I believe Judge Gorsuch is a mainstream jurist who will uphold the Constitution to ensure justice for all, regardless of an individual's religious beliefs or which administration is in power. As someone who embraces religious freedom, it is a privilege to support and confirm a judge like Neil Gorsuch, who respects this central constitutional principle. As I have said before, and I will say again, Judge Gorsuch deserves fair consideration by those who serve in this body, and he deserves an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor. He should be confirmed overwhelmingly, and I am confident he will be.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, as I did last week, I rise again to support the nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch to serve on the Supreme Court. As we know, he is an accomplished, mainstream jurist, and he is a worthy successor to Justice Antonin Scalia. I look forward to seeing him receive an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor. I truly hope that happens.

After meeting with Judge Gorsuch and learning more about his judicial philosophy, I continue to be impressed by his humble respect for the law and his commitment to service. Before the hearings in the Judiciary Committee, I wanted to take the opportunity to highlight one aspect of his jurisprudence that I find particularly important: the separation of powers.

To hear some of our friends on the other side of the aisle, Judge Gorsuch represents two equal yet opposing dangers to the country. First, they warn that he will lack any independence of thought or commitment to the Constitution. They allege that he would serve merely as a rubberstamp for President Trump and his agenda.

In the same breath, though, they claim he would engage in unprecedented judicial oversight of the Federal executive agencies. In other words, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle assert that Judge Gorsuch would be both too deferential to Federal agencies and not deferential enough.

The truth is, these warnings and accusations are entirely unfounded, and they appear to be grounded more in political calculations than in honest concern. For my part, I am excited about the prospect of confirming a Justice who not only represents the separation of powers but reveres it as one of the central principles of the Constitution.

A commitment to our constitutional separation of powers could not come at a more crucial time, as executive branch agencies have increasingly accumulated power and autonomy over the years. Both the Congress and the Federal judiciary bear responsibility for this.

Legislatively, Congress simply cedes too much of its own lawmaking power to the executive branch. We have been doing that for years. These agencies have been legislating through Federal regulation. In turn, Congress has allowed unelected bureaucrats to create law and determine how that law should be implemented.

We have to stop this erosion of our article I power. Congress needs to take ownership of its lawmaking authority and reverse this dangerous trend toward governance by executive fiat. That is only part of the equation. The Federal judiciary needs to use its constitutional prerogative to rein in the executive branch.

Ever since the 1980s, Federal courts have grown far too deferential to executive agencies. Under a doctrine known as Chevron deference, the courts defer to agency decisions if it makes ``reasonable'' regulations based on ``vague'' statutes.

In fact, this means that when the Federal courts consider an agency decision, the judges have a new catchphrase: ``The agency is always right.'' This should concern my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who voiced strong concerns about rubberstamping.

I don't think the Founders ever intended for two constitutional branches of our Federal Government to voluntarily cede the power to the third. Importantly, neither does Judge Gorsuch. Judge Gorsuch has written extensively both about delegation and deference in his role as judge on the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals.

He addressed the issue of delegation in a recent case called Caring Hearts Personal Home Services, Inc. v. Burwell. In it, he noted:

Executive agencies today are permitted not only to enforce

legislation, but to revise

and reshape it through exercise of so-called ``delegated''

legislative authority.

He continued:

The number of formal rules these agencies have issued,

thanks to their delegated legislative authority, has grown so

exuberantly, it's hard to keep up. The Code of Federal

Regulations now clocks in at over 175,000 pages.

He noted that delegation presents both separation of powers problems and due process problems. The reason is simple. The executive is doing the work of the legislature.

In terms of due process, Judge Gorsuch wondered ``whether and how people can be fairly expected to keep pace with and conform their conduct to all this churning and changing `law.' ''

He further questioned: ``What happens if we reach the point where even these legitimate legislating agencies don't know what their own `law' is?''

Judge Gorsuch could not be more correct. With tens of thousands of pages published in the Federal Register every year, it is fair to wonder how any agency can be certain of the legal effect of its own rules. If the agencies that write these laws can't keep track of them, how can a small business owner in Arizona be expected to comply with the litany of ever-changing rules written by unelected bureaucrats?

Judge Gorsuch has also discussed the problem of deference and explained the proper relationship between Federal agencies and the judiciary. In his concurring opinion, in Gutierrez-Brizuela v. Lynch, Judge Gorsuch explained:

In enlightenment theory and hard won experience under a

tyrannical king, the founders found proof of the wisdom of a

government of separated powers.

He continued:

The founders considered the separation of powers a vital

guard against governmental encroachment on the people's

liberties, including all those later enumerated in the Bill

of Rights.

Judge Gorsuch found Chevron deference inconsistent with this constitutional framework, which he called ``no less than a judge-made doctrine for the abdication of the judicial duty.''

He concluded:

We managed to live with the administrative state before

Chevron. We could do it again. Put simply, it seems to me

that in a world without Chevron, very little would change--

except perhaps the most important things.

The separation of powers is the most important feature of our constitutional system of government. When each branch of government serves as a check on the other, it fosters a more deliberative, judicious, and limited form of governance. As someone who embraces limited government, it is a privilege to support and confirm a judge like Neil Gorsuch who supports this philosophy.

As I have said before, and I will say again, Judge Gorsuch deserves fair consideration by those who serve in this body, and he deserves an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor. When he receives that vote, he will be confirmed overwhelmingly.

I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, I want to speak for a couple of minutes about the Supreme Court.

A year ago, we lost one of the greatest legal minds to ever serve on the Nation's highest Court. For nearly three decades, Justice Antonin Scalia fought for individual liberty and defended the integrity of the Constitution.

No Justice in recent memory has so fundamentally influenced the trajectory of the Supreme Court. From his landmark decision that protected our Second Amendment right to bear arms to his staunch defense of limited government and enumerated powers, Justice Scalia stood as a bulwark against any erosion of our constitutional rights by an activist judiciary. He did this with his unshakable commitment to an originalist interpretation of the Constitution. Through this lens, he did not read words that were not there or infer intent that did not exist. Instead, Justice Scalia simply understood the Constitution, as the Founders understood it.

Judge Scalia's passing marked a watershed moment for the future of our country. Suddenly, in the midst of the last Presidential campaign, voters were empowered to determine the philosophical balance of the Supreme Court at the polls. By entrusting Republicans with the stewardship of our Federal Government, voters signaled their desire for change and for the values that our party embraces. From strong separation of powers to a commitment to federalism, to religious freedom, people in Arizona and around the country wanted to restore these foundational principles. Now, President Trump's nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court will help usher in that change and solidify those values on the Court for a generation to come.

Earlier this week, I had the opportunity to attend the ceremony at the White House and listen to Judge Gorsuch accept his nomination. I was impressed by his humble respect for the law and for his commitment to service. I was particularly struck by his recognition that ``it is for Congress, not the courts, to write new laws'' and that a Justice should make decisions based on what the law demands, not the outcome that he or she desires.

I also appreciate his experience as an appellate court judge. This experience has given him a firm understanding of a properly functioning Federal circuit. As someone who has tried to reform an oversized and overworked Ninth Circuit, I really appreciate that insight.

Judge Gorsuch is an accomplished, mainstream jurist with a judicial philosophy worthy of Judge Scalia's seat. We can be confident that he will read the law as written and not attempt to legislate from the bench, but if we allow rigid partisan and ideological calculus to seep into our confirmation process, I fear that no President will ever be able to get a Cabinet or Supreme Court pick confirmed.

A favorite line of our former President is that ``elections have consequences.'' Indeed, they do. Like it or not, the winning party governs. That is democracy, and we have a responsibility now to govern.

My hope is a return to the longstanding traditions of bipartisan cooperation on this Supreme Court nomination. Judge Gorsuch is experienced. He is qualified, and he deserves a fair hearing. He deserves an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor. I am confident that when he receives that up-or-down vote, he will fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court.

I yield back.

Mr. President, one of the most important elements of the rule of law is the promise of swift access to the courts, but that promise has been broken in my home State of Arizona. That is because Arizona falls under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, a circuit that is both oversized and overworked.

With the jurisdiction encompassing 13 districts spread across nine States and 2 U.S. territories, the Ninth Circuit covers 1 in 5 Americans. It hears roughly 12,000 appeals each year. The next busiest circuit doesn't even hear 9,000, and for the thousands of cases under its consideration, the average turnaround time exceeds 15 months.

Now, if excessive delays weren't bad enough, it turns out the Ninth Circuit is overturned by the Supreme Court 77 percent of the time when the Supreme Court grants cert--77 percent of the time. That is obviously higher than any other court. So not only is the court excruciatingly slow, but in many instances it is simply wrong.

The court, itself, is unusually large. It has 29 authorized judgeships. That is 12 more than the next largest circuit.

The Ninth Circuit is so big that it can't even rehear cases as a whole body, like every other appeals court does. Instead, cases are reheard with limited en banc; these are panels of 11 judges each. That means that only one-third of its judges are deciding law for the entire court--only one-third.

Of the States suffering under the weight of the Ninth Circuit's crushing backlog, Arizona shoulders a uniquely heavy burden. Per capita, Arizona has the busiest Federal docket in the circuit. That puts Arizonans at the back of an already long line just to get their day in court.

As if the deluge of cases continues to fill the Ninth Circuit's docket, the line keeps getting longer and longer if you happen to live in Arizona.

With problems like these, we are left to ask: Is the Ninth Circuit simply too big to succeed? If you are an Arizonan, the answer is unquestionably yes.

Arizonans deserve better, and that is why today I am introducing a bill to break up the Ninth Circuit.

With the support of my colleague from Arizona, John McCain, and the support of Gov. Doug Ducey, I have introduced the Judicial Administration and Improvement Act. This bill would create a new Twelfth Circuit by moving Arizona, as well as Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, and Washington, out of the Ninth Circuit. Doing so would create two smaller appellate courts where one dysfunctional court stood, all the while establishing stronger local, regional, and cultural ties. This would help alleviate the Ninth Circuit's enormous caseload and ensure a more timely and accurate judicial process for both circuits.

Now, importantly, the bill would also free the new circuit from the Ninth Circuit's precedent. That means States like Arizona would be able to chart their own legal course, consistent with their local needs and traditions.

A fair and functioning judiciary is one of the pillars of our democracy. Geography shouldn't limit a citizen's access to the courts.

The Judicial Administration and Improvement Act will right this wrong by restoring faith in our judicial system and securing the access to Justice that Americans deserve.

Mr. President, one of the most important elements of the rule of law is the promise of swift access to the courts, but that promise has been broken in my home State of Arizona. That is because Arizona falls under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, a circuit that is both oversized and overworked.

With the jurisdiction encompassing 13 districts spread across nine States and 2 U.S. territories, the Ninth Circuit covers 1 in 5 Americans. It hears roughly 12,000 appeals each year. The next busiest circuit doesn't even hear 9,000, and for the thousands of cases under its consideration, the average turnaround time exceeds 15 months.

Now, if excessive delays weren't bad enough, it turns out the Ninth Circuit is overturned by the Supreme Court 77 percent of the time when the Supreme Court grants cert--77 percent of the time. That is obviously higher than any other court. So not only is the court excruciatingly slow, but in many instances it is simply wrong.

The court, itself, is unusually large. It has 29 authorized judgeships. That is 12 more than the next largest circuit.

The Ninth Circuit is so big that it can't even rehear cases as a whole body, like every other appeals court does. Instead, cases are reheard with limited en banc; these are panels of 11 judges each. That means that only one-third of its judges are deciding law for the entire court--only one-third.

Of the States suffering under the weight of the Ninth Circuit's crushing backlog, Arizona shoulders a uniquely heavy burden. Per capita, Arizona has the busiest Federal docket in the circuit. That puts Arizonans at the back of an already long line just to get their day in court.

As if the deluge of cases continues to fill the Ninth Circuit's docket, the line keeps getting longer and longer if you happen to live in Arizona.

With problems like these, we are left to ask: Is the Ninth Circuit simply too big to succeed? If you are an Arizonan, the answer is unquestionably yes.

Arizonans deserve better, and that is why today I am introducing a bill to break up the Ninth Circuit.

With the support of my colleague from Arizona, John McCain, and the support of Gov. Doug Ducey, I have introduced the Judicial Administration and Improvement Act. This bill would create a new Twelfth Circuit by moving Arizona, as well as Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, and Washington, out of the Ninth Circuit. Doing so would create two smaller appellate courts where one dysfunctional court stood, all the while establishing stronger local, regional, and cultural ties. This would help alleviate the Ninth Circuit's enormous caseload and ensure a more timely and accurate judicial process for both circuits.

Now, importantly, the bill would also free the new circuit from the Ninth Circuit's precedent. That means States like Arizona would be able to chart their own legal course, consistent with their local needs and traditions.

A fair and functioning judiciary is one of the pillars of our democracy. Geography shouldn't limit a citizen's access to the courts.

The Judicial Administration and Improvement Act will right this wrong by restoring faith in our judicial system and securing the access to Justice that Americans deserve.

Mr. President, the Senate is about to adjourn.

Under the standing order, we will convene at 12 noon tomorrow. Following the prayer and pledge, we will proceed to the consideration of the Chao nomination under the previous order. Following disposition of the Chao nomination, we will continue consideration of the Tillerson nomination postcloture.