Floor Statements

Mr. President, each year, a proclamation is issued designating National Small Business Week, a time to recognize the important contributions America's small business owners make to our economy and our local communities. South Dakota is home to many small businesses with a strong commitment to producing quality products while serving their community. Today it is my honor to recognize the Dairy Queen of Madison, SD, which serves as a testament as to what makes South Dakota's small business owners exemplary.

In 1964, the Mork family acquired the franchise license for the Madison Dairy Queen and continues to operate it successfully. Today DeLon Mork continues his family's business as the current owner of the restaurant. DeLon and his family are passionate about providing excellent service to their customers while giving back to the community that supports them. Each year, many Dairy Queens participate in Miracle Treat Day, to raise money for the Children's Miracle Network. For the past 11 years, DeLon and his team at the Madison Dairy Queen have worked to sell the most Blizzards of any Dairy Queen in North America on Miracle Treat Day. Their hard work on behalf of the Children's Miracle Network exemplifies the commitment to community service shared by the Mork family and the entire team at the Madison Dairy Queen. I commend the entire organization for their contributions to this great cause.

Small businesses like DeLon's play an important role in South Dakota's economy, and with this recognition, I hope to shine a light on his great work. His dedication to producing a quality product and serving his community makes all of South Dakota proud. I want to congratulate and thank DeLon and the entire Mork family for their outstanding devotion to our community. I send them best wishes as they continue to serve the community of Madison, SD.

Mr. President, today I recognize Dezmond Ward, an intern in my Washington, DC, office, for all the hard work he has done on behalf of myself, my staff, and the State of South Dakota.

Dezmond is a graduate of Milbank High School in Milbank, SD. In August, he will graduate from Concordia College in Moorhead, MN, where he studies political science and history. Dezmond is a dedicated and diligent worker who has been devoted to getting the most out of his internship experience and who has been a true asset to the office.

I extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Dezmond for all of the fine work he has done and wish him continued success in the years to come.

Mr. President, first of all, let me offer my thanks to Senator Alexander and Senator Collins, and let me add my support for what Senator Graham has just indicated in terms of the importance of this particular amendment to the omnibus bill.

Look, I am a pro-life Republican. By allowing the Hyde amendment to prevail in this particular case, as it does with all of the other funding that we send back to the States so that it cannot be used to fund abortions--and that

is what this is all about--it allows us to still continue to provide, with clear consciences, the dollars necessary to provide healthcare for individuals who otherwise may not get it.

This particular proposal allows for States to, once again, take charge of part of the healthcare that we want to see delivered at the local level. By taking section 1332 and expanding what States can do, we actually provide more local control, which is a conservative approach. It is also one more opportunity to reduce the impact of what many of us have said was a mistake with ObamaCare in the first place.

For conservatives, a lot of us campaigned on the fact that we wanted to repeal and replace ObamaCare. To repeal it and replace it, you have to have 60 votes here. In this particular case, what we have said is: Let's take those parts that are the most onerous and those parts that are adding to the cost of healthcare and take those out, but let's provide and continue to provide the protections that some people feel ObamaCare was responsible for, such as guaranteed renewable products, which were included in South Dakota's law before ObamaCare ever came along, and the opportunity for everybody to apply for a policy and to be accepted one way or another.

This particular piece of legislation allows for, perhaps, as many as 3.2 million Americans to actually be able to afford the policies that, today, they can't afford. I believe Senator Alexander used the example of someone who is making $60,000 a year and has a bill of $20,000 for his healthcare. The reality is that that person is not buying healthcare. So let's allow those folks the opportunity to have a reduction in the premiums that they otherwise could not afford to pay.

This allows for the States, on a very responsible basis, to do what Senator Collins, as a former insurance commissioner, understands so clearly. What we have done with ObamaCare is to force individuals who have no place else to go into what we call the individual market. When we force all--or the vast majority--of the individuals who have health problems into the individual market to get coverage, it artificially drives up the cost of that individual policy. That individual market makes up 6 percent of the total number of the people who are covered, but that 6 percent of the premium going in picks up an unfairly large number of individuals who have no place else to go to get insurance. That drives the cost of the premiums up for those individuals and makes it, in many cases, more costly than they could ever afford.

With a reinsurance provision for the States, it allows for a State to say: Look, issue the policies, but then allow us to expand the base over which we spread those losses. Let those States do that. This worked successfully before ObamaCare was ever a bad dream. This allows for us to take a larger base of people to share and to spread that risk. When you do that, you make that market more stable, and you start to invite carriers to step back into the market. That is what this is all about.

I am not going to try to assign the intention of our colleagues who are on the other side of the aisle. I am a pragmatist. I really do believe that we have some very sincere colleagues on the other side of the aisle who understand how important this is.

What I would invite is this: I am a conservative Republican. I want to see this move forward. I think, for the good of the American people, this is the right move to make. I would ask our colleagues on the other side of the aisle to consider the good this would do for people across this entire country and to find a way to work through this process in such a fashion that they could comfortably come forward and help us to get this to the finish line.

If we can do this, we will make things better not just for those 3.2 million Americans who would be able to qualify for insurance once again and be able to pay for it, but we honestly believe--and it is the Congressional Budget Office that has suggested this--that somewhere between 20 percent of the premiums they would otherwise pay would solidly be reduced. In some cases, according to healthcare professionals in the private market--these are the people who actually suggest and work with the insurance companies--as much as 40 percent of that total cost could be reduced.

This is not a partisan issue. This is a matter of trying to actually make an impact on the lives of real Americans who need our help. Remember that the American people did not ask for ObamaCare, but they are the ones who are suffering because of the premium increases that have been caused by this law in the first place.

What we are trying to do in what is, hopefully, an acceptable fashion is to find colleagues on the other side of the aisle who will once again join us in this legislation that they had previously supported-- for them to find a way to step forward--and actually help fix a problem for real Americans.

Once again, I thank the Senator from Tennessee for all of the hard work he has done. As a former Governor, he understands that, once in a while, you reach across the aisle, and you find ways to get things done. In the Senate, it requires 60 votes to make this happen.

I thank Senator Collins for her work. She is a former insurance commissioner. She gets it. She understands it.

We want to find the common ground that it takes to actually fix a problem for the American people. This is not and should not be a partisan issue--fixing a problem that we all agree exists today.

I thank the Presiding Officer.

I yield the floor.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session for the consideration of the following nomination: Executive Calendar No. 298.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate vote on the nomination with no intervening action or debate; that if confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the

table; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action; that no further motions be in order; and that any statements relating to the nomination be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate resume legislative session for 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 Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 308, S. 2286.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported amendments be agreed to and the Corker amendment at the desk be agreed to.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time.

Mr. President, I know of no further debate on the bill.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding rule XXII, the postcloture time on Senate amendment No. 2151, as modified, expire at 3:45 p.m. on Wednesday, March 14; further, that if cloture is invoked on S. 2155, the time count as if invoked at midnight, Wednesday, March 14.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9:30 a.m. on Wednesday, March 14; further, that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and morning business be closed. Finally, I ask that following leader remarks, the Senate resume consideration of S. 2155 under the previous order.

Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it stand adjourned under the previous order.

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

Mr. President, today I rise in support of the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act which is being considered on the Senate floor for this week. As a member of the Senate Banking Committee, I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of this important legislation which will provide much needed regulatory relief to our community banks and credit unions whose ability to serve their customers has been made more difficult since the passage of the Dodd- Frank Act.

Enacted in 2010, Dodd-Frank was an overreaction to the 2008 financial crisis. Rather than actually addressing the underlying issues that caused the financial crisis, Dodd-Frank created a massive new bureaucracy and saddled our financial institutions with burdensome and onerous new regulations. It is 2,300 pages in length and created more than 400 new rulemakings, which led to 27,000 new Federal mandates on American businesses. This limits the ability of our financial institutions to grow and serve their customers, especially for smaller banks in rural areas such as in my home State of South Dakota.

Just last summer, the U.S. Department of Treasury reported that the regulatory burdens of Dodd-Frank have reduced economic growth and ``undermined the ability of banks to deliver attractively priced credit in sufficient quantity to meet the needs of the economy.''

Without question, no one wants to repeat the events that contributed to the economic recession that began in 2008. We are only now beginning to lift out of that nearly decade-long economic slump, thanks to the tax relief law and President Trump's focus on regulatory reform.

Just in the last year, we have enacted historic tax reform, we have undone burdensome and unnecessary regulations at a record pace, and we are restoring the American people's confidence at levels not seen in decades, but we must do more, which is why our bipartisan legislation is so important.

Making sure American families and businesses have access to credit when they need it is critical as we work to grow our economy and create jobs. The Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act will strengthen America's financial system and expand economic opportunities across the entire country, especially in rural areas which are often the most underserved.

Of the many fatal flaws of Dodd-Frank, perhaps most damaging was its one-size-fits-all approach. By taking a one-size-fits-all approach, Dodd-Frank imposed disproportionate compliance costs on our smaller community banks and credit unions, especially given the improbability that these smaller institutions pose a significant risk to our financial system. This type of approach is particularly harmful to our smaller financial institutions which are so vital to our communities.

With more than 6,500 community banks throughout the country supporting even the remotest areas, we must make certain we are helping and not hindering their ability to serve their communities.

Almost half of small businesses, which we all know are the drivers of job creation and economic growth in America, are supported by small community banks. Providing these institutions with regulatory relief is critical, which is what our legislation does.

Let me go through some of the highlights, which include seven provisions or bills I introduced. It includes the Home Mortgage Disclosure Adjustment Act, which I introduced with Senator Heitkamp earlier this year, and will provide small banks and credit unions with data reporting relief.

We also provide relief from Dodd-Frank capital rules that allow banks to count high-quality municipal bonds toward capital requirements, providing help to both banks and local units of government that issue that debt. In other words, those banks can now make a market for those municipal bonds once again.

Our legislation also streamlines Federal rules to help small, local Federal savings associations, known as FSA's or thrifts, expand their ability to offer loans to more families and businesses without going through a costly charter conversion process.

It also includes parts of the Community Bank Access to Capital Act, which would free small banks from having to complete arduous and expensive tests which are already mandated by Dodd-Frank, and it makes it easier for banks with less than $3 billion in assets to raise capital and grow.

I am also pleased it includes my provision to protect the credit of our Nation's veterans, so veterans waiting on delayed payments from the VA Choice Program cannot lose their credit ratings because of it. It is a sad commentary when you have to make a law in the financial institutions section of the code to take care of veterans because the VA cannot pay their bills on time.

It also protects seniors by removing liability for financial services institutions and professionals reporting suspected fraud of senior citizens to the authorities. We also provide relief to small public housing agencies by reducing regulatory burdens on and increasing flexibility for these entities.

This bill also provides rural appraisal relief for cases when buyers have trouble finding a qualified appraiser. The reason for this is because if you want to get a home loan, one of the requirements under Dodd-Frank is that you have to have a qualified appraiser actually appraise the home, regardless of where you live. What this provision does is it relaxes some of those rules with regard to where the amounts on a mortgage can be, less than a particular amount as specified in our bill, and still be a qualified mortgage so banks can move them on to the secondary market. That helps to create a market for those mortgages, making it easier for a consumer to actually access that credit.

Our bill also gives the Federal Reserve flexibility in designating banks as systemically important, exempting banks with less than $100 billion in assets from several Dodd-Frank provisions that apply to systemically important financial institutions, or SIFIs, including reporting requirements, limits on lending, and limits on mergers and acquisitions.

Also banks with assets between $100 billion and $250 billion would receive relief from tighter oversight applied by Dodd-Frank. This would exempt 15 regional and midsized banks from these more stringent rules. Meanwhile, more than a dozen of our country's largest banks will still have to comply with the SIFI requirements. These are the largest financial institutions.

We also eliminate barriers to jobs by allowing mortgage loan originators to work temporarily in a new State or for a new financial institution while their applications for new licenses are pending. Our bill also requires the Treasury to study and report on the risks of cyber threats to our financial institutions and capital markets.

Finally, our bill provides regulatory relief from enhanced supplementary leverage ratio for certain banks that service organizations like mutual funds and State and local pension plans. It doesn't hardly seem appropriate that we would make our banks less competitive than foreign banks for providing that same service. Let's keep that opportunity and that market within our own borders as well. Let's allow them to be competitive, which saves on costs for mutual fund purchasers.

This benefits countless local governments across the country that do business with these banks. In my home State alone, this includes the State of South Dakota, the South Dakota Retirement System, the Rapid City Regional Hospital, the city of Vermillion, and the Watertown School District, just to name a few of them. While this provision will not help all banks, it will affect some banks, which benefits consumers, and in the future perhaps we can give the same relief to all banks that offer these important services.

These provisions, along with the many others of our bill, will strengthen our financial system in the United States and reduce the unnecessary burdens on small or midsized banks so they can focus on serving their communities, not complying with layers of bureaucracy.

Making sure families and businesses have access to credit when they need it is critical as we work to grow a healthy American economy. Every step we can take to provide relief to our lenders is a win for families and businesses that rely on them to run their businesses, to buy a home, or to save for college.

Small community banks don't think of banking in terms of derivatives and default swaps like they do on Wall Street. They think of banking in terms of how they can best serve their communities, their friends, neighbors, store owners, and job providers. Our bipartisan Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act will help these lenders focus on doing just exactly that.

I thank Chairman Crapo and the other 24 cosponsors of this legislation for their commitment to working together to provide much needed relief that will enhance our ability to grow our economy.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, while I enjoy the humor that my colleague from Arkansas has expressed, this is an important bill. What we have done is what the President has asked for.

No. 1, this provides $25 billion for a border security system.

No. 2, it addresses the issue of DACA. It takes care of 1.8 million young people who want to be citizens of the United States 10 to 12 years from now. It does not provide a citizenship opportunity for their parents.

I yield at this time to my colleague, the Senator from Maine.

Mr. President, I, too, would like to echo the comments by Senator Collins and Senator King on the intent of the provision and our commitment to move this date back to the beginning of the year. This provision is needed to ensure that we are providing a deterrent. Individuals who come to the U.S. after a particular date must know that we are going to focus resources on their deportation just like we will focus on felons and other criminals and those who pose a threat to our Nation's security or public safety.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we begin the cloture vote at this time. I believe we are only about 2 minutes away from the scheduled time.

Mr. President, I come to the floor to offer my support for the Bipartisan Budget Act, which we expect to vote on later today.

This bipartisan agreement includes a number of priorities that will benefit Americans, including $20 billion in new investment and infrastructure over the next 2 years, $6 billion to combat the opioid epidemic, disaster relief assistance for those impacted by recent hurricanes, funding for community health centers, a permanent repeal of ObamaCare's Independent Payment Advisory Board, or IPAB, and the creation of two select committees to address pension reform and Congress's broken budget process.

Most important is that this bipartisan agreement removes the arbitrary spending caps that have hampered our Armed Forces. For the first time in years, we prioritize our national security by adequately funding the military. Of all the positive aspects of this agreement that will benefit the people of my home State of South Dakota and American families across the country, the addition of $165 billion in defense funding over the next 2 years is crucial.

As a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I have been deeply concerned about the underfunding of our military. If we are going to adequately recover readiness levels that were lost over the last 8 years, as well as modernize our Armed Forces in this increasingly dangerous and complex world, adequately funding our troops is vital. This is the reason I support the Bipartisan Budget Act.

I had previously expressed my strong displeasure for short-term funding measures or CRs, but this agreement makes significant progress toward rebuilding our military, and, finally, after years of underfunding, provides the Department of Defense with a much needed spending boost. This will provide the resources to adequately train and rebuild the Armed Forces at a time of increasing global threats, but don't just take my word for it. Let me quote Defense Secretary James Mattis, who testified before the House Armed Services Committee earlier this week. He said:

Let me be clear: As hard as the last 16 years of war have

been on our military, no enemy in the field has done as much

to harm the readiness of the United States than the combined

impact of the Budget Control Act's defense spending caps,

worsened by operating for 10 of the last 11 years under

continuing resolutions of varied and unpredictable duration.

Secretary Mattis went on to tell the committee that:

The consequences of not providing a budget are clear . . .

should we stumble into a year-long continuing resolution,

your military will not be able to provide pay for our troops

by the end of the fiscal year; will not recruit the 15,000

Army soldiers and 4,000 Air Force airmen required to fill

critical manning shortfalls; we will not maintain our ships

at sea with the proper balance between operations and time in

port for maintenance; we will ground aircraft due to a lack

of maintenance and spare parts; we will deplete the

ammunition, training and manpower required to deter war; and

delay contracts for vital acquisition programs necessary to

modernize the force.

Sadly, we are hearing in the Senate Armed Services Committee many of the Secretary's predictions are already proving true.

Earlier this week, I spoke on this floor about this very issue and described various readiness issues that our Armed Forces are currently facing. Some examples I shared include the F/A-18 fleet taking twice as many man-hours to maintain, with less than 50 percent of the fleet available. Those are the primary aircraft you will see flying off of our carriers in harm's way today.

The maintenance backlog of our submarines. Because of the backlog, 15 nuclear attack submarines have been docked for a total of 177 months or nearly 15 years. That doesn't mean they are being repaired, it means they are sitting at dock because they are not even licensed to dive anymore. What a waste of taxpayer money.

The tragic human cost found in the lack of readiness--as F/A-18 Hornet training programs have had dozens of mishaps over the past several years, some leading to loss of life. We believe some, if not all, of these mishaps could have been avoided with the additional training and maintenance that would have been forthcoming with appropriate funding.

The American people expect us to adequately fund the defense of America next year and every year to come. Providing for the defense of our Nation is the No. 1 responsibility of the Federal Government and of this Congress. Nothing else matters if we cannot protect ourselves from our enemies.

I am pleased this agreement finally recognizes the need to eliminate arbitrary budget caps that have put our national security in jeopardy.

The Bipartisan Budget Act is truly bipartisan. There are parts in this that I most certainly very strongly agree with, and there are some areas I would have done differently, but this is a bipartisan agreement and must meet the standards of both Republicans and Democrats. While I would have preferred to see an increase in defense funding without having to pair it with other spending increases, because we need a bipartisan majority of 60 Senators to agree to this proposal, we reluctantly accept the increased spending on nondefense discretionary programs in order to achieve the very necessary and critical increases in our Defense appropriations.

Perhaps one of the more important aspects of this agreement is that, for the first time since the Budget Control Act of 2011, we are able to overcome the demands of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle to match defense spending and nondefense spending on a dollar-for- dollar basis.

Under this agreement, defense spending will receive a larger increase than discretionary funding--$165 billion for defense over the next 2 years, as compared to $131 for nondefense discretionary spending over the next 2 years. I would have preferred not to raise discretionary spending to this level, but not achieving a path forward without the higher defense limits was simply not an option.

We must still be diligent in addressing our Nation's debt crisis, and we have already begun to take the steps to do so. Just a couple of months ago, we passed historic tax reform that is already helping to unleash the full potential of our economy, thereby bringing in much needed additional revenues. We have also been working with President Trump and the administration to reduce burdensome regulations and streamline Federal programs so we can save taxpayer money by making the government more efficient. These are positive things that will help to control our debt.

However, the most important thing we must do to rein in spending is to control the skyrocketing costs of mandatory payment programs: Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security. In fact, prior to our tax relief plan, we were warned that without taking action to properly manage these programs, by the year 2026, when our country turns 250 years old, spending on Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, and servicing the national debt would take up 99 percent of all the Federal revenues generated.

Today, mandatory payments already account for nearly three quarters of our total Federal spending. This is because Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security have never been properly managed, and Congress does not exercise appropriate oversight.

These programs run on autopilot. Given that they are our largest Federal expenditures every year, it is vital for Congress to take an active role in managing these necessary--I will say that again: necessary--mandatory programs in order to get our fiscal house in order. This does not necessarily mean making cuts. It simply means giving Congress the authority to periodically and consistently review them to make them as efficient as possible and to make certain they are available for individuals who need them, both now and in the future.

I am pleased that this agreement creates a joint select committee to address ways to fix our broken budget process, which is desperately needed.

At the end of the day, no amount of cuts to defense and other programs will have a meaningful effect on debt reduction without also controlling the cost of these necessary mandatory-payment programs.

I will wrap up by thanking my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who support this agreement, for recognizing our country's need to adequately fund our troops who sacrifice everything to protect our freedoms. Without a strong military that can deter and defend against aggression, nothing else really matters.

Maintaining the best, strongest military force in the world is vital to keeping Americans safe. By increasing funding now, our troops will be better equipped to do exactly that. We cannot risk a perceived weakness in our force by our enemies, who may wish to draw us into a major conflict. A major conflict or war is not only significantly more costly in terms of dollars, but it has more serious cost in the loss of human life. No one wants to see that, especially if we can avoid it now.

This agreement adequately funds our troops. I intend to vote for it, and I encourage my colleagues to do so as well.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I have 6 requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority leaders.

Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate:

Committee on Armed Services

The Committee on Armed Services is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, February 8, 2018, at 10:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing on the following nominations: Paul C. Ney, Jr., of Tennessee, to be General Counsel, Kevin Fahey, of Massachusetts, to be an Assistant Secretary, and Thomas E. Ayres, of Pennsylvania, to be General Counsel of the Department of the Air Force, all of the Department of Defense, and Lisa Gordon-Hagerty, of Virginia, to be Under Secretary for Nuclear Security, Department of Energy.

Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs

The Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, February 8, 2018, at 11 a.m., to conduct a hearing on subcommittee assignments and the following nominations: Jelena McWilliams, of Ohio, to be Chairperson of the Board of Directors, and to be a Member of the Board of Directors, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Marvin Goodfriend, of Pennsylvania, to be a Member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, and Thomas E. Workman, of New York, to be a Member of the Financial Stability Oversight Council.''

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, February 8, at 10 a.m. to conduct a hearing.

Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

The Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, February 8, at 10 a.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``The Opioid Crisis: Impact on Children and Families.''

Committee on the Judiciary

The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, February 8, at 10:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing on the following nominations: Kurt D. Engelhardt, of Louisiana, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Fifth Circuit, Michael B. Brennan, of Wisconsin, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Seventh Circuit, Barry W. Ashe, to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Louisiana, Howard C. Nielson, Jr., to be United States District Judge for the District of Utah, James R. Sweeney II, to be United States District Judge for the Southern District of Indiana, Susan Paradise Baxter, to be United States District Judge for the Western District of Pennsylvania, Daniel Desmond Domenico, to be United States District Judge for the District of Colorado, Marilyn Jean Horan, to be United States District Judge for the Western District of Pennsylvania, Adam I. Klein, of the District of Columbia, to be Chairman and Member of the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, and John C. Anderson, to be United States Attorney for the District of New Mexico, Brandon J. Fremin, to be United States Attorney for the Middle District of Louisiana, Joseph P. Kelly, to be United States Attorney for the District of Nebraska, Scott W. Murray, to be United States Attorney for the District of New Hampshire, David C. Weiss, to be United States Attorney for the District of Delaware, David G. Jolley, to be United States Marshal for the Eastern District of Tennessee, and Thomas M. Griffin, Jr., to be United States Marshal for the District of South Carolina, all of the Department of Justice.

Select Committee on Intelligence

The Select Committee on Intelligence is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, February 8, 2018, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a closed hearing.