[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 37 (Thursday, March 2, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1564-S1571]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]





                          LEGISLATIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

DISAPPROVING A RULE SUBMITTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, THE GENERAL 
    SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, AND THE NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE 
                             ADMINISTRATION

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the joint resolution.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A joint resolution (H.J. Res. 37), disapproving the rule 
     submitted by the Department of Defense, the General Services 
     Administration, and the National Aeronautics and Space 
     Administration relating to the Federal Acquisition 
     Regulation.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to ask my colleagues to 
support H.J. Res. 37, a resolution disapproving of the Federal 
Acquisition Regulation issued by the Department of Defense, the General 
Services Administration, and the National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration.
  As is the case in so many of these rules and regulations, it has a 
really nice name. It sounds really good--the fair pay and safe 
workplaces rule--but the bottom line is, because of the substance of 
this rule, it has become commonly known as ``the blacklisting rule.'' 
Had it been up to me, I would have called it ``the blackmailing rule.'' 
Let me explain why.
  It requires contractors and subcontractors submitting bids on Federal 
Government contracts to disclose any proven or alleged violations 
within the last 3 years of 14 different labor laws, plus ``equivalent 
State laws.''
  Now, that may sound reasonable, but it is not. And it is entirely 
unnecessary. Any competent purchasing manager--again, I come from the 
private sector, and there are a lot of competent purchasing managers--
could readily obtain the information required by this regulation. And, 
of course, any competent purchasing manager should also always be 
evaluating the qualifications, integrity, and the past performance 
record of any kind of potential suppliers.
  This rule also has the very real potential of subjecting perfectly 
innocent contractors to blackmail and extortion tactics during union 
contract negotiations.
  In case anyone thinks I am overstating this threat, listen carefully 
to the following quote from one union describing an ``ideal message'' 
their union president should convey to a general manager of a business 
negotiating a union contract:

       Putting it plainly: unless you settle this strike within 
     the next few days, and the union withdraws its charges--

  Those would be those allegations; unless the union withdraws those 
charges--

     you are likely to be marked as a ``repeat labor law 
     offender,'' one of the highest categories of wrongdoing under 
     the President's Order. Check this out with your hotshot legal 
     team.

  This union message goes on:

       Counting all of its divisions, this corporation has federal 
     contracts in the hundreds of millions. Do you really want to 
     jeopardize this pot of gold to save a few hundred thousand 
     dollars to the union contract?

  This is the kind of negotiating tactic that illustrates exactly how 
this regulation would be used as a form of federally sanctioned 
blackmail. There would be no due process for contractors wrongly 
accused. There would be no way for them to defend themselves or avoid 
being blacklisted.
  As if the blackmail potential of the rule isn't bad enough, the Obama 
administration admitted that the final rule would cost at least $398 
million to comply with every single year. And except for the benefit 
that extortion leverage provides to unions, I can think of no financial 
benefit to taxpayers or our economy--and neither could the Obama 
administration, as they were unable to quantify any financial benefit 
for this rule in their regulatory filings.
  In addition to the $398 million annual regulatory cost, the agencies 
themselves detailed the following regulatory burdens:
  The rule will affect over 24,000 contractors. Industry estimates are 
even higher.
  The rule imposes costly reporting requirements on small businesses 
that many simply cannot bear.
  And it also reduces the availability and increases the price of much 
needed supplies and services, including to our military.
  Others have pointed out even more problems with the rule. For 
example, it does not define what the ``equivalent State laws'' are that 
have been included in the disclosure requirement. Also, the definition 
of a violation that is reportable is incredibly broad. It is not 
limited to government contracts and includes pending and other nonfinal 
disputes--in other words, mere allegations of wrongdoing.
  This, in particular, is a slippery slope. For example, in fiscal year 
2016, the National Labor Relations Board received over 21,000 unfair 
labor practice charges, but more than half of those were withdrawn or 
dismissed, and less than 6 percent resulted in a formal complaint by 
the NLRB. Also in fiscal year 2016, the Equal Employment Opportunity 
Commission received over 91,000 complaints but issued a ``determination 
of reasonable cause'' in only 3,113--about 3.4 percent of those--and 
filed enforcement suits in only 114--about 0.1 percent of the 91,000 
complaints that were filed.
  Various studies report that it costs $2 trillion per year to comply 
with Federal Government regulations. That is $14,800 per family per 
year. Of course, no one writes a check for $14,800. Instead, those 
costs are realized in reduced opportunities, higher prices to 
consumers, and stagnated wages and benefits for hard-working Americans.
  Economic growth is the primary component of a solution for many of 
our country's problems, yet Washington continues to stifle growth by 
adding layer upon layer of regulation. The blacklisting rule is just 
one harmful example.
  Fortunately, last October, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern 
District of Texas issued a nationwide preliminary injunction the day 
before this rule was set to go into effect. The judge issuing the order 
noted there was merit to the claims that this rule violates statute, 
exceeds Executive authority, and is unconstitutional. The court found 
that letting this rule go into effect would cause ``irreparable harm.'' 
But the case is still pending. Until we act to decisively repeal this 
rule, a significant burden hangs over our country's contractors and 
suppliers.
  Through the use of the Congressional Review Act, we have the 
opportunity to reduce that regulatory burden and repair a small portion 
of the damage done by President Obama's regulatory overreach.
  We owe it to the American people and American businesses to start 
providing them with regulatory relief.
  I urge my colleagues to vote yes to disapprove and repeal this very 
harmful, very costly, and completely unnecessary rule.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I thank the Chair.


             Russia and the President's Address to Congress

  Mr. President, on Tuesday night, along with my colleagues, I listened 
to the President of the United States address the joint session of 
Congress. As the ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations 
Committee, I was particularly interested to hear what the President 
would be saying about American foreign policy.
  I heard him say during the speech that American foreign policy would 
be based on the respect of the sovereign rights of nations, which is 
something that I strongly believe in. I then thought I would hear the 
President talk about one of our greatest challenges from a country that 
is not respecting the sovereign rights of the United States of America, 
that country being Russia. But the President didn't mention Russia at 
all in his State of the Union address, which really surprised me.
  When we look at Russia's most recent conduct and know what they did 
in regard to their attack on the U.S. democratic election system, it is 
beyond dispute that they wanted to interfere with our free elections, 
they wanted to affect the credibility of our democratic election 
system, and they wanted to influence the outcome of the election. That 
is pretty clear from the evidence that we have seen to date. Yet

[[Page S1565]]

the President did not mention that at all--a country that had attacked 
us as recently as just a few months ago. There was no mention in the 
President's State of the Union address.
  It wasn't an isolated attack by Russia on the United States. We knew 
that before that, when we saw Russia's influence in regard to 
Montenegro's elections and how they tried to impact their parliamentary 
elections to influence Montenegro's decision to join NATO. We know that 
Russia is attempting to influence the elections in Western Europe.
  So we have a country that is trying to bring down our democratic 
system of government by using our democratic system of government, and 
the way that we conduct open elections, to compromise our system.
  But that is not the only thing Russia has done that is contrary to 
the U.S. national security and our foreign policy objectives. We know 
that they have physically incurred into other countries. They have 
physically incurred into Ukraine. Today, Russia has annexed Crimea--
something we will never recognize. Crimea is part of Ukraine. Russia is 
continuing to support the separatists in the eastern part of Ukraine, 
compromising Ukraine's sovereignty.
  The President did not mention that in his State of the Union address.
  We know that Russia is in Georgia, in Moldova, and other sovereign 
countries; once again, no mention of that.
  And then Russia is very much engaged in the Middle East. We know that 
Russia's footprint in the Middle East is growing. They have their 
military presence in Syria, backing the Assad regime, facilitating 
Iran's participation in Syria.
  We also know that the type of conduct that has been conducted under 
Russian support, where civilians have been targeted, humanitarian 
convoys have been attacked, amounts to war crimes--a situation where 
Russia has culpability; yet, we don't hear anything about that.
  So we have a role. Congress has a role to play in making sure that we 
protect our national security interests.
  First and foremost, we have to know what is going on. We have to know 
what Russia was doing. We have to know what Russia's intentions were 
when they compromised our cyber security and used that information to 
try to influence our elections. We have to know what Russia's 
intentions are all about regarding the contacts they have made with 
Americans in their effort to influence this campaign. We have to 
understand what Russia's intentions are as they relate to democratic 
countries.
  We saw in General Flynn's case that a contact was made, and as a 
result of not coming forward with that, General Flynn has left the 
Trump administration. And then we find out yesterday that the Attorney 
General, as a U.S. Senator, had contact with the Russian Ambassador, 
and that information was not made available during the confirmation 
process.
  The timing of that meeting in Senator Sessions' office is concerning. 
It is concerning because it was right at the time that Russia was the 
most active in trying to get information that they could use to 
influence our elections. So this is an important aspect for us to 
understand.
  We need to understand why that meeting took place and what was 
involved in that meeting. There have been calls by Members on both 
sides of the aisle that we get that type of information.
  But I will add one more dimension to this: Why was the Russian 
Ambassador interested in meeting with Senator Sessions during the 
campaign period? Was this part of an overall strategy by Russia to try 
to influence the election? We need to get the answers to that.
  The only way we are going to be able to get a complete account of 
what has happened by Russia's attack on the United States is by setting 
up an independent commission. Russia may not have used MiGs to attack 
America. They may have used a mouse. But it was an attack. And when we 
were attacked on 9/11, Congress did right thing--they set up an 
independent special commission to understand what happened, how we were 
so vulnerable to an attack, so that we could take steps to protect 
ourselves from future attacks and hold those responsible accountable. 
That was a bipartisan effort by the Congress of the United States, 
setting up an independent commission, a commission where the members 
could devote their entire full time to the assignment, because that is 
how serious being attacked is. There was no limit on their 
jurisdiction. They could go where the facts led. They could give a 
report to the American people so there would be credibility that we, 
the policymakers, are going to have independent information in order to 
act to protect the national security of the people of this country. 
That is what that independent commission meant. That independent 
commission met. They made many recommendations on eliminating a lot of 
the stovepiping of intelligence information and combining agencies 
together. Congress acted on those recommendations. As a result, we are 
safer today than we were prior to 9/11.
  We need to be safer tomorrow than we are today from the attacks of 
Russia. The only way we are going to be able to get that objective 
information with the credibility so that we can act in the best 
interests for the people of this Nation is to have a nonpartisan, 
independent commission take a look at what Russia was doing, get all 
the facts, find ways and recommendations to make us safer, give the 
credibility to the American people, and then Congress needs to act in 
order to protect our national security. I know we have some committees 
looking at this. I know the Senate Intelligence Committee is doing some 
very important work. I support that.
  We have our responsibilities in Congress to take steps within the 
jurisdictions of our committees. I am for the Senate Foreign Relations 
Committee looking into what Russia was doing in order that we can 
protect the jurisdiction of our committee to do a better job in our 
bilateral relationship with Russia, or what Russia is doing in Europe 
or in other parts of the world that affects our national security under 
the jurisdiction of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. We need to 
do that work. The Intelligence Committee needs to do their work. Armed 
Services needs to do their work. Judiciary needs do their work.
  But we need one central investigation that includes the broad 
jurisdiction that can get to answer why the Russian Ambassador may have 
wanted to see a U.S. Senator who was active in one of the campaigns 
that close to the elections, that has an opportunity to understand why 
Russia was so active in their cyber attacks in America, getting so much 
information, so much political information, why Russia was trying to 
understand our election system. There is no evidence that they tried to 
manipulate individual votes. That didn't happen--at least we don't 
believe that happened--but we know they were looking into how we do 
that. Was that for some future use? We need to understand that to 
protect our democratic system of government. That is what an 
independent commission will allow us to be able to receive.
  I urge my colleagues to respond to the national security challenge of 
Russia, and let's establish an independent commission.
  There are other things we need to do. There are two bills I filed 
with my Republican colleagues to make it clear that it is not going to 
be business as usual with Russia. There are going to be consequences to 
what they have done to the United States and our national security 
interests.
  One bill that I filed, of which Senator Graham is the principal 
sponsor, is to make sure that Congress carries out its responsibility 
of oversight in regard to our bilateral relationship with Russia. It is 
the Russia Review Act, which would require the President of the United 
States to submit to Congress for review any attempt to eliminate or 
modify the current sanctions against Russia. He would be required to 
submit that to the Congress of the United States, hopefully working 
with us and consulting with us before he makes decisions but giving us 
an opportunity to weigh in before that decision could take effect.
  For my colleagues who remember the Iran nuclear agreement, it sounds 
very familiar. Senator Corker and I, Senator Menendez, Senator Kaine, 
and others worked on the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act. It passed 
nearly unanimously in the Congress. It required a President to submit 
that

[[Page S1566]]

agreement to us before it could take effect. It made the negotiations 
much more transparent. As a result, I believe we had a stronger 
agreement, but we also had a more open process, and Congress had a 
chance to carry out its responsibility. In a similar vein, it is 
important that we pass the Russia Review Act so that we can carry out 
our responsibilities, preventing the President from taking unilateral 
action without consulting with us. This is bipartisan; we have 
Democrats and Republicans working on this. I hope we will be able to 
pass this bill in a timely way.
  The third bill I want to bring to my colleagues' attention as it 
relates to Russia's activities in the United States is legislation that 
I have filed with Senator McCain and many others. We have a large 
number of Democrats and Republicans who have cosponsored this bill that 
would increase the sanctions against Russia because of their attack 
against us. It would expand the options for imposing sanctions to 
different sectors that could affect Russia's energy, that could affect 
the ability of Russia to finance their sovereign debt, that could 
affect Russia's ability to privatize their industries by making it 
clear that we are not going to allow Americans or companies to help 
finance these activities because in reality they are financing 
activities against our interests, such as the cyber attacks, as we saw 
last fall.

  This legislation is comprehensive. It deals more than just with 
sanctions; it deals with another major problem that we have found. 
Through NATO and U.S. leadership, we have made it clear that we will 
defend the countries of NATO, and we have deployed troops to make it 
clear to Russia that they better not try to compromise the territorial 
integrity of the member states.
  This initiative has been well received by Europe and has countered 
Russia's attempts to cause a fracture within the European community. We 
need a similar initiative on democracy, a democracy initiative, because 
not only is there a threat against Europe from their geographical 
boundaries, there is a threat against Europe in regard to their 
democratic institutions. We know that. We saw that here in America. It 
is being challenged in Europe. So this democratic initiative would 
allow us to participate in strengthening the democratic institutions in 
Europe so that we don't allow Russia to use the democratic institutions 
to try to bring down the democratic institutions.
  There is another part of this legislation which I think is extremely 
important. We are all getting to better understand the tactics being 
used by Russia, this fake news--inventing news and then using the 
social media to make it look like it is the hottest news in town. We 
know they are good at that. We also know they are very good at 
propaganda, and they go in directions that we, prior to this election, 
thought we would never see in our own country. We are now seeing it 
more frequently. Part of this legislation is for us to develop a 
capacity to be able to counter this propaganda and fake news so that 
Russia's deployment of it will not compromise our national security.
  I think all three bills will be considered shortly and favorably by 
this body--setting up an independent review commission; requiring the 
President to submit any changes in the Russian sanctions to the 
Congress for review before they could take effect; and strengthening 
our sanctions regime against Russia for its conduct, including 
strengthening our commitment to democratic institutions and fighting 
this new cycle of fake news.
  I also listened to the President during the State of the Union 
Address when he said that our foreign policy calls for a direct, 
robust, and meaningful engagement with the world. That is another 
statement I happen to agree with. And then I thought about what I had 
heard a little earlier that day: that the President's budget was going 
to have about a 30- to 35-percent cut--it wasn't exactly clear, but it 
was a large number--to the State Department.
  I said: How are you going to have a robust and meaningful engagement 
in the world if you cut our diplomacy budget, you cut our development 
assistance budget? This is how we keep the world safe. This is how we 
get our goals accomplished globally.
  We have had so many hearings in our committee where there is a much 
greater need. We need to do more in Africa in promoting democracy. We 
need to do more in the Middle East in promoting good governance and 
inclusive governance so we don't have to have as many wars. We need to 
do things in our own hemisphere. We heard today in a hearing what is 
happening in Venezuela. There is a lot of work for America to do. A 30-
percent cut? Is that a more direct, robust, and meaningful engagement 
within the world? It didn't sound that way to me. I was concerned about 
that and how we are going to be able to gauge.
  It was Secretary Mattis who said: If you don't give the Secretary of 
State the resources, you better give me more soldiers.
  And they are more expensive. We have the best fighting force in the 
world, and we are going to support our fighting force. The way we show 
respect for our soldiers is to use them only as a matter of last 
resort. Diplomacy is critically important for America's national 
security.
  A strong, credible Office of the President is equally important if we 
are going to be able to be the type of country that influences our 
values globally, and the President of the United States has put that at 
risk. That is why I am reintroducing my resolution to try to avoid a 
constitutional crisis. I introduced it before President Trump took the 
oath of office, and I am introducing it again to avoid a constitutional 
crisis. It deals with the emoluments clause of the Constitution of the 
United States.
  Every modern President of the United States prior to President Trump, 
in order to avoid conflict, in order to do what is ethically right and 
to comply with the Constitution of the United States--the emoluments 
clause--has either divested their financial holdings or has set up a 
blind trust. Some have done both. That is the way that the ethics 
officers tell us you can comply with not just the Constitution but with 
the highest ethical standards so that there are no real conflicts and 
you don't have any perceived conflicts, which can be just as damaging 
to the credibility of a public office holder.
  President Trump, by not divesting, by not setting up a blind trust, 
has put the Office of the Presidency, our country, in a compromising 
position.
  Let me give some specific examples, if I might. I will mention three 
countries. I could mention more.
  Saudi Arabia. Very interesting country, Saudi Arabia. In August 2015, 
the Trump organization filed eight separate business companies to do 
business in Saudi Arabia. As we all know, the President's Executive 
order that was originally issued that excluded immigrants from seven 
Muslim countries from visas did not include the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia 
even though, as we all know, many of the participants in the 9/11 
attack against the United States originated from the country of Saudi 
Arabia. President Trump has vast business interests in Saudi Arabia.
  Let me quote President Trump:

       Saudi Arabia, I get along with all of them. They buy 
     apartments from me. They spend $40 million, $50 million. Am I 
     supposed to dislike them? I like them very much.

  It is not a question, Mr. President, of whether they like you or they 
don't like you; under our Constitution, they cannot give you any favor. 
If they give you a business favor, that is an emolument and violates 
the Constitution of the United States and violates your oath of office.
  In regard to Turkey, Turkey has two large-scale developments in the 
country that are under the Trump organization. The Trump organization 
has a partnership with a luxury furniture company, Dorya International, 
to build pieces to be sold under the Trump Home Collection brand and a 
multimillion-dollar branding deal with the Dogan Group-- the Dogan 
Group is run by one of the most politically influential families in 
Turkey--for a two-tower complex in Istanbul. According to President 
Trump's May 2016 financial disclosure, he received as much as $1 
million in royalties from the first venture and as much as $5 million 
from the second venture.

  Because President Trump has not properly divested himself from his 
business, he will presumably continue to receive royalties from both 
ventures, and these business arrangements are not unknown to Turkey's 
leadership. President Erdogan presided over the opening ceremonies of 
Trump Towers, Istanbul.

[[Page S1567]]

  Shortly after the election, President Trump held a phone call with 
President Erdogan in which he praised his business partners. There are 
substantial business interests known by the Turkish Government that Mr. 
Trump has in their country. Mr. Erdogan is not shy about talking about 
and using the Trump Towers. He has bragged about it. We have a lot of 
foreign policy decisionmaking that affects Turkey. We need to know that 
when the President is making those decision, it is America's interest 
which is at the front and center, not the Trump Organization's 
interests that are affecting those decisions. That is why we have the 
emoluments clause, that is why we believe in avoiding conflicts, and 
that is why President Trump needs to divest of his interest or set up a 
blind trust.
  I will mention one other country, if I might. That country is China. 
For a decade, the Trump organization has been trying to get a trademark 
of its brand in China. I am going to quote from Mr. Trump on February 
7, 2011, when he wrote to the American Ambassador in China. This is 
what Mr. Trump said: ``I spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in 
legal fees to secure my own name and globally recognized brand for 
Chinese individuals who seek to trade off my reputation.''
  For 10 years he was fighting to get that trademark protection. It was 
granted on February 14, 2017, a few weeks after President Trump took 
the oath of office, shortly after President Trump stated that he would 
support the One China policy, something the Government of China 
strongly wanted him to say.
  We don't know connections. We can't draw connections. We don't know 
that. That is why the emoluments clause is in the Constitution, so you 
cannot accept any favors from another country. It is against our 
Constitution. Yet we have concerns as to whether the President is 
acting under that interest. That is just wrong and it needs to stop. 
What the President has done is established a circumstance where there 
is an appearance of conflict, where it looks like foreign governments 
are trying to influence his decisions.
  He has affected America's standing to advance good governance and 
corruption. I want to underscore that point. He is compromising 
America's moral authority on the values we hold so dear. Our Western 
democratic values are being compromised because leaders of autocratic 
countries, corrupt leaders, can say: If it is all right for the 
President of the United States to keep his business holdings while he 
is President, what is wrong with me having an interest in some of our 
entities here? It takes away our effective ability to use diplomacy to 
solve problems or advance our goals. We are being compromised. The 
current arrangement is simply inadequate.
  President Trump announced he is going to let his two adult sons 
handle his businesses, but he still maintains his financial interests. 
He gives a couple of different other things he is going to do. I will 
just go over one or two of them.
  He says he is going to donate the profits from his foreign hotels to 
charities. That sounds good.
  Let me just quote from Steve Carvell, a professor at the Cornell 
University School of Hotel Administration, who said:

       It's a monumental task to constantly run this down. Even if 
     the company is trying its hardest and making its very best 
     effort, it will be difficult to fulfill that goal.

  Let's get serious about this. The arrangements he set out will not 
solve the conflict. It will not comply with the Constitution of the 
United States. The Office of Government Ethics said on the President's 
proposal it is ``wholly inadequate.'' That is the Office of Government 
Ethics. They go on to say: ``The plan the [President] has announced 
doesn't meet the standards that the best of his nominees are meeting 
and that every President in the last four decades has met.''
  I am a lawyer but would not claim to be a constitutional expert. Let 
me quote, if I might, from constitutional experts. Richard Painter, 
Norm Eisen and Laurence Tribe have written a comprehensive study of the 
constitutional provisions, concluding that ``since emoluments are 
properly defined as including `profit' from any employment, as well as 
`salary,' it is clear that even remuneration fairly earned in commerce 
can qualify.''
  Richard Painter, the chief ethics officer for President George W. 
Bush, stated it in a blunter fashion. He said:

       This is a for-profit hotel. [Trump] is making profits over 
     dealing with foreign governments. Same with the loans from 
     foreign government-owned banks. Those are for a for-profit 
     business. That is prohibited under the Emoluments Clause of 
     the Constitution.

  Let me just conclude with this. This is not about any one person. 
This is about the Office of the President. This is about our 
constitutional form of government that depends upon the Office of the 
President being respected. It is bigger than any one person. The 
Framers of our Constitution went on to say: We recognize it. We know 
the faults of men. That is why we set up the Constitution, to protect 
against the frailties of individuals.
  This is about the Office of the President of the United States, not 
about any one person who may occupy it 4 to 8 years. We need to protect 
the Office of the President, and that is why we need to act now to 
avoid this constitutional crisis of the President of the United States, 
who has put our Nation at risk because of his personal conflicts and 
because of his violation of the Constitution of the United States.
  I call upon President Trump to live up to the values of the 
Constitution. Give the American people the transparency they deserve 
and completely sever his relationship with the Trump Organization 
before we are embroiled in an ethical and constitutional crisis that 
will not serve the best interests of the President, Congress or the 
American people.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cassidy). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                       Nomination of Neil Gorsuch

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, in a little more than 2 weeks, the 
Judiciary Committee will open its hearing on the nomination of Judge 
Neil Gorsuch for the U.S. Supreme Court. This is the 14th Supreme Court 
confirmation process in which I have participated. Over that time, 
while some things have changed, others have stayed the same.
  The conflict over judicial appointments, especially to the Supreme 
Court, remains at its core a conflict over the proper role of judges in 
our system of government. The two sides of this conflict want two very 
different kinds of judges. Some of my colleagues, joined by their 
liberal allies, instead want judges who owe their fidelity to a 
particular political agenda.
  For them, the judiciary is simply a backup plan for achieving 
political objectives. If the legislative branch does not deliver, they 
go to the executive--as they often did in the previous administration. 
If that does not work, they figure that the courts offer a second or 
third bite at the political apple.
  This vision is fundamentally inconsistent with the way our system of 
government was destined, designed, and intended to be. Instead, the 
Framers devised the role of the judiciary on the wisdom of Montesquieu, 
who posited:

       Were the power of judging joined with the legislative, the 
     life and liberty of the subject would be exposed to arbitrary 
     control. . . . Were it joined to the executive power, the 
     judge might behave [as] an oppressor.

  That was Montesquieu. Reflecting this wisdom, the Constitution endows 
the judge with the role of saying what the law is, rather than what he 
wishes the law would be.
  Alexander Hamilton rightly observed: The people's liberty cannot be 
endangered by the judiciary ``so long as the judiciary remains truly 
distinct from both the legislature and the executive.''
  The stakes in this conflict over judicial power are really enormous. 
The choice determines whether the people or unelected judges will 
govern the country and define the culture. Our system of government and 
the liberty it makes possible allow only one answer. The confirmation 
process allows us to determine which kind of judge Neil Gorsuch is and 
which kind of Justice he will be.
  The dynamics of the confirmation process often reveal what kind of 
judge Senators and interest groups really

[[Page S1568]]

seek. Those who want political judges, for example, use a variety of 
strategies to determine how a judicial nominee, especially to the 
Supreme Court, will rule on issues and cases they care about. In fact, 
most of the time it seems that the policy consequences of how a judge 
will rule is the only thing that some Senators and advocates really 
care about.
  For example, when President Bush nominated Chief Justice John Roberts 
in 2005, one Democratic member of the Judiciary Committee said that the 
real question was this: ``Whose side is Judge Roberts really on, on the 
really important issues of our time?''
  Another Democratic Senator said: ``Before we vote, it is important to 
know where Judge Roberts stands on key issues.''
  Another said that she needed to know whether ``Judge Roberts will 
stand with us and with our families or be on the side of major special 
interests.''
  Now, something is seriously wrong when the confirmation process for a 
Supreme Court nominee sounds more like an election campaign for a 
Senator or a Senate seat. Unfortunately, the same thing is happening 
again today regarding Judge Gorsuch. If a corporation won a case before 
him on the Tenth Circuit, for example, those groups claim that he is a 
champion of corporate interests, no matter the legal grounds of the 
decision, the facts, or anything else.
  If another decision's result does not sufficiently advance the 
feminist agenda, they say that he is anti-woman. This radical approach 
seems to say that judges are free to decide every case based on the 
political popularity of the result and, therefore, that the judge 
personally intends every outcome. These advocates do not distinguish 
between the commands of the law and the personal preferences of the 
judge.
  In this view, statutes and the Constitution mean whatever judges want 
them to mean, making unelected, unaccountable, lifetime appointees the 
master of the people. Political judges take away from the people the 
power to govern themselves and undermine their liberty. Using political 
or theological litmus tests in the quest for such political judges, 
demanding that they take sides and insisting that they make commitments 
to certain policy agendas before even taking office, poses a similar 
threat to the independence and impartiality of the judiciary.
  There is nothing mainstream about political judges and nothing 
mainstream in the tactics used to appoint them. In contrast, impartial 
judges are consistent with the principles on which our system of 
government is based and the independence that judges must have. When 
Judge Gorsuch took his seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth 
Circuit in 2006, he took the oath required by title 28, section 453, of 
the United States Code. He pledged to administer justice without 
respect to persons and to faithfully and impartially discharge his 
judiciary duties.
  Now, I want to suggest that my colleagues try an experiment. Ask your 
constituents whether judges should make up their mind on a case before 
hearing all of the evidence and arguments. Ask whether judges should 
take positions on issues before those issues even come before them in 
court.
  I know what Utahns would say. The ABA Model Code of Judicial Conduct, 
for example, twice states this principle:

       A judge shall not, in connection with cases, controversies, 
     or issues that are likely to come before the court, make 
     pledges, promises, or commitments that are inconsistent with 
     the impartial performance of the adjudicative [functions and] 
     duties of judicial office.

  State codes of judicial conduct include the same commonsense 
protection for judicial impartiality. The California code, for example, 
prohibits statements, whether public or not, that ``commit the judge 
with respect to cases, controversies, or issues that are likely to come 
before the courts.''
  Now, this has been the consistent practice of judicial nominees 
before the Judiciary Committee. Elena Kagan came before the Judiciary 
Committee in June 2010, after being nominated by President Obama to 
replace Justice John Paul Stevens. On June 29, 2010, she said that it 
would not be appropriate for her to comment on an issue that could come 
before the Court.
  Samuel Alito--Justice Alito--came before the committee in January 
2006, after being nominated by President Bush to replace Justice Sandra 
Day O'Connor. On January 11, 2006, he said:

       But the line I have to draw, and I think every nominee, 
     including Justice Ginsburg, has drawn, is to say that when it 
     comes to something that realistically could come before the 
     Court, they can't answer about how they would decide that 
     question. That would be a disservice to the judicial process.

  Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Justice Ginsburg appeared before the Judiciary 
Committee in July 1993, nominated by President Clinton to replace 
Justice Byron White. On July 20, 1993, she said this: ``A judge sworn 
to decide impartially can offer no forecasts, no hints, for that would 
show not only disregard for the specifics of the particular case, it 
would display disdain for the entire judicial process.''
  Antonin Scalia came before the committee in August 1986, after being 
nominated by President Reagan to replace Justice William Rehnquist. On 
August 5, 1986, he said that taking positions in a hearing on issues 
that could come before him was not just a slippery slope but, in his 
words, a precipice. He said: ``I just cannot do it, and I think the 
only way to be sure that I am not impairing my ability to be impartial 
in future cases . . . is simply to respectfully decline to give an 
opinion.''
  Let me reach even further back. Justice Abe Fortas came before the 
Judiciary Committee in July 1968, after being nominated by President 
Johnson to replace Chief Justice Earl Warren. The committee sent the 
nomination to the full Senate and said these words in its report:

       To require a Justice to state his views on legal questions 
     or to discuss his past decisions before the committee would 
     threaten the independence of the judiciary and the integrity 
     of the judicial system itself. It would also impinge on the 
     constitutional doctrine of separation of powers among the 
     three branches of Government as required by the Constitution.

  Judge Thurgood Marshall came before the committee in July 1967, 
nominated by President Johnson to replace Justice Tom Clark. The 
committee sent the nomination to the full Senate and its report noted 
that the nominee had said he would ``wisely and forthrightly decline to 
give a judicial opinion on hypothetical questions.''
  Just 2 years earlier, when the committee reported the nomination of 
Abe Fortas to be an Associate Justice, its report said: ``We have 
always felt it would be unfair to ask any nominee for any judicial 
office to give a legal opinion on the basis of a hypothetical 
question.''
  I think the point is obvious. Every nominee, of either party, for 
decades has taken the same position, and it is the right position. It 
reflects a commitment to judicial independence, to impartiality, and to 
the integrity of the judicial branch of government.
  If my Democratic colleagues and their liberal allies believe that 
Justices Kagan, Alito, Ginsburg, Scalia, Fortas, and Marshall were all 
wrong, they should say so. If they believe that judges should prejudge 
cases by committing to particular outcomes, then they should make that 
case. If they believe that the oath of judicial office and code of 
judicial conduct are all misguided, then, it seems to me, they should 
be upfront about it. I, for one, believe that judges should be 
impartial, that they should follow the law, and that they should stay 
within their designated role.
  America needs impartial, not political, judges. I don't care which 
party you are in. If you are an attorney, you have to appreciate judges 
who are impartial, especially if you are an honest attorney.
  We need judges who will follow, rather than lead, the law. The 
Constitution, after all, is the primary way that the American people 
set rules for government, and that includes--God bless it--the judicial 
branch. The Constitution cannot control judges if judges control the 
Constitution.
  Yesterday the Judiciary Committee received a letter signed by more 
than 30 prominent members of the Supreme Court bar. In combination, 
they have argued more than 500 cases before the U.S. Supreme Court. 
Though they hold different political and legal views, they are united 
in strongly supporting Judge Gorsuch's nomination. They

[[Page S1569]]

write that he is fair-minded, principled, and ``has the unusual 
combination of character, dedication, and intellect that would make him 
an asset to our Nation's highest court.''
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in 
the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.
  I believe the record demonstrates that Judge Neil Gorsuch is an 
impartial judge and will, when confirmed, be an impartial Supreme Court 
Justice. He will take the law as he finds it and apply it ``without 
respect to persons,'' just as the oath commands. With him on the bench, 
the law--made by the people's elected representatives--will determine 
winners and losers. In doing so, he will be exactly the kind of Justice 
America needs.
  Judge Gorsuch has a tremendous reputation on the Tenth Circuit Court 
of Appeals, supported by Democrats and Republicans alike. Judge Gorsuch 
is a brilliant lawyer and an even more brilliant judge.
  He is a person of impeccable reputation and integrity. He is exactly 
the type of person you would want deciding your case if you had a case 
before the Supreme Court. He is exactly the type of person whom other 
judges could emulate and follow, so he is exactly the type of person we 
want on the Supreme Court.
  I have heard some ugly rumors that some of my colleagues in this body 
might, because of political concerns and political pressure, want to 
vote against Judge Gorsuch. I would caution them not to do that.
  I think Judge Gorsuch will basically please almost everyone in this 
body over the years that he serves as a Supreme Court Justice. He is a 
really fine man. He is a fine family man. He is a very fine lawyer and 
a fantastic court of appeals judge.
  He will make a great Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court. So I urge my 
colleagues on both sides to vote for him and help us fill this void so 
that the Court can continue to act as the Court should.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                    March 1, 2017.
     Hon. Charles E. Grassley,
     Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Dianne Feinstein,
     Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Grassley and Ranking Member Feinstein: We 
     write to express our strong support for Judge Neil Gorsuch's 
     nomination to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of 
     the United States. The undersigned are members of the Supreme 
     Court bar with substantial experience before the Court. 
     Collectively, we have argued more than 500 cases before the 
     Court. Many of us, moreover, worked with Judge Gorsuch (or 
     litigated against him) when he was in private practice; 
     served alongside him in the Justice Department; or have 
     appeared before him in the Court of Appeals. We hold a broad 
     range of political, policy, and jurisprudential views. But we 
     are unified in offering our support of Judge Gorsuch's 
     nomination.
       Fairminded, dedicated, smart, and unfailingly polite, Judge 
     Gorsuch is someone all of us would be pleased to appear 
     before. He is principled in his approach to the law, but also 
     keenly aware of practical consequences. He is a thoroughly 
     kind and decent person. Respectful of colleagues and counsel 
     alike, Judge Gorsuch has the unusual combination of 
     character, dedication, and intellect that would make him an 
     asset to our Nation's highest court.
       We hope this information will be of assistance to the 
     Committee in its consideration of Judge Gorsuch's nomination. 
     We thank you for your time and attention, and urge you to 
     support his confirmation.
           Very truly yours,
         Lisa Blatt, Richard P. Bress, Michael A. Carvin, John P. 
           Elwood, Roy Englert, Miguel A. Estrada, Mark Evans, H. 
           Bartow Farr, III, David C. Frederick, Dan Himmelfarb, 
           William M. Jay, Peter D. Keisler, Michael K. Kellogg, 
           Jeffrey A. Lamken, Christopher Landau, Maureen E. 
           Mahoney, Ronald Mann, Roman Martinez, Deanne E. 
           Maynard, Matthew D. McGill, Eric D. Miller, Glen D. 
           Nager, Aaron M. Panner, Mark A. Perry, Carter G. 
           Phillips, Richard H. Seamon, Stephen M. Shapiro, Mark 
           T. Stancil, Kathleen M. Sullivan, Amir C. Tayrani, 
           Christopher J. Wright.

  Mr. HATCH. I yield the floor.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


           Calling for an Independent, Bipartisan Commission

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, the highlight of the week, of course, is 
President Trump's speech to the joint session of Congress, the first 
major public speech he has given since his inauguration. The Chamber of 
the House of Representatives was filled with Members of both the House 
and Senate, the Supreme Court Justices, the Cabinet, and many other 
dignitaries for the speech. It went for about 60 minutes, which is 
reasonable under Presidential standards. Many have gone much longer, 
and I listened carefully to the statement by the new President to 
really glean his priorities, in terms of his administration and what he 
hopes to see happen in this country.
  There were many issues that he touched on, but there was one he 
didn't. He didn't say a word--not one word--about the Russian 
intervention in our last Presidential campaign. This is not 
speculation. It is a reality that 17 different U.S. intelligence 
agencies have told us that Vladimir Putin and the Russian Government 
were attempting to subvert and undermine our Presidential election. To 
our knowledge, that has never happened at any time in the history of 
the United States. It is the first time a sovereign nation has tried to 
literally launch a cyber invasion of the United States of America to 
try to change the outcome of the most important electoral choice under 
the Constitution--the choice of President of the United States. It is a 
major issue. It is one President Trump cannot ignore.
  During the course of that speech, he never once mentioned the word 
``Russia.'' He never raised this issue as to whether it was worthy of 
investigation. He described it as a ruse. He has dismissed it and 
basically has paid no attention to it whatsoever and wants the rest of 
America to forget it as well.
  That is not going to happen because the investigation about this 
Russian cyber invasion continues. We know the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation is deep into an investigation. I don't know what it will 
find. I don't know if they will find any complicity with anyone in the 
United States, anyone in the Trump campaign. It is only after we have 
an independent, complete, and credible investigation that we may know 
the facts.
  We also have an investigation underway by many of our intelligence 
agencies, which are looking at the involvement of the Russians trying 
to change the outcome of our election. Those investigations are 
underway.
  One element came up last night that has changed the conversation in 
Washington about this whole issue. Even before last night's news, we 
knew Attorney General Jeff Sessions needed to recuse himself from any 
Justice Department investigation into Russia's efforts to influence the 
2016 election in support of the Trump campaign.
  The Department of Justice standard for recusal--that is, the removal 
of the Attorney General from an investigation--is pretty clear. It 
requires recusal by someone who has ``a personal or political 
relationship with any person or organization substantially involved in 
the conduct that is the subject of the investigation.''
  The Department of Justice regulations define ``political 
relationship'' to include service as a principal adviser to a candidate 
or campaign organization. Well, that certainly covers Attorney General 
Jeff Sessions and the Trump campaign. Attorney General Sessions was 
named in March 2016 as chairman of then-Candidate Trump's National 
Security Advisory Committee. Steve Bannon, formerly of Breitbart News 
and now a close adviser to the President, described Jeff Sessions to 
the Washington Post as follows: ``Throughout the campaign, Sessions has 
been the fiercest, most dedicated, and most loyal promoter in Congress 
of Trump's agenda, and has played a critical role as the clearinghouse 
for policy and philosophy to undergird the implementation of that 
agenda.''
  Attorney General Sessions close relationship with the Trump campaign 
creates a compelling basis for his recusal from any investigation of 
Russian involvement in that campaign.

[[Page S1570]]

  So far, to this day, to this moment, Jeff Sessions has refused to 
recuse himself from this investigation. He refused when I asked him 
about it during the course of the hearing, and he has refused since he 
was named Attorney General. Now it is clear that his unwillingness to 
recuse himself is no longer tenable or acceptable or even explainable.
  Last night, the Washington Post reported that then-Senator Jeff 
Sessions spoke with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak twice during the 
Presidential campaign--in July at a Heritage Foundation event near the 
Republican National Convention and in September in a private 
conversation in the Senator's office. These communications came as a 
great surprise because until last night, Attorney General Sessions did 
not disclose them.
  During his hearing in January, in preparation to become Attorney 
General, Jeff Sessions, then Senator, was asked by Senator Al Franken 
of Minnesota: ``If there is any evidence that anyone affiliated with 
the Trump campaign communicated with the Russian government in the 
course of this campaign, what would you do?''
  Jeff Sessions' answer under oath included this statement: ``I did not 
have communications with the Russians.''
  Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont also asked Attorney General Sessions 
in writing: ``Have you been in contact with anyone connected to any 
part of the Russian government about the 2016 election, either before 
or after election day?'' Attorney General Sessions' response was 
``No.''
  It is hard to understand why Attorney General Sessions has not been 
more forthcoming and upfront with Congress and the American people 
about communications which we now know in fact did take place. If he 
thinks there was nothing wrong with these communications, why would he 
conceal them? It is deeply troubling.
  The reality is, the Attorney General has compromised his credibility 
when it comes to investigating Russia's cyber invasion of America's 
election. His recusal is no longer an option, it is a necessity.
  People say: Oh, of course, a Democratic Senator is saying that the 
Republican Attorney General should recuse himself. This morning, it has 
been reported that a number of top Republicans in Congress have called 
for the Attorney General's recusal, including House Majority Leader 
Kevin McCarthy and House Oversight Chairman Jason Chaffetz.
  It is imperative that career Justice Department professionals be 
allowed to follow the facts in this investigation to discover the 
truth. We may need a special counsel, but these steps alone are not 
sufficient. I believe we need an independent, bipartisan commission, 
led by Americans of unimpeachable integrity, to get to the bottom and 
get to the facts on this attack on our democracy.
  I know the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence is also conducting 
an investigation. The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, 
which, incidentally, is chaired by Representative Devin Nunes, who 
served on the executive committee of President Trump's transition team, 
agreed to the parameters of an investigation yesterday.
  The Intelligence Committees cannot, by their very nature, provide the 
transparency and accountability that an independent commission would 
bring to this issue, and the chairmen of those two committees--House 
and Senate--have already raised serious questions about their own 
impartiality by calling on the media organizations at the behest of the 
White House to challenge news stories on this issue.
  How could you possibly maintain objectivity if the elements of an 
investigation are compromised before the investigation even starts?
  I am particularly concerned that Chairman Nunes has already publicly 
expressed views of the outcome of his committee's investigation before 
it has even started. That is not a professional, honest, or credible 
way to approach this.
  We need an independent, bipartisan commission to get to the truth, 
and that may include taking a hard look at the Attorney General's 
communications with the Russians and at his refusal to disclose those 
communications. We also need to point out the obvious, which is that 
when it comes to investigating Russia's involvement in helping the 
Trump campaign, we have to follow the money, and that includes 
reviewing President Trump's tax returns, which, unlike any other 
Presidential candidate in modern times, he has refused to share with 
the American people.
  Yesterday, Senators Stabenow, Wyden, and a number of my colleagues 
sent a letter to the chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Orrin 
Hatch, of Utah, urging him to allow committee members to review the 
President's tax returns in a closed executive session. That is 
something the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee has the 
authority to do. The letter pointed out that this oversight is 
essential given the media reports about Russia as well as the possible 
unconstitutional emoluments being accepted by President Trump's vast 
business empire.
  I support this request from my colleagues. It is imperative that 
President Trump level with the American people about his business's 
foreign entanglements, especially those involving Russia.
  This issue is not going away. I urge my colleagues on both sides of 
the aisle to join me in pursuing all of the facts about last year's 
Russian attack on our democracy.
  It was just a few weeks ago that the President's National Security 
Advisor, General Flynn, resigned. Do you remember why? He 
misrepresented to the Vice President and the American people 
conversations which he had had with the Russians. He ended up giving up 
his position as the No. 1 person in national security in the White 
House.
  Now questions have been raised about the credibility of the Attorney 
General--the No. 1 person in the Trump administration when it comes to 
the administration of justice. What is the issue? It is the same issue 
as with General Flynn--conversations with the Russians which were not 
disclosed to the American public.
  This is an issue that is going to continue to be in the forefront, as 
it should be, until we can bring the facts to the American people. The 
only way to reach that point is by having the Attorney General recuse 
himself from any investigation, appointing as a special prosecutor--or 
someone in that capacity--someone who is credible who can pursue this 
matter and then initiating an independent, bipartisan investigation by 
a national commission with credible chairs who have no political agenda 
and care enough for the United States to view this invasion by Russia 
as absolutely unacceptable.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WICKER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Capito). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                     Congratulating Senator Cochran

  Mr. WICKER. Madam President, earlier today, during his opening 
remarks, the distinguished majority leader paid tribute to my senior 
Senator, Thad Cochran, upon the occasion of his becoming the 10th 
longest serving Senator in the history of our Republic.
  If you think about this--I just checked with the cloakroom--the 
Senate first convened in March of 1789 in New York City. In the 228 
years of the United States Senate, Thad Cochran, of Mississippi, now 
becomes the 10th longest serving Senator in history. Quite a milestone.
  I was chairing a subcommittee hearing this morning and was not able 
to be on the floor during the majority leader's remarks, and so I take 
a moment to now pay tribute to Senator Cochran at this milestone in his 
career and in the history of the Senate.
  Most Senators do not know Senator Cochran and I were born in the same 
small town. We are both natives of Pontotoc, MS. We are alumni of the 
same university. We are both Ole Miss Rebels. We also share the same 
political lineage in Mississippi of being early pioneers in the 
development of the Republican Party. I was the first Republican Member 
of the House of Representatives in my congressional district, the First 
District of Mississippi, back in 1994. Senator Cochran

[[Page S1571]]

blazed an even more significant trail by becoming the first popularly 
elected Republican Senator from Mississippi back in 1978--in over a 
century. He succeeded former President pro tempore Jim Eastland, of 
Mississippi.
  I have been able to watch him and be somewhat of a teammate over the 
decades, and I just want to pay tribute to Thad Cochran as being a 
trailblazer for quite some time. This is a milestone, and it is a 
testament to the proven record that Senator Cochran has built over 38 
years in this Chamber. He served for 6 years in the House prior to 
that, so he has been around a long time. He has always been a good 
public servant. He has always been a strong American. He has always 
been a good member of the troop.
  He is chairman of the Appropriations Committee, and a lot of funds 
are distributed through that committee. He is part of the team, and his 
committee is part of the team. Again, a lot of our colleagues do not 
realize this, but we set budget numbers--the House and Senate. We come 
to an agreement, and we set those spending levels. Then the 
Appropriations Committee, under the leadership of Thad Cochran, does 
the hard work of figuring out how to abide by those budget caps, and 
they do it year in and year out. With leadership like Senator Thad 
Cochran's, usually, the numbers are crunched, and they make it work on 
a bipartisan basis. Many of the votes in the Appropriations Committee 
last year, under the leadership of Chairman Cochran, were unanimous 
votes or virtually unanimous votes.
  At the same time, he has been able to, within the constraints of 
those budget caps, take care of the needs of our country and certainly 
the needs of our State of Mississippi at some very dark moments in the 
history of our State. Hurricane Katrina--the worst natural disaster in 
recorded history ever to hit the North American Continent--was visited 
upon our State, and we were certainly fortunate to have the leadership 
of Senator Thad Cochran, and I was glad to be his partner in that 
regard. After Deepwater Horizon, the entire gulf coast region--and in 
fact the entire Nation--benefited from the leadership of Senator 
Cochran.
  He makes us proud, and he has made us proud for years and years now. 
He was called by someone the ``quiet persuader,'' and that nickname has 
stuck and has been appropriate for quite some time. Throughout his time 
in Congress, indeed, Thad Cochran has been the quiet persuader. Not a 
lot of demagoguery, not a lot of arm-waving, not a lot of rhetoric 
comes from this desk in front of me--but leadership and resolve and 
taking care of business on behalf of the United States of America.
  Before he was a Congressman, Thad Cochran was a successful young 
lawyer, and before that, he was a member of the Navy. He served our 
country well. Before that, he was perhaps the most outstanding law 
student with perhaps the highest grade point average ever in the 
history of the ``Ole Miss'' law school. So he has made us proud in so 
many ways.
  Although I was not able to be on the floor at the moment when Senator 
McConnell made this recognition, I did want to come, now that I have a 
moment or two, and add my words of encouragement and congratulations to 
Thad Cochran, but also my words of appreciation on behalf of a grateful 
State and a grateful Nation for the many ways in which Thad Cochran has 
made us a better and a stronger country.
  Thank you, Madam President.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Blunt). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                        Tribute to Joyce McCombs

  Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I have been coming to the floor for the 
past several weeks to highlight my State and the great people who live 
in it. As the Presiding Officer and everybody in this room and those 
watching on TV probably know, Alaska is a breathtaking place. In fact, 
there is no place like it in the world--mountain ranges that seem to go 
on for eternity, salmon-filled waters and rivers, streams, massive 
glaciers. People save up their whole lives to come to visit my State. 
We welcome them. We want them all to come.
  As I have also been saying, it is the people who make Alaska truly 
special, the Alaskans, people throughout my State banding together to 
form warm communities in cold climates. In Alaska, where the conditions 
are often extreme, we depend on each other--communities do--sometimes 
even for survival.
  Today I would like to recognize Joyce McCombs, the director of the 
community library in Delta Junction, AK, as the Alaskan of the Week. On 
March 9, Joyce will be celebrating 30 years as the library director--
30. She was also recently named by the Alaska Library Association the 
Audrey P. Kolb Public Library Service Award winner and received the 
Public Library Roundtable Certificate of Appreciation for her 
``significant, innovative activities'' to improve her library. That 
award is named after Audrey Kolb, who is a legend in the library world 
in Alaska, and Joyce has that award as well as our award.
  Delta Junction, where she lives, is a beautiful community of about 
1,000 residents, surrounded by 3 spectacular mountain ranges. The 
community is about 150 miles from Fairbanks, in Alaska's interior. It 
gets cold there in the winter. As a matter of fact, this morning in 
Delta Junction, it was 26 below zero. And it is home to Fort Greely, 
which is the cornerstone of our Nation's entire missile defense system, 
protected by 300 brave soldiers, part of the Alaskan National Guard.
  For many in Delta Junction, the library--recognized by the Library 
Journal as one of the best in the State--is the place where people 
converge and find warmth and community. It is open 6 days a week, and 
it only closes when it gets below 40 below zero. They are tough people 
in Delta Junction.
  Joyce, with the support of so many in Delta Junction, including Fort 
Greely, which supports the library, has made sure that this library 
stays one of the best in the State and in the country. In her words, 
Delta's library is the ``community living room.'' In a small town like 
Delta Junction, such spaces are rare and, indeed, special. Joyce brings 
all sorts of services and learning to the library, including bands, 
authors, cooking classes--``what the community wants and needs,'' she 
said. Sometimes those needs entail sitting someplace warm and reading a 
book. Sometimes it means Skyping a spouse who might be serving overseas 
in Afghanistan or Iraq or applying for a job or getting the right form 
to file their tax returns. Joyce said: ``We're open 6 days a week 
serving everybody from nursery schools to nursing homes.''
  One Delta resident told Joyce on Facebook:

       Your assistance to the literary education of now two 
     generations of children has been an invaluable contribution 
     to our community that will be paying dividends for years to 
     come. This statewide honor is only a larger recognition of 
     what we already know here in Delta--that you are a great 
     librarian.

  After 30 years as the director of the library, Joyce still loves her 
job, saying she learns something every day from her patrons. Thankfully 
for all of us, she has no plans to leave.
  Congratulations on your award, Joyce. Happy birthday to your 
grandson, Trek. And thank you--and to the many librarians across our 
State and across our Nation--for your efforts to provide a warm 
learning space for all Alaskans and all Americans.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________