Floor Statements

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, I rise today in support of Jay Clayton, who has been nominated to serve on the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. In the interest of time, I will save my longer remarks for later.

As demonstrated at the Banking Committee's nomination hearing, Mr. Clayton is eminently qualified to serve on the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, or the SEC.

He impressed both Republicans and Democrats and was voted out of committee on a bipartisan vote of 15 to 8. His extensive expertise and experience in our financial markets will be a benefit to the Commission and to the American people.

His testimony about the need to make our capital markets more attractive, which would rejuvenate their ability to invest in the United States and grow and create jobs, was well received. Additionally, he pledged to members of this committee and to the American people that he will show no favoritism to anyone.

While some have raised issues about his previous work potentially creating conflicts, Mr. Clayton is not new in this regard, nor will he be any less vigilant to ensure that he acts appropriately and ethically.

I will be supporting his nomination and look forward to having him at the SEC, where he can help protect and promote the success of our security markets and our investors.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, my colleague Senator Jim Risch joins me today in honoring Mountain Home Air Force Base both on its 75-year anniversary and the 366th Fighter Wing of Mountain Home Air Force Base on its 50-year anniversary of being recognized as the ``Gunfighters.''

According to historical accounts from Mountain Home Air Force Base, the 366th Fighter Wing's roots trace back much further than 50 years, all the way to the activation of the 366th Fighter Group in 1943. The fighter group participated in action over France, ground support in the Normandy invasion, air attacks near St. Lo, France, and attacks and reconnaissance in the Battle of the Bulge. Following World War II, the fighter group went through deactivations, reactivations, redesignations, and base reassignments before earning its nickname, the ``Gunfighters,'' in the 1960s, for its weapons innovation and effectiveness in accomplishing its missions in Vietnam. The wing became renowned as the Gunfighters after it mounted Gatling gun pods on its aircraft wings to improve short-range capabilities in battling enemy aircraft over Vietnam. The Gunfighters' effectiveness was recognized with a Presidential unit citation. The tenacity and ingenuity at the heart of the wing and its earning its Gunfighters moniker is an attribute we celebrate today.

While both the fighter wing and Mountain Home Air Force Base started taking shape in 1943, it was not until 1972 that the two combined when the then-366th Tactical Fighter Wing, later redesignated the 366th Fighter Wing, moved from Vietnam to its current location at Mountain Home Air Force Base. Mountain Home Air Force Base reports that the base first opened on August 7, 1943. The base has since been home to many of our Nation's outstanding servicemembers, including the men and women of the 366th Fighter Wing. From accommodating the training of crews for a variety of aircraft to supporting combat, covert, and special operations missions, the base has a long history of remarkable contributions to defending Americans and allies both at home and all around the world. As part of its more recent service, Mountain Home Air Force Base has provided personnel and equipment to support efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as throughout Southwest Asia.

The approximately 3,500 military and civilian members and 4,300 family members of the 366th Fighter Wing and Mountain Home Air Force Base have an extensive record of excellence. In 2015 and 2016, the 366th Fighter Wing received the Air Force Outstanding Unit Award, adding to a long list of accomplishments of the men and women of Mountain Home Air Force Base. The families of the 366th Fighter Wing and Mountain Home Air Force Base represent a lasting tradition of distinction in meeting our Nation's call to service. As we celebrate the significant milestones of the Mountain Home Air Force Base and 366th Fighter Wing, we also honor the exceptional dedication inherent in those who serve and the families who support their service.

Congratulations, Gunfighters and all those who support Mountain Home Air Force Base, on your decades of achievements and extraordinary service.

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

Mr. President, 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 rise today to speak about the President's nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch to serve as Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Whenever great issues like the future of our Nation's highest Court come before the Senate, it is easy to get lost in the noise and the hyperbole. Listening to the commentary about Judge Gorsuch, I have found it instructive to ask whether critics have actually met him and listened to his philosophy of jurisprudence.

I have met him, and it is easy to guess that those who oppose him likely have not spoken to him, watched the hearings, or read any of the glowing testimonials from across the political spectrum. The invectives thrown at Judge Gorsuch seem really to be about something else entirely--about anger at the President, disappointment with the election outcome, or concern about holding certain hotly debated topics of the day. It appears that critics could substitute almost any name for Judge Gorsuch in their statements and give them with the same passion and the same concern.

That is too bad because Judge Gorsuch has been consistently regarded by his peers as pragmatic and among the most gifted legal minds on the Federal bench. The man is intelligent, courteous, and modest. He seeks readily the views of those around him. His approach will be a constructive addition to the U.S. Supreme Court and of benefit to our Nation. His judicial record as a Federal judge flows exactly from what he says, and his message and focus is abundantly clear: judicial modesty and fidelity to the law.

When our representative government was established in the United States, a heated debate emerged about the purposes and powers of our new Federal institutions. The Founders of our country understood that a system in which lawmaking was detached from accountability was the quickest path to despotism. A coequal judiciary could help temper tyranny and balance the powers of an executive and a legislature stepping over their constitutional powers. The phrase is ``checks and balances'' not ``usurpation.''

Alexander Hamilton, who has received much recently renewed attention, wrote at length about the newly imagined judicial branch of our government. In Federalist 78, Hamilton wrote that the judicial branch ``may truly be said to have neither force nor will, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.''

To the Founders, the division of responsibilities between the three branches of government was clear: Congress would make the laws. The executive would implement them. The judiciary would review the laws for their legality and consistency with the Constitution. Further, the independence of the judiciary would be enhanced through their distinctive selection process, so they could do their jobs without succumbing to swings in popular opinion. Put succinctly by Chief Justice Roberts during his confirmation hearings, a judge's proper role is ``to call balls and strikes.''

In his testimonial to the late Justice Antonin Scalia, Judge Gorsuch emphasized the importance of an independent judiciary. He writes:

Judges should . . . strive to apply the law as it is,

focusing backward, not forward, and looking to the text,

structure, and history . . . not decide cases on their own

moral convictions.

Judges ``take an oath to uphold'' the Constitution, not ``merely consider it.'' It is their duty to follow the law.

Jurisprudence is not supposed to be the popular arts. Judges are not vessels for moral causes. Judge Gorsuch repeats Justice Scalia's words:

[I]f you're going to be a good and faithful judge, you have

to resign yourself to the fact that you're not always going

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

time, you're probably doing something wrong.

Further, Judge Gorsuch states that rulings made in an attempt to optimize social utility introduces a question of moral relativism.

In criminal cases, for example, we often hear arguments

from the government that its view would promote public

security or finality. Meanwhile, the defense often tells us

that its view would promote personal liberty or procedural

fairness. How is a judge supposed to weigh or rank these very

different social goods?

The answer lies in the common points of reference for all judges, be they conservatives or progressives--the written law. Reading the law is difficult enough without introducing the element of uncertainty. Court- shopping for a pliant judge who will interpret the law the way a litigant believes it should read can be destructive to public confidence in the legal system.

In our democracy, the public expresses its will at the ballot box and empowers its duly-elected officials with the duty to advance that will. Changes in public attitudes can come quickly, and that can be reflected in the results of elections.

Congress is the body most closely connected to the American public because its accountability is directly to the people.

Some observers want judges to be legislators, discarding the black robes for populist impulses. But our system of checks and balances is predicated on the fact that change comes deliberately and incrementally, notwithstanding the wild swings in public mood.

The pace of change can understandably frustrate. However, congressional action is the spirit of the American electorate, exercised with its unique combination of majority rule, minority rights, and compromise. The imperfect caldron of the legislative process is how change happens carefully, purposefully, and properly.

Unfortunately, impatience can drive people to try to circumvent the constitutional power of Congress. The tendency of some to race to a courthouse, bypassing the will of the people expressed through Congress, to compel change is inherently destabilizing to representative government.

Without a direct say in how policy is decided and without the ability to hold people accountable, judges who reimagine the law undermine a fundamental cornerstone of representative democracy. Judges have a great responsibility to carefully exercise their judicial authority within the limits of the law. Judges who exercise independence from anchors of our law are dangerous to our liberties. Judge Gorsuch demonstrates that he clearly understands this concept when he writes:

Legislators may appeal to their own moral convictions and

to claims to reshape the law as they think it should be in

the future. But judges should do none of these things in a

democratic society.

Some jurists treat the Constitution like a speed bump as they hurdle down the road reinventing the law. Substituting ideology for the written law in jurisprudence is the equivalent of changing the law from what it says to what some wish it says.

Neil Gorsuch identified this very problem when he wrote in 2005 that ``the courtroom as the place to debate social policy is bad for the country and bad for the judiciary. In the legislative arena, especially when the country is closely divided, compromises tend to be the rule of the day. But when judges rule this or that policy unconstitutional, there's little room for compromise: One side must win, the other must lose. . . . As a society, we lose the benefit of the give-and-take of the political process and the flexibility of social experimentation that only the elected branches can provide.'' These words reflect a clear understanding of the importance of the separation of powers.

The Federal judiciary should not be a replacement for doing the hard work of persuading the public and enacting policy with accountability to the electorate.

Americans learn civics early in their upbringing. The Constitution guarantees certain civil liberties and restrains the powers of the central government. Our court system has the responsibility to preserve our constitutional rights, ensure a limited government, and provide speedy and fair justice when needed. The judiciary holds the sole constitutional power to interpret laws properly enacted by Congress. This authority is expressly distinct from the power bestowed to the legislature to write laws and the executive to enforce them. This separation of powers plays an important role in the system of checks and balances envisioned by the Founders.

Public confidence in our legal system is undermined when judges seek to reimagine Federal law beyond its clear meaning. Judges who substitute their personal views for the law can shake the public's faith in our legal system as an impartial protector of our rights and an upholder of justice. Judges must follow our Constitution in their decisionmaking and resist this temptation to make policy.

Moreover, without the public sanction of the ballot box, policy changes, particularly controversial ones, naturally divide people. If the judiciary cannot be seen as a neutral arbiter of facts and laws, even more people will see individual judges as ``one of mine'' or ``one of yours.''

The erosion of the humble judiciary began when the Senate confirmation process changed. In recent past, district and circuit court nominees used to be confirmed noncontroversially. Now, instead of looking at the qualifications of the judicial nominee, partisans hope to pre-bake court decisions through the use of litmus tests or demands on nominees to determine in advance what their rulings will be on cases before the matter is even argued to the court. Perhaps this is the logical extension of the overreliance on some to secure social gains they cannot achieve through the democratic process.

Change is hard, and patience is exceedingly rare, but the strongest building blocks to legitimacy are achieved though consensus and the give-and-take of politics.

Writing even before he was overwhelmingly approved by this body for his current seat on the Tenth Circuit, Judge Gorsuch wrote:

[In courts,] ideas are tested only in the abstract world of

legal briefs and lawyers' arguments. As a society, we lose

the benefit of the give-and-take of the political process and

the flexibility of social experimentation that only the

elected branches can provide. At the same time, the

politicalization of the judiciary undermines the only real

asset it has--its independence. Judges come to be seen as

politicians and their confirmations become just an avenue of

political warfare. Respect for the role of judges and the

legitimacy of the judiciary branch as a whole diminishes.

The judiciary's diminishing claim to neutrality and

independence is exemplified by a recent, historic shift in

the Senate's confirmation process. Where trial-court and

appeals-court nominees were once routinely confirmed on voice

vote--

Based on their credentials and their ability to serve--

they are now routinely subjected to ideological litmus tests,

filibusters, and vicious interest-group attacks. It is a

warning sign that our judiciary is losing its legitimacy when

trial and circuit-court judges are viewed and treated as

little more than politicians with robes.

This development puts a severe strain on our Republic. Particularly problematic is the increasing number of split court decisions. Rulings that are given with a one-vote margin further empower litigants to contest decisions, hoping for a more favorable outcome later or in a different court. Setting precedent, though, becomes so much more difficult for the public when a razor-thin decision is accompanied by a dramatic reinterpretation of the law.

One of the hallmarks of the Roberts Court is the drive to establish precedent not by finding the narrowest reading that can achieve a bare majority but its endeavor to ground seminal decisions in large majorities and unanimous findings. Public confidence in the legal system and the finality of the holding is ever greater when we do not see narrow decisions.

The Judiciary Committee just concluded a 4-day review of the nomination of Judge Gorsuch. In addition to hearing from Judge Gorsuch for over 20 hours, the committee received formal testimony from almost 30 outside witnesses. Thousands upon thousands of words were exchanged over the course of the hearing, all in front of the American public. What the people saw is a thoughtful, humble, and brilliant legal mind in the service of the people.

In response to a question of mine on Tuesday, Judge Gorsuch said the following:

I come here with no agenda but one, no promises but one: to

be as good and faithful a judge as I know how to be. That is

it. And I cannot promise or agree or pledge anything more

than that to this Congress.

That statement and the hearing as a whole confirmed Judge Gorsuch to be a man of great integrity, a mainstream, exemplary student of the law whose record shows that he is a part of unanimous decisions. On the Tenth Circuit, of all the decisions he has participated in in the last 10 years, 97 percent of the time, he was a part of a unanimous court, and 99 percent of the time, he was in the majority.

For days, my colleagues from the other side of the aisle raised the possibility that he might have secret intentions to try to subvert the law or shred the Constitution from the bench. They parsed single words for hidden meanings, imagined devious strategies emerging from concurring opinions, and searched for cloaked messages in his published writings.

Judge Gorsuch has over 10 years as a jurist, with 2,700 opinions to review; yet most of the debate was centered on just 4 or 5 cases. Some Senators were absolutely convinced they would find some problem. They did not.

Let's talk about what Judge Gorsuch testified to under oath. Despite repeated efforts to get him to make commitments about how he would rule or how he would reshape social policy, on his first day, he gave no fewer than eight assurances that he follows the law as a judge. By my count, on the second day, he gave at least 36 assurances that he looks to the law for his rulings. On the third day, it was 29 more times that he was asked and again repeated that he would look to the law for his rulings. That is right. He said at least 73 times that he is committed to the law when he hears a case as a sitting Federal judge. Still, several of my colleagues worried that he had a secret agenda to overturn longstanding legal precedence.

Just in case there are some confused, Judge Gorsuch mentioned no fewer than 97 times in these 3 days that he follows precedent as a judge, as he is bound to do. More than 160 times, Judge Gorsuch reminded the Senate and the American public what a proper jurist does: follows the law and the precedent. We even talked about the book he coauthored titled ``The Law of Judicial Precedent''--942 pages of dedication to following precedent. Maybe the title of the book was confusing to some.

During his oral testimony, he said he was dedicated to ``rul[ing] as the law requires,'' ``reading the language of the statute as a `reasonable person' would understand it,'' and ``respect[ing] precedent.''

Just to put all such questions to rest, he assured everyone that he is ``without secret agenda. None.''

In reviewing his record, it is clear that those who come before Judge Gorsuch receive equal treatment under the law. He said:

When I sit on the bench and someone comes to argue before

me, I treat each one of them equally. They do not come as

rich or poor, big guy or little guy. They come as a person.

And I put my ego aside when I put on that robe, and I open my

mind, and I open my heart, and I listen.

In Judge Gorsuch, we have a nominee who lives the American ideal of a modest jurist. He understands that his responsibility is not to suborn the powers of others but to help deliver the powers of justice.

Those who have encountered him as a legal advocate, an adversary in court, or a presiding judge all praise his fundamental fairness and subornation of his personal views.

His respect for the Constitution is not in question. His experience, wisdom, and judgment are not in question. His capability to serve is not in question. Commentators from both the left and the right overwhelmingly respect his legal mind and vouch for his commitment to fair jurisprudence.

Given Judge Gorsuch's judicial philosophy and his record as a judge, he

would be a welcome addition to a Supreme Court seeking cohesive decisions. His record on the Tenth Circuit is strong. Five of six of his decisions that did go to the Supreme Court for a review have been affirmed by the Supreme Court, including one which he wrote, and four out of five on which he joined the decision.

Not many judges have the experience, temperament, and stellar record to match Judge Gorsuch. Fewer still can garner overwhelming endorsement from colleagues, peers, and observers from across the political spectrum.

Some may try to distract from the central point that Judge Gorsuch is extraordinarily qualified and suited to serve as an Associate Justice. Others would like to discuss other issues or make his nomination a proxy fight about tangential matters. My colleagues and I will vote on his nomination, not on these other issues or distractions. I encourage all of us to remember that.

The Senate should be proud to add Judge Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court.

Mr. President, today I wish to honor the life of John Bruce Fery, a friend and mentor.

John's obituary beautifully conveyed a sense of who he was: ``John's journey took him from challenging early years as a latchkey kid with a working mom to remarkable lifetime accomplishments. He loved God, his family, his community, and his country. He loved the outdoors, sunshine, and John Wayne. He had a zest for life and a work ethic that was incomparable, while his commanding presence, charming smile, and quick-witted humor made him adored by family and friends. He was captivated by the joys of family life, the challenges of business, the warmth of friendships, the satisfaction of philanthropic work, and the stories each brought to his life.''

On February 16, 1930, John was born in Bellingham, WA, to Margaret and Carl Fery. John lost his father at a young age, and he and his mother moved to Seattle, where he graduated from Roosevelt High School and attended the University of Washington before serving in the U.S. Navy during the Korean war. He married his wife, Dee, in 1953, and obtained his masters of business administration from Stanford University before his extensive, much respected career in the pulp and paper industry. He led the Boise Cascade Company for more than two decades, taking on the position of president and chief executive officer in 1972 and chairman of the board in 1978. Throughout his 37- year career with the company, he built a legacy of sound judgement and expertise that led to his many honors, awards, and service on multiple boards.

In addition to his esteemed business career, John and Dee have given generously to many philanthropic efforts. His obituary aptly highlights some of their significant contributions to the community: ``Whether attending the new Horsethief Reservoir Y Camp in Cascade, Idaho, learning about Birds of Prey at the World Center, enjoying the Idaho Shakespeare Festival and the park that he and Dee donated, attending Medical School through the WWAMI program which John helped found as a means of training physicians for Idaho, staying at St. Alphonsus Regional Medical Center where John chaired the board and established its Foundation, receiving a grant from the Idaho Community Foundation, which exists today due to John's leadership in its formation and growth, or receiving a scholarship to Boise's Bishop Kelly High School, the University of Idaho, or Stanford, people will have experiences made possible by John and Dee's vison and generosity.''

John was also a dear friend to me. He encouraged me and was instrumental in inspiring my public service. His guidance, advice, and insight are forever etched in my life's path, and I am deeply grateful for the time he took to help shape my service. I extend my deepest sympathies to Dee; their sons, Brent, Bruce, and Michael and their families; and their many other family members, loved ones, and friends. We are bettered for having had John in our lives. He leaves behind an enduring, loving, and joyful legacy.

Mr. President, I stand this morning just before we vote on Dr. Benjamin Carson as the next Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development to strongly urge my colleagues to support his nomination.

Dr. Carson was advanced in the committee by a voice vote, as Senator Brown and I worked with the Banking Committee to assure that his nomination moved through smoothly. I thank Senator Brown for his cooperation and work to help us move this nomination promptly.

Dr. Carson also received numerous letters of support from former HUD Secretaries and housing stakeholders alike. There truly is an excitement for his leadership to be brought to the Department.

As I highlighted yesterday, Dr. Carson has said that once confirmed, he is committed to embarking on a listening tour, where he will hear stories and concerns from housing stakeholders across America. This presents a real opportunity for Americans to weigh in on how housing issues affect them in their local communities--input that can make a lasting impact on HUD policies.

Once Dr. Carson is confirmed, we can begin working on several important issues under HUD's jurisdiction. Homelessness, especially among our Nation's veterans, needs to be addressed. We need to streamline regulatory burdens on local public housing agencies so that they can more efficiently serve the communities that rely on them. Financing arrangements for small and rural affordable housing developments should also be strengthened.

For years, there has been bipartisan interest in a number of these reforms. I look forward to having a strong partner at HUD so that we can tackle these important issues and many others head-on. I am eager to get that process started and to start work with Dr. Carson, with Ranking Member Brown, and

with other members of the Banking Committee on these critical issues.

Again, I urge my colleagues to vote to confirm Dr. Carson so that this important work can begin.

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 yield back all time.

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

Mr. President, it is an honor for me to recommend again Dr. Carson as the Secretary of HUD. Dr. Carson brings a fresh set of eyes to every issue and every problem he faces, and he has an incredible record of success and of achieving outstanding results. We look forward to his bringing that same kind of analytical mind and management to the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

I don't think there is a better pick that could have been made. I urge my colleagues to support this motion to invoke cloture.

I yield the remainder of our time to the Senator from Montana.

Confirmation of Ryan Zinke

Mr. President, it is my understanding that there is no one else who wants to speak on either side. So at this time, I yield back all time on both sides.

Mr. President, I applaud my colleagues for voting in favor of cloture on the nomination of Dr. Benjamin Carson to be the next Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

On January 12, the Senate Banking Committee held its confirmation hearing, and Dr. Carson responded to questions and concerns thoroughly and thoughtfully. Dr. Benjamin Carson was unanimously reported out of the Senate Banking Committee on January 24.

To many Americans, Dr. Carson needs no introduction; however, his impressive resume bears repeating. Dr. Carson was raised by a single mother in an impoverished part of the city of Detroit. He attended Yale University and the University of Michigan Medical School and later became a highly accomplished and respected neurosurgeon. Dr. Carson was named director of pediatric neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins Hospital in 1984, at the age of 33--the youngest such director in the Nation.

He gained national fame in the 1980s by becoming the first doctor to lead an operation that separated twins who were conjoined at the head-- one of many high-profile operations led by Dr. Carson. He also ran for President this past election and spent months traveling the country, listening to the American people about the problems and the issues they face with respect to housing.

During his testimony before our committee, Dr. Carson highlighted his commitment to carrying forth the

mandate of HUD and to learning more from the people who are directly affected by HUD policies. He has also received bipartisan letters of support from four former HUD Secretaries--Henry Cisneros, former Senator Mel Martinez, Alphonso Jackson, and Steven Preston--who served under both Republican and Democratic administrations.

He has said he plans to continue his conversation with the American people and do a listening tour if confirmed. This is an encouraging sign that Dr. Carson wants to hear from stakeholders and, more importantly, from the American people.

There are many HUD issues to be addressed. Once confirmed, we can begin working on several important issues under HUD's jurisdiction. Streamlining requirements for local public housing authorities, revising certain public housing programs, and strengthening financing for small and rural affordable housing developments are areas that should be addressed. Tackling homelessness, especially among our Nation's veterans, is another issue that is important to me and should be addressed.

It is critical that HUD allow local communities to craft solutions that work best for their needs. There has been bipartisan interest in several of these reforms over the years, and I am confident we can make progress once Dr. Carson is confirmed.

Dr. Carson has consistently demonstrated a commitment to improving the lives of his fellow Americans, and his intellect, leadership, and life experiences are unique, valuable assets for leading an agency like

Mr. President, my colleague Senator Jim Risch joins me today in recognizing Valley County, ID, on its 100-year anniversary of its establishment by the Idaho State Legislature in 1917.

Valley County's rich natural resources and landscapes have long been a draw for the determined and industrious. The Native Americans, packers, prospectors, miners, homesteaders, trappers, ranchers, loggers, farmers, recreationists, conservationists, and more who have made homes in and traversed the county have contributed to its deep and fascinating history and shaped its culture. This expansive

county--approximately 2.4 million acres and roughly 3.7 thousand square miles--encompasses hundreds of lakes, three national forests, rivers, fish and wildlife habitat, streams, grassland, and mountainous landscapes. It is no wonder the county's stunning terrain continues to attract those who enjoy the outdoors.

The county's splendor and ruggedness are matched by the grace and determination of the more than 9,000 Idahoans who make the area home. Over the years, Valley County residents have faced booms and downturns in the mining, logging, and agriculture sectors with resilience and continue to forge ahead with collaborative efforts to increase economic opportunities. Mining, fueled by the Idaho Gold Rush, has roots in the county stretching back more than a century. Logging has also been a historically central part of the county's economic base, and efforts to reestablish these sectors continue.

We wish the residents of Valley County all the best as they seek advancements in tourism and innovation for this important part of our great State. Congratulations on this significant milestone in Valley County's history and 100 years of achievements.

Mr. President, today I wish to urge support for H.J. Res. 40. The Second Amendment to our U.S. Constitution reads, ``A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'' The fact that our Nation's Founding Father's penned this constitutional right to follow another central freedom--the constitutional right to free speech--speaks to the importance of this basic right.

H.J. Res. 40, the resolution currently under consideration, would protect Social Security beneficiaries from having their constitutional rights arbitrarily revoked by the Social Security Administration. As a cosponsor of the Senate companion resolution introduced by Senator Grassley, I support this critically important effort. The resolution would halt a rule issued by the Social Security Administration in the waning days of the outgoing Obama administration.

The previous administration, I might add, continuously sought to take away the Second Amendment rights of Americans through Executive orders and rulemaking. This is yet another example of an unjust leftover of that effort that needs to be corrected. In December 2016, under the direction of the Executive branch, the Social Security Administration issued a final rule to gather and submit information to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, NICS, on individuals who are determined to be what NICS refers to as ``mentally deficient.'' In this case, a person can be reported to NICS simply for using a representative payee in managing their benefits.

It is not uncommon for the Social Security Administration to appoint someone to act as representative payee for a beneficiary who may need assistance to manage their benefits. The use of a representative payee is not indicative of mental deficiency. In fact, over 8 million beneficiaries need help managing their benefits, according to the Social Security Administration. Statute requires that, for an individual to be deemed ``mentally deficient,'' a court, board, or other lawful authority must find that the person is a danger to themselves or others or is unable to contract or manage their own affairs.

Under the rule that went into effect last week, SSA will be required to report individuals who have been appointed a representative payee to NICS. The Social Security Administration is not a court of law, and SSA officers are not a ``lawful authority.'' Equally alarming is the lack of an established appeals process to enable the removal of names from the system once entered. The Administration's lack of regard for due process is unacceptable.

We must reject the Obama administration's improper assumption that individuals are a danger to themselves or society because they participate in SSA's representative payee system. A January 2016 White House fact sheet estimated that SSA's rule would add 75,000 beneficiaries to the NICS list each year. The number of law-abiding individuals who will be added to the NICS list will likely be much higher. Thousands, if not millions, of Americans stand to lose their Second Amendment rights.

Over 91,000 comments were submitted to the Social Security Administration following the publication of the proposed NICS rule. I, along with several of my colleagues, wrote the Social Security Administration on four occasions to express our concerns about the proposed rule. Our concerns, and the concerns of 91,000 Americans, were clearly not factored into the rulemaking process.

Old age does not make someone a threat to society, and having a representative payee is not grounds to revoke constitutional rights. Millions of seniors are at risk of having their Second Amendment rights arbitrarily revoked on behalf of an Executive that is no longer in office. This is a brazen attack on our constitutional right to keep and bear arms. Please join me in stopping this outrageous rule that was finalized in the waning weeks of a lameduck administration. Join me in protecting the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens.

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the regulatory burden imposed by the SEC's extractive resource rulemaking and offer my support for the resolution to disapprove it.

I will take a few minutes to talk about the complicated history of this rule and then about the concerns with the way it was formulated.

The SEC originally adopted the rule in 2012 and was challenged in court by the Chamber of Commerce and the American Petroleum Institute. In 2013, the U.S. district court threw out the regulation, contending, among other things, that the SEC misread the requirements of the statute. The SEC did not appeal the decision, acknowledging that it needed to rewrite the rule.

The SEC's proposed timetable for a new rule was delayed several times, and in 2014, Oxfam America sued to compel the SEC to move forward on a new rulemaking. The court ordered the SEC to file an expedited schedule and, as a result, a new rule was proposed in 2015 and finalized last year.

As one can see, this rule and its various iterations have been fraught with controversy for many years. Advocates of the rule have said that it will combat corruption in resource-rich nations. The SEC's final rule raised doubts about this. The final rule stated several things, including: The direct causal relationship between increased transparency in the extractive industry and social benefits is ``inconclusive.'' In fact, it noted that ``research and data available at this time does not allow us to draw any firm conclusions.'' Unlike the potential benefits, though, the costs are reasonably certain.

The SEC estimated up to $700 million in initial costs and up to $590 million in ongoing annual costs. Put another way, each company would endure between $560,000 and $1.6 million in initial costs, and between $224,000 and $1.3 million in

additional costs each year. We cannot view these costs as affecting only the largest companies, but must consider the plight of the smaller ones.

Just under half of all companies covered by this rule are considered smaller companies, and they would be disproportionately impacted by millions of dollars in fixed costs--money that could be better spent on jobs and growth.

Finally, the President's statement of administration policy also endorses this resolution. Some of the reasons it highlights include:

In some cases, the rule would require companies to disclose

information that the host nation of their project prohibits

from disclosure or is commercially sensitive.

The rule would impose unreasonable compliance costs on

American energy companies that are not justified by

quantifiable benefits.

Moreover, American businesses could face a competitive

disadvantage in cases where their foreign competitors are not

subject to similar rules.

I have repeatedly stressed the need for the U.S. financial system and markets to remain the preferred destination for investors throughout the world, and this rule harms this status.

I urge my colleagues to support this resolution and to preserve the integrity of our securities laws and capital markets.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to at this time enter into a colloquy with my colleague from Georgia, Senator Isakson.

Yes, that is correct. What this resolution does is to cause the current SEC rule to not take effect. As it was characterized yesterday on the House floor and will be characterized further today on the Senate floor, what the SEC will need to do is to go back to the drawing board and come up with a better rule that complies with the law of the land.

I thank my colleague. I will work to ensure that the SEC implements all of its congressional mandates.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I yield back the remaining Republican time.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate be in a period of Morning Business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration of and the Senate now proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 27.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to; that the Cruz amendment to the preamble be agreed to; that the preamble, as amended, be agreed to; and that the motions to reconsider be

considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 43, submitted earlier today.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 6:30 a.m., Friday, February 3; that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; further, that following leader remarks, the Senate resume consideration of H.J. Res. 41, with no debate time remaining; finally, that following the disposition of H.J. Res. 41, the Senate vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the DeVos nomination, rule XXII notwithstanding.