Chuck Grassley

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, before we vote on the resolution of disapproval, I want to reiterate several very important facts. This resolution of disapproval is bipartisan. The resolution is also supported by 23 groups, mostly disability rights groups. The disability groups believe that this agency--the Social Security Administration--and its regulation will unfairly stigmatize those with disabilities. Of course, they are right. The American Civil Liberties Union has said this: We oppose this rule because it advances and reinforces the harmful stereotype that people with mental disabilities, a vast and diverse group of citizens, are violent and should not own a gun. There is no data to support a connection between the need for a representative payee to manage one's Social Security disability benefits and a propensity toward gun violence. The ACLU goes on to say: Here, the rule automatically conflates one's disability- related characteristic, that is, difficulty managing money, with the inability to safely possess a firearm. The agency regulation is defective in many ways. Namely, the regulation does not require the agency to prove a person is dangerous or mentally ill. The regulation also provides no formal hearing or due process before a person is reported to the gun ban list. Supporters of the gun ban have said that repeal of this regulation will interfere with the enforcement of the gun prohibition laws. I want to say plainly and simply: This is hogwash. We should not let baseless scare tactics confuse this important issue. Important Federal gun laws are still on the books, even if the agency rule is repealed. We aren't repealing any laws. The new regulation is inconsistent with these existing Federal gun laws. The agency still has a duty to report anyone who has actually been adjudicated as dangerously mentally ill to the gun ban list. That is also true of anyone convicted of a felony or a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence or involuntarily committed to a mental institution. The Federal law requires this: If a Federal department or agency . . . has any record of any person demonstrating that the person falls within one of the categories . . . shall . . . provide the pertinent information contained in such record to the Attorney General. This law remains in effect. Repealing this regulation will merely ensure that disabled citizens' Second Amendment rights are, in fact, protected. Those rights will no longer be able to be revoked without a hearing and without due process. It will take more than a personal opinion-- just a personal opinion of a bureaucrat--to abridge one's Second Amendment rights. An existing statute requires agencies to report the individuals to the gun ban list who are ineligible to possess firearms. That requirement remains intact even if this regulation is repealed. So it is plainly wrong to claim, as has been said, that if the regulation is disapproved, agencies will no longer have to report prohibited persons. If the supporters of this regulation want to take away people's gun rights, then they need to acknowledge the government must carry the burden to actually prove a person--prove a person--is dangerously mentally ill. And the government must provide due process in that process. They need to go back to the drawing board, in other words, because this rule is inconsistent with the very important Second Amendment rights to bear arms, own, and possess guns--buy and possess guns. Therefore, it must be repealed, and this resolution must be approved. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, on this side I yield back our unused time.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that floor privileges be granted this Congress for Darren Dodd, a detailee from the U.S. Secret Service, and Saleela Salahuddin, a detailee from the Department of Justice.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, some of the supporters of the new gun ban have brought forth arguments to try to discredit the other side. They have said that repealing the agency rule will allow the mentally ill to acquire firearms. Let me tell you why that is not true. Under this regulation, the Social Security Administration never, ever determines a person to be mentally ill before reporting them to this gun ban list. It does not provide due process before reporting them to the list. Once the agency places a person on this disorders list, it then moves to assign a representative payee. But that is a very flawed process as well. The former Social Security Administration inspector general said the following last year in testimony before a committee about assigning a representative payee. This will be a very short quote from the inspector general: ``It's not a scientific decision; it's more of a personal opinion.'' It is quite obvious under our Constitution's due process clause that the personal opinion of a bureaucrat cannot be the basis for taking away a person's Second Amendment rights. Further, a June 2015 internal Social Security report found significant shortcomings in the representative payee process, namely that--and I will quote from the Social Security report--``the Social Security Administration's capability determinations were undeveloped, undocumented, or insufficiently documented.'' A very legitimate question can be raised: How can any of us be comfortable allowing our fellow citizens to be subjected to such a process, a process that leads to the violation of constitutional rights? The regulation does not then require a formal hearing at any point. Federal law and other regulations require that a formal hearing take place. Mr. President, 18 U.S.C. 922(d)(4) requires adjudication before depriving someone of the right to own a firearm due to mental illness. There can be no adjudication if there is no hearing. A 1996 ATF Federal Register Notice says ``the legislative history of the Gun Control Act makes it clear that a formal adjudication is necessary before firearms disabilities are incurred.'' The Obama administration knew that fundamental rights required constitutional due process. At the bare minimum, that requires a hearing. Yet, in this rule, no hearing is being afforded to that individual that will eventually have their constitutional rights abrogated. Of course, that ought to be considered not only a travesty but a travesty on the Constitution as well. The constitutional due process is entirely nonexistent because there is absolutely no opportunity for an individual to challenge the proceedings against them. The American Civil Liberties Union has echoed the same concerns, stating that ``the rule includes no meaningful due process protections prior to the Social Security Administration's transmittal of the names to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System database.'' The Second Amendment is very much being tossed aside without a formal dispute process to challenge the action before the constitutional right is abridged. On these facts alone, the regulation should be repealed. Yet there is more. The regulation fails to establish that a person is a danger to themselves or a danger to others before taking away the constitutional rights the Second Amendment allows. If a rule premised on safety is to have any credibility, one would obviously think that the government needs to prove a person is dangerous, but this rule fails in that regard because it does not require the agency to find a person is, in fact, dangerous. The Second Amendment is a fundamental right requiring the government to carry the burden showing a person has a dangerous mental illness. This regulation obviously and simply does not achieve that requirement. To be clear, however, if this regulation is repealed, Federal gun prohibitions will still exist. Individuals who have been determined to be a danger to themselves or others will still be prohibited from purchasing firearms. Also, individuals who are found to have a dangerous mental illness will be prohibited from purchasing a firearm. A person convicted of a felony or a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence will still be prohibited from purchasing, owning, and possessing a firearm. The same is true for those involuntarily committed to a mental institution. As government expands, liberty contracts. It follows that with the expansion of government, power is centralized here, in this island surrounded by reality that we call Washington, DC, rather than with the American people. Often with that centralization of power, fairness does not necessarily follow, as demonstrated by this regulation. This Obama- era regulation is a perfect example of government wielding too much power--the power to deny people due process, the power to deny people their constitutional rights under the Second Amendment. The process described herein is extremely problematic and necessitates being done away with by the passing of this resolution of disapproval. It is not clear that any of these disorders a person is labeled with has anything whatsoever to do with a person's ability to responsibly own a firearm, and there is insufficient due process to ensure that a person actually has a given disorder that would interfere with their safe use of a firearm. Notably, even if a representative payee has been assigned, the individual still maintains the capacity to contract. Thus, the government is subject to a very low threshold to report names to the gun list and no burden of proof is required. By contrast, under this regulation, those who are reported to the list must prove the negative. They have to prove that the government is wrong. They must prove they are not a danger in order to get their name off that gun ban list. For the government to shift the burden to the citizen whose rights are being deprived is clearly unfair and unconstitutional. The failure to determine if a person is mentally ill or a danger to self or others is a material defect to this regulation, as is the failure to afford constitutional due process. There is no reasonable basis under this regulation to justify abridging that very important, fundamental constitutional right, and that is why this regulation must be repealed through the passage of this resolution of disapproval. I yield the floor. Order for Recess

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate recess from 12:30 p.m. to 2:15 p.m. today.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today I come to the floor to address my colleagues about the bipartisan resolution of disapproval that I introduced on January 30, along with Senator Crapo and 24 other cosponsors. This resolution now has 32 cosponsors, and of course this resolution of disapproval is absolutely necessary. The resolution of disapproval is a procedure, as we know, under the Congressional Review Act for repealing executive branch regulations. The regulation at issue here in this disapproval resolution was issued by the Social Security Administration under President Obama. This regulation unfairly stigmatizes people with disabilities. If the regulation is not repealed, it will allow the agency to very unfairly deprive Social Security recipients of their Second Amendment rights. The regulation would result in disability recipients being reported to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System as ineligible to own a firearm and, thus, have their Second Amendment rights violated. This is essentially a national gun ban list. The agency accomplishes this by doing two things: determining if a person has a disorder on a vague ``mental disorders'' list, and, two, appointing a representative payee to manage benefit payments. This process has been in place for years to merely assign a representative payee. That is merely someone who is authorized to deal with the bureaucracy on behalf of that Social Security recipient to help a recipient with their finances. Now it is being used to report beneficiaries to a list so that they cannot buy or own a gun. Of course, once on that list, individuals are prohibited, as I have already inferred, from purchasing, owning, and possessing firearms, thus violating Second Amendment rights. The regulation is flawed beyond any kind of repair. It results in reporting people to the gun ban list that should not be on that list at all. It deprives those people of their constitutional rights and, in a very important way, violates their constitutional rights without even due process. Under current Federal law, one must first be deemed ``mentally defective'' before being reported to the gun ban list. However, the mental disorder list in this regulation is filled with vague characteristics that do not fit into the Federal ``mentally defective'' standard. The disorder list is inconsistent with the Federal mentally defective standard. More importantly, the list was never designed to regulate firearms. As such, it is improper to use it for that purpose. Many of the disorders on the list are unrelated to gun safety. For example, the disorders list includes eating disorders, disorders that merely impact sleep or cause restlessness, and even disorders that could cause ``feelings of inadequacy.'' Because the Second Amendment is a fundamental right, the government must have a very compelling reason to regulate, and the regulation must be very narrowly tailored. It unfairly stigmatizes people with disabilities. The government is essentially saying that a person with a disability, such as an eating disorder, is more likely to be violent and should no longer be allowed to own a gun. There is no evidence to support that general idea and, consequently, people being denied constitutional rights without due process. And if a specific individual is likely to be violent due to the nature of their mental illness, then the government should have to prove it. It is pretty basic constitutional law: The government should have to carry the burden before denying a constitutional right. The National Council on Disability--and that happens to be a nonpartisan and independent Federal agency--has said this: The rule stigmatizes a group of people who are not likely to perpetuate the kind of violence the rule hopes to address. Furthermore, it deprives a much broader class of individuals of a constitutional right than was intended by Federal law. In addition, the American Civil Liberties Union has said: We oppose this rule because it advances and reinforces the harmful stereotype that people with mental disabilities, a vast and diverse group of citizens, are violent. There is no data to support a connection between the need for a representative payee . . . and a propensity toward gun violence. That was a quote from the American Civil Liberties Union. The Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities--and that is a coalition of 100 national disability groups--shares the same concerns about regulations, and I will quote from them: The current public dialogue is replete with inaccurate stereotyping of people with mental disabilities as violent and dangerous, and there is a real concern that the kind of policy change encompassed by this rule will reinforce those unfounded assumptions. In other words, those unfounded assumptions are about who might be disabled or not. I ask unanimous consent to have these letters printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, we have a very bad regulation that has been put out by the Social Security Administration that needs to be obliterated, so we are using a process called the Congressional Review Act to show Congress's displeasure with the Social Security Administration and to get this regulation off the books. Now, there has been a lot of talk about how the Congressional Review Act is the wrong vehicle to repeal the disastrous regulation. So I want to quote a contrary opinion from the National Coalition for Mental Health Recovery saying this: The CRA-- Meaning the Congressional Review Act-- is a powerful mechanism for controlling regulatory overreach, and NCMHR urges its use advisedly and cautiously. In this particular case, the potential for real harm to the constitutional rights of people with psychiatric and intellectual disabilities is grave as is the potential to undermine the essential mission of an agency that millions of people with and without disabilities rely upon to meet their basic needs. Therefore, in this instance, NCMHR feels that utilizing the CRA to repeal the final rule is not only warranted, but necessary. I would add to it that it is obviously necessary. I ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, there has also been talk about how supposedly dangerous it will be if this Social Security regulation is terminated. I don't see how that can possibly be realistic if the Social Security Administration doesn't even determine whether a person is dangerous in the first place--and ``dangerous'' meaning in regard to whether or not they ought to be able to make use of the constitutional right of the Second Amendment to own and possess firearms. Others in this debate continue to mention that mentally ill people will be able to acquire firearms. Now this is very important. The Social Security Administration does not determine a person to be mentally ill prior to reporting their names to the gun ban list, and being on the list denies you your constitutional rights. The agency has confirmed this in writing to my office: Yes, you are correct. The Social Security Administration does not diagnose individuals as mentally ill. Supporters of this gun ban failed to address why individuals are not provided formal due process before reporting their name to the list. Supporters have also failed to talk about how the regulation is inconsistent with the statutory standard of ``mental defective.'' An existing statute requires agencies to report individuals to the gun ban list who are ineligible under current law for possessing firearms. That requirement does not require the existence of any regulation to be effective. So it is plainly wrong to claim, as was said this very day by the people opposed to what we are doing, that if the regulation is disapproved, agencies will no longer have to report prohibited persons. The reverse, in fact, is true. The regulation usurps unlawful authority to report people to the gun ban list who are not barred from owning guns under current law and that the agency is prohibited from reporting under current law, especially without the adjudication that is required under current law. Opponents of the regulation base their opposition on the language of the regulation, existing law, and the Constitution, citing the Constitution to say that you don't have a constitutional right to own arms under the Second Amendment, which is contrary to two recent Supreme Court decisions that verify that that applies to an individual. That is why the regulation's supporters must resort to arguments that lack legal and factual foundation. Supporters of this gun ban also fail to address how overly broad this regulation is, as written. It will capture innocent Americans, denying innocent Americans their constitutional rights. Sadly, then, we know how this will play out if this regulation were allowed to go forward because we have the example of the Department of Veterans Affairs reporting hundreds of thousands of veterans to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System without adequate due process. That is the same system that Social Security was going to report people to. Veterans were reported just because some lonely bureaucrat wanted to report them, with no opportunity to first have a neutral authority hold a hearing, finding that that individual is dangerous or actually has a dangerous condition. These were veterans who needed financial help managing their benefit payments. It is common sense that needing help with your finances should not mean that you have surrendered a fundamental constitutional right of self-defense that you have under the Second Amendment. Just like the Social Security Administration, the VA does not determine whether a veteran is dangerous before reporting his name to the gun ban list and denying that veteran his Second Amendment constitutional rights to own and possess firearms. The VA regulation is eerily similar to what the Social Security Administration wants to do. On May 17, 2016, Senator Durbin and I debated my amendment that would require the Department of Veterans Affairs to first find veterans to be a danger before reporting their names to the gun ban list. Now that is common sense; isn't it? You ought to find out if they are really dangerous before they are denied a constitutional right. During the course of that debate, Senator Durbin admitted that the list was broader than it should have been. He said: I do not dispute what the Senator from Iowa suggested, that some of these veterans may be suffering from a mental illness not serious enough to disqualify them from owning a firearm, but certainly many of them do. Senator Durbin also said: Let me just concede at the outset, reporting 174,000 names goes too far, but eliminating-- As my legislation proposed to do-- 174,000 names goes too far. For the record, though, it wasn't really 174,000 names going too far. It was actually 260,381 names that the VA sent to the gun ban list. Now that happens to be 98.8 percent of all names that are in the alleged ``mental defective'' category. The Department of Veterans Affairs reported more names by far than any other agency without sufficient justification. Senator Durbin's staff and mine have met over these issues since that debate, and I appreciate and thank him for that outreach. Now we have the Social Security Administration problem and, through the Congressional Review Act, we can do something about it. We don't have to pass a separate piece of legislation, like we are going to have to do to straighten out the VA. So the Social Security Administration is about to make the same mistake as the VA unless we stop it right here and right now. If this regulation is not repealed, the agency has informed my staff that approximately 15,000 to 75,000 beneficiaries of Social Security may be reported annually, denying them their constitutional right to bear, possess, and own firearms. That figure of 15,000 or even more so--the higher figure of 75,000--will add up very quickly. In my earlier speech today on this topic, I made clear that the agency regulation is defective in many ways; namely, the regulation does not require the agency to find a person dangerous or mentally ill. The regulation provides no formal hearing before a person is reported to the gun ban list. Supporters have also said that repeal of this regulation will interfere with enforcement of gun prohibition laws. Such a position is without any merit--denying people constitutional due process. As I made clear in my earlier speech, important Federal gun laws are still on the books, even if the agency rule is repealed. This is so because this new regulation is actually inconsistent with those existing Federal gun laws. For example, individuals who have been determined to be dangerous or mentally ill will be prohibited, as will those convicted of a felony or a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence, and the same for those involuntarily committed to mental institutions. While discussing the faults and defects of the rule, I think it is important to highlight that the issues I have pointed out are also the solution to the problem. If the supporters of the agency rule want the Social Security Administration to report individuals to the gun ban list, changes need to be made. Individuals must first be determined by a neutral authority after a fair hearing meeting the requirements of the U.S. Constitution. If they are dangerous and have a dangerous mental illness, then they could constitutionally be denied that right. Constitutional due process is a very important part of that process. If we do not act, the agency will erroneously report tens of thousands of people per year to the gun ban list, and not one of them will have been adjudicated to be dangerous after a hearing with due process, not one of them will have been adjudicated to be mentally ill after a hearing with due process, and all of them will have had the government's burden shifted to them to prove they are not dangerous in order to get their name off the gun ban list. It is common sense, isn't it? It ought to be that you are innocent until proven guilty. If you can't have a gun, common sense tells me you ought not have to prove that you can have a gun to the government; the government has to prove that you should not have a gun. Any way you look at it, the regulatory scheme is patently unfair. If the government wants to regulate firearms, it needs to produce a clearly defined regulation that is very narrowly tailored to identify individuals who are actually dangerous and who actually have a dangerous mental illness. The government must also afford constitutional due process. What we are dealing with here is a fundamental constitutional right backed up by two Supreme Court decisions in the last 10 years. With that type of constitutional status, the Second Amendment requires greater effort and greater precision from the government in order to fairly regulate how the American people exercise that constitutional right. This regulation simply doesn't meet that standard. I urge my colleagues to support the resolution of disapproval. Mr. President, I don't know whether anybody else is coming to seek the floor. If I am infringing upon somebody else's time, I will yield the floor, but in the meantime, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss some criticism I have heard about the nominee to fill the seat on the Supreme Court. That nominee is Neil Gorsuch. My colleague, the minority leader, met with the nominee last week. Afterward, he told reporters that he had ``serious, serious concerns'' about the judge. Well, I guess I shouldn't be surprised--after all, it seems the minority leader had concerns about the nominee even before the nominee was announced. Before Judge Gorsuch was announced, the minority leader made clear that any nominee must be ``mainstream.'' But it became clear immediately that this nominee is widely regarded as a mainstream judge with impeccable credentials. Liberal law professor Laurence Tribe says that ``he's a brilliant, terrific guy who would do the Court's work with distinction.'' Alan Dershowitz, who certainly is no conservative, says that Judge Gorsuch will be ``hard to oppose on the merits.'' Even President Obama's Acting Solicitor General, Neal Katyal, said Judge Gorsuch ``would help to restore confidence in the rule of law.'' The chorus goes on. Apparently, because the nominee is so obviously mainstream, the benchmark for my colleague's concerns keeps changing. The minority leader has conveniently developed a new test. Now he says the benchmark is independence: ``The bar for the Supreme Court nominee to prove that they can be independent, has never, never been higher.'' Well, fortunately for the minority leader, Judge Gorsuch passes that bar with flying colors, just like he passed the ``mainstream'' test with flying colors. The nominee's record makes clear that he is an independent and fairminded judge who is deeply committed to the separation of powers. Here is just one example from his many opinions on this point. Just last year, Judge Gorsuch had to decide a case about the authority of the Board of Immigration Appeals, or the BIA, which answers to the Attorney General. The BIA wanted to change the Attorney General's power to waive immigration requirements for illegal immigrants, and it wanted the new rules to apply to undocumented immigrants whose waiver applications were already in the works. The nominee said no to this executive agency. To be clear, Judge Gorsuch was asked to decide whether an executive agency in charge of immigration laws could change the law on a whim in a way that many believed was unfair to immigrants who had already sought waivers. He said no. With due respect to my friend the minority leader, there is no doubt that Judge Gorsuch would say no to this or any other part of the executive branch that oversteps its bounds. Here is what the nominee wrote about the separation of powers and executive branch overreach. For him to defer to the executive agency in that case would be ``more than a little difficult to square with the Constitution of the framers' design.'' That is because doing so would allow agency bureaucracy to ``swallow huge amounts of core judicial and legislative power,'' which the Constitution assigns to separate branches of government. So the nominee was concerned about the separation of powers. He was concerned about people whose liberties might be impaired, and because of those concerns, he said no to the immigration agency's policy whim of the day. Judge Michael McConnell, a former colleague of Judge Gorsuch on the Tenth Circuit, makes the same observation about this case. He says the scope of executive power arguably ``will be the most common Supreme Court issue of the coming decade.'' He says the nominee analyzes that issue in a way that is faithful to the Constitution and to the independence of the judiciary, and he points to the nominee's thinking on this question. Judge Gorsuch wrote: What would happen . . . if the political majorities who run the legislative and executive branches could decide cases and controversies over past facts? They might be tempted to bend existing laws, to reinterpret them . . . [this would] risk the possibility that unpopular groups might be singled out for this sort of mistreatment--and [would] rais[e] along the way, too, grave due process, fair notice, and equal protection problems. . . . It was to avoid dangers like these, dangers the founders had studied and seen realized in their own time, that they pursued the separation of powers. That is the writing of an independent judge who believes in the separation of powers. You know, there is a bit of irony to some of the criticism I have heard leveled against Judge Gorsuch. On the one hand, I have heard that he will have to be independent and that he won't rubberstamp the President's agenda. On the other hand, I have heard that he will be way too tough on the executive branch as it fulfills the President's agenda. It is quite obvious that, common sense tells us as we look at those two arguments that we can't have it both ways. Judge Gorsuch has shown he is faithful to the separation of powers in the Constitution. That means he will be an independent judge who will say no when the other branches of government overreach. You don't need to take my word for it. Listen to President Obama's Acting Solicitor General, Neal Katyal. He is no fan of the President's Executive order, but he says that Judge Gorsuch ``will not compromise principle to favor the President who appointed him.'' Instead, the Solicitor General said the nominee ``would help to restore confidence in the rule of law.'' Judge Gorsuch's record and reputation leave no room to doubt that he is a mainstream, independent judge. He will apply the law fairly, and he won't be afraid to say no when the Constitution requires it. Every time my colleague the minority leader has set out a standard for filling this Supreme Court seat, this judge has met it. He is mainstream. He is independent. And when my colleague chooses a new standard, I bet the nominee will also meet that new standard. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, there is a very good radio reporter in smalltown Iowa named Robert Leonard, or ``Dr. Bob,'' as he is known, who interviews me every month. I recently read an opinion piece he wrote in the New York Times where he gives his take on the perspective of rural America toward the role of government. This perspective is often lost in policy debates in our Nation's Capital. In this piece, Dr. Bob gives very thorough and intellectually honest commentary that more people should read. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the New York Times article entitled, ``Why Rural America Voted for Trump'' by Robert Leonard dated January 5, 2017.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

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

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

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

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, first of all, I rise to speak in favor of the Senate confirming Senator Sessions to the position of Attorney General, chief law enforcement officer of our country, but I do want to say thank you to the Democratic minority of my committee because they did not boycott the meetings. They debated. They debated too long, from my point of view, but they debated, and we were able to do our work in a businesslike way. So I want to thank all of them for their participation. Now I will take a few minutes to speak in strong support of my friend and our colleague Senator Jeff Sessions to serve as the 84th Attorney General. Last week, the Judiciary Committee spent over 6 hours debating the nomination. Every single Democrat opposed the nomination, but this wasn't, of course, much of a surprise. During our committee debate, Senator Graham correctly pointed out that, based on the standard the Democrats established, it appears no Republican could ever earn their support. It is no secret that our Democratic colleagues don't like the new President. They are doing what they can do to undermine the new administration. With respect to Senator Sessions, my Democratic colleagues disagree with a number of policy positions he has taken over the years, but this year seems to be unlike previous administrations, where Senators supported Cabinet nominees even if they disagreed with the nominee on policy grounds. That is what happened in 2009, when Senator Sessions and I both supported Eric Holder for Attorney General, even though we disagreed with him on many policies. So after listening to all the reasons they are opposing this nomination, I can boil their objections down to these points: Even though many of my colleagues have known this good man for years, even though many of my colleagues have worked closely with him to pass important bipartisan legislation, even though many of them have praised him in the past for his integrity and for being a man of his word, even though Senator Sessions has pledged to support and defend all laws passed by Congress, even those he disagrees with, when it comes time to stand up in support of this good man, they are unwilling to take him at his word. This is very troubling because all of us in the Senate know Jeff Sessions. Some of us have known him for decades. Regardless of what my colleagues are willing to admit publicly, we all know him to be a man of deep integrity, a man of his word, and a man committed to fairness, to justice, and, most importantly, to the rule of law. We all know that when Senator Sessions served as an assistant U.S. attorney, as a U.S. attorney, and as attorney general for his home State of Alabama, he worked hard to promote the rule of law and to bring justice to both victims and perpetrators. We know he has a deep commitment to the rule of law, something an Attorney General must possess or he could not be the chief law enforcement officer of the United States. In other words, that law or that position is all about carrying out and having a commitment to the rule of law. As I said, much of Senator Sessions' hearing focused on his record as a legislator. Now, it is true Senator Sessions has voted on legislation in ways that the left doesn't like, and of course I have even disagreed with him from time to time, but we all understand that every time we cast a vote, we are voting the way we see as the best for our country. I think we all also understand that very rarely is any bill a so-called perfect piece of legislation. At one time or another, every single Member of this body has opposed legislation based upon a principle objection to a particular provision. So, of course, Senator Sessions has voted differently than his Democratic colleagues. Now, that is common sense. That is to be expected. This is the Senate. We are all about debating policy and for long periods of time. That is how the Senate works. We all know the role of an Senator and the role of Attorney General are very, very different. A legislator debates policy and votes on legislation. The Attorney General enforces the laws, as enacted. All of us in the Senate understand that difference. Senator Sessions understands the difference better than most. In addition to serving as a Senator for 20 years, he served in the Department of Justice for 15 years, a Department dedicated to law enforcement and to the rule of law and following what Congress directs law to be. I am disappointed in my colleagues who have suggested Senator Sessions will not be able to put aside his policy differences that he established here in the United States and enforce the law, even if he voted against that law. This is especially troubling after he specifically committed to us during this confirmation hearing that if he is confirmed, he will follow the law, regardless of whether he supported that statute as a policy matter. The criteria for this nomination is, will this man, whose integrity is beyond reproach, enforce the law as he said he will? Senator Sessions answered that question directly during his hearing. He stated this: The Justice Department must remain ever faithful to the Constitution's promise that our government is one of laws and not of men. It will be my unyielding commitment to you, if confirmed, to see that the laws are enforced faithfully, effectively, and impartially. He goes on to say: The Attorney General must hold everyone, no matter how powerful, accountable. No one is above the law, and no American will be beneath its protection. Now, whether he said those things one time or dozens of times--and it is more apt to be dozens of times during the day and a half of hearings that we had on him, plus the speeches that were given--it can't be much clearer than what he just said. But even after he made this promise, Members asked Senator Sessions if he would defend the laws that he had voted against, and he answered in the affirmative, stating: I would defend the statute if it is reasonably defensible. It is passed by Congress, it would be the duty of the Attorney General, whether they voted for it or support it, to defend it. He was questioned about a host of hot-button policy issues. Time and again, his answer was the same. He will enforce the law. This will actually be quite different from the Obama administration, which refused to enforce laws it didn't like. They did this while the people who are now in the minority--the Democrats--turned a blind eye when they didn't enforce the law. Senator Sessions also made clear that he possesses the independence necessary for the Attorney General. I have often heard Senator Sessions ask Executive nominees, including nominees for Attorney General, whether they will have the fortitude to stand up to the President who appointed them. So I asked him the same question during my time of questioning in the committee. I asked if he will be able to say no to President Trump, and he said: I understand the importance of your question, I understand the responsibility of the Attorney General, and I will do so. You simply have to help the President do things that he might desire in a lawful way and have to be able to say, ``No,'' both for the country, for the legal system, and for the President to avoid situations that are not acceptable. I understand that duty. I have observed it through my years here, and I will fulfill that responsibility. Senator Sessions' commitment to be independent from the President when it is necessary and his promise to enforce the law is exactly what this Nation needs right now. We haven't seen much of this over the past 8 years. The Department has been politicized over the past 8 years, and that has caused great harm. The leadership of the Department of Justice has undermined our confidence in the rule of law by picking and choosing which laws it will enforce. I am looking forward to turning a new page at the Department under our friend's leadership as Attorney General. It is desperately needed, particularly at this time. Last weekend, in particular, it showed us how critical it is to have someone leading the Department who is committed to following the law. Last week, then-Acting Attorney General Sally Yates announced that she wouldn't present arguments in defense of the President's recent Executive order, even though she admitted there was a defense to be made. As soon as she did this, Democrats ran to her defense and sang her praises, but after Senator Sessions' hearing, I would have expected Democrats to come to the opposite conclusion. During his hearing, they asked Senator Sessions whether he would enforce a law that he didn't like over and over and over. But last week, Ms. Yates refused to enforce a law--why?--because she didn't like it, and the Democrats lauded her ``bravery'' and ``courage.'' They lauded her ``courage.'' Now, let's be very clear. She didn't say that she can't constitutionally defend the President's order or offer good-faith defenses of its legality in the court. Instead, this is what--she explained her decision by saying her job is not the same as the job in the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel. She said, importantly, OLC, meaning Office of Legal Counsel, does not address whether any policy choice embodied in an Executive order is wise or just. That seems to suggest, of course, that the decision on whether to defend an Executive order or statute in court turns on whether the Attorney General believes the law or order is wise or just. But with all respect to Ms. Yates, that wasn't her job. The Department's job is to enforce the law, just like Senator Sessions, becoming Attorney General, said he would enforce the law. Ms. Yates' obligation was clear. If she couldn't defend the order in good conscience, the only proper course was to resign. This unfortunate situation with Ms. Yates highlights why it is important to swiftly move to confirm an Attorney General who will be faithful to the Constitution and uphold the law regardless of policy preferences. Ultimately, it comes down to this: There is no one more qualified than Jeff Sessions for this position. He served in the Department for 15 years. He served as attorney general for his home State of Alabama, and for 20 years he served on the Senate Judiciary Committee, which has oversight over the Department of Justice. We all know Senator Sessions is a man of his word. We all know he will enforce all the laws on the books, regardless of whether he supported them. Both Republicans and Democrats know he will make an excellent Attorney General, and the Nation will be served well by his appointment. I urge all of my colleagues to vote in favor of the nomination. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, there has been a lot of discussion about Senator Sessions' nomination on this floor in the last 24 hours. Before we vote, I want to offer a couple of observations about the unfairness in some of the statements. First, I was hoping to limit my remarks to all of the reasons why I believe Senator Sessions will make an outstanding Attorney General, but instead I feel very compelled to say a few words about some of the attacks that have been leveled against Senator Sessions here on the floor, where he has served the people of Alabama faithfully for 20 years. A number of Senators have come to the floor to talk about Senator Sessions' hearing in 1986 when he was nominated to be a Federal judge. Now, it happens that I was in the Senate in 1986, at that time by 6 years. I was on the Judiciary Committee in 1986, by that time for 6 years, and I want you to know I saw what happened. I don't have time to go into all the details here, but I will tell you this: Jeff Sessions' hearing in 1986 was an absolute ambush. In fact, it was a planned ambush. He was unfairly attacked then and he is being unfairly attacked now. I will give just two examples. First, in the last 24 hours, we have heard Senator Sessions attacked for a voting rights case that he pursued as U.S. attorney in Alabama. We have heard a lot about that case. Of course, those who have raised the Perry County trial don't tell you Senator Sessions was actually asked to pursue that case by two African-American candidates who believed that ballots cast by African-American voters had been altered. The bottom line is that he was vindicating the voting rights of African-American voters whose voting rights had been compromised. Second, we have heard Senator Sessions criticized for testimony in his 1986 Judiciary Committee hearing about the Voting Rights Act. It has been said on this floor and it has been said repeatedly that Jeff Sessions called the Voting Rights Act ``intrusive,'' but those speaking in the last 24 hours don't know what he actually said. He did use the word ``intrusive,'' but then he said the Department of Justice had to do it ``because it would not have happened any other way.'' He said further: ``Federal intervention was essential in the South.'' He said it was an intrusive piece of legislation ``because it was a necessary piece of legislation, I support it.'' That is right. He said the Voting Rights Act ``was a necessary piece of legislation, I support it.'' That is what he said. But if you have been listening the last 24 hours--you wouldn't know any of that by listening to those who have come to the floor and talked all about that case in 1986. Like I said, I was here way back then. I saw what happened to that man who is going to be our next Attorney General, who would go on to join the Senate for these 20-some years and become our colleague and our friend. So you can understand why it is very frustrating to me to listen to all of those attacks, and it is particularly frustrating to hear it from Members who were not even here in 1986. With that, let me just say this in closing: Senator Sessions has served with us for 20 years. Every Member of this body knows him to be a man of integrity. Almost all of us have been on the other side of a policy debate with Senator Sessions at one time or another. I know I have. What we know from those debates is that whether Senator Sessions agrees with you or not on any policy question, he handles the debate fairly, he handles the debate respectfully, and he handles the debate honorably. Senator Sessions answered our questions in the Judiciary Committee for 10 long hours. He gave us his word on the critical issues that should decide our vote on this nomination. Most of that was centered around the fact that he is a man devoted to the law, and he is devoted as the chief law enforcement officer of our country to enforce the law, even if he didn't vote for it and even if he disagreed with it. We know from the questioning that Senator Sessions will be independent when he said when he has to say no to the President of the United States, he will say no to the President of the United States. We know Senator Sessions then, as I have said, will enforce the law faithfully, without regard to person, for all Americans. Motivated by those principles, Senator Sessions will make a very fine Attorney General, and most people in this body know that--even those who are going to vote against him. I am pleased to cast my vote in favor of his nomination, and of course I urge my colleagues to do the same thing. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. OK, as long as I get to speak after this issue is over.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I want to take a few minutes to comment on some of the initial reactions that I have heard from my Democratic colleagues on the President's nomination of Judge Gorsuch to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. First of all, even before we had the nominee, there were many of the Democratic Members vowing to filibuster the nominee, site unseen. That, of course, is very unfortunate, as well as being ridiculous--in other words, saying you are going to filibuster somebody before you even know who the nominee is. But of course, given how the minority has treated the President's Cabinet nominees so far, it is not exactly surprising that they would say this before the President even nominated somebody for the Court. Then, of course, this week the President announced his nominee. Judge Gorsuch, of course, was confirmed by the Senate in 2006 without a single ``no'' vote and is universally respected as one of the finest and most fairminded judges in the country. In fact--get this--one of President Obama's Solicitors General called him ``one of the most thoughtful and brilliant judges to have served our Nation over the last century.'' Now, if an Obama Solicitor General says that and that is not mainstream enough, I don't know what is. After the President's announcement, something very interesting happened. Right out of the gate, there were a number of Senate Democrats calling for ``a hearing and a vote.'' Well, that certainly sounds very encouraging. The press picked up on these comments, and one newspaper even reported that after learning who the nominee was, there were already seven Senate Democrats opposed to filibustering this nominee. At first glance, it appears those Democrats were trying to be consistent with their stance from last year that a nominee deserves a hearing and an up-or-down vote. But of course, now they conveniently seem to have dropped the up-or-down portion of that stand. Now, isn't that a nice trick, a new trick. Take, for example, one of my colleagues, who last year said: ``The Constitution says the Senate shall advise and consent, and that means having an up-or-down vote.'' But oddly, just yesterday, that same colleague said: ``I support a 60- vote margin for all Supreme Court nominees.'' That is a very nice sleight of hand. But most of the Senators are not that gullible. The Washington Post Fact Checker certainly took notice of their wordsmithing. That has earned them two Pinocchios. When you look at the facts, a 60-vote threshold has never been a standard, as the minority leader said yesterday. Otherwise, we would not have two of the current justices sitting on the Supreme Court. Of course, my colleagues tried unsuccessfully to filibuster Justice Alito. The Senate voted 72 to 25 to invoke cloture. He was then confirmed 58 to 42 on an up-or-down vote. Justice Thomas, now on the Supreme Court for 25 years, was confirmed 52 to 48. There was no cloture vote on Justice Thomas's nomination. In fact, the Senate did not set any sort of a requirement that there be 60 votes for 7 of the 8 justices serving on the Court. So, if there has been any sort of requirement or practice in the Senate on Supreme Court nominees, it has, in fact, been that the nominee does not need 60 votes, although many of them received that kind of support. We already know some Members have pledged to filibuster the nominee. This minority leader stated that part of the ``fair process'' is a 60- vote threshold. I suppose that if you are already committed to attempting a filibuster on a Supreme Court nominee before you even know who that person might be, then you might consider that part of a fair process. Of course, we all know--all Republicans and Democrats know--that launching a filibuster against a Supreme Court nominee is not part of a fair process. It never has been. But I suppose we should cut our colleagues just a little bit of slack. They are having a hard time figuring out how to make good on their promise to attack the nominee no matter who it is, when they have now been presented with a nominee with impeccable credentials as well as broad bipartisan support. This brings me to the second brief point that I want to make. Judge Gorsuch had barely finished speaking at the White House, and there were already attacks on the nominee by some on the left. Some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle had already taken to the Senate floor to attack and mischaracterize Judge Gorsuch's record. Though we expected it, these scurrilous attacks are untoward and obviously misplaced. After all, those on the left trot out the same tired arguments against every Republican nominee. Now, you know, going back a few years--maybe, too far for some of you younger Members--they attacked Justice Stevens because he ``revealed an extraordinary lack of sensitivity to problems that women face.'' They called Justice Kennedy a sexist who ``would be a disaster for women.'' They said there was ``ample reason to fear'' Justice Souter. Of course, you know what turned out. Justices Stevens and Souter turned out to be favorites of the left, and too often Justice Kennedy has ruled the liberal way. This morning, the Washington Post editorial board noted that, while we argued last year--meaning the paper argued last year--that the President should not fill a Supreme Court vacancy that occurs during a Presidential election year, Senate Republicans--quoting the Post-- ``refrained from tarring Mr. Garland personally.'' Now, in contrast, the paper noted that this dissent is unwarranted this early by writing this: ``Trashing Mr. Gorsuch as an outlandish radical, despite his impeccable credentials, the wide respect he commands in his field, his long service as an appeals court judge and the unanimous voice vote he received the last time the Senate considered him for the Federal bench is, at the very least, premature.'' Our friends on the other side of the aisle would do well to take note of the Washington Post's observation. So I would like to make this point. If the process we have witnessed for the President's Cabinet nominees is any guide, I am quite confident that we will hear all manner of reasons and arguments about why we should delay a hearing on Judge Gorsuch. But as my friend and former chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Leahy, often noted, Supreme Court nominees don't have the opportunity to respond to personal attacks outside of their confirmation hearing. So I am going to consult with the ranking member on timing for the hearing. But I can tell you what we are not going to do. We are not going to delay this hearing, especially in the face of all of these attacks on his record and character, which, both for the record and for his character, are unjustified. So I will conclude with this. I had the good fortune of meeting one- on-one with Judge Gorsuch yesterday. He is as impressive a person in person as he is on paper. I expect that as my friends on the other side of the aisle meet Judge Gorsuch and actually review his record, they will find him to be an imminently qualified and universally respected judge, whose decisions faithfully applying the text of the law place him well within the judicial mainstream. Now, maybe people that say they want a mainstream judge wanted an activist judge who will read the text the way the judge wants it read for their own personal views, as opposed to the intent by Congress. But Judge Gorsuch is doing what any judge should do reading the law. He said: If any judge likes every decision he makes, then he is not a very good judge. Now, this is what we are going to do. We are going to do our due diligence, and we are going to send a questionnaire to Judge Gorsuch in the next day or so. I will expect he will answer that questionnaire promptly, and then we will do what I said before the election, before we knew who was going to be the next President. In fact, we thought it was going to be Secretary Clinton. When I say we, the country as a whole had that in their mind. There was no doubt about it. So I said before the election, as the one responsible for not having a hearing on the previous nominee, that, whoever was elected President, this process was going to move forward. So we will have that hearing where Members can ask this nominee any questions they deem appropriate. We will vote on him in committee, and the full Senate will vote on his nomination. But given his exemplary record and the facts as we know them, I expect this nominee to be confirmed. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, last evening, I had the pleasure of being at the White House when President Trump introduced his nominee to be Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, Judge Neil Gorsuch, who happens to be serving on the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. It shouldn't surprise anybody that President Trump delivered on a promise made during the campaign, when he listed 21 people he would choose from. Everybody knew ahead of time what sort of a judge he would put on for this vacancy or any future vacancy. Judge Gorsuch's decade of service on the Tenth Circuit has earned him a reputation as a brilliant, principled, and mainstream judge, just exactly the sort of mainstream that Senator Schumer must have been thinking about when he said he wants a mainstream judge. It has already been widely reported that he was unanimously confirmed by a voice vote to the Tenth Circuit in 2006. There are still 31 Senators in this body who voted for the judge at that particular time; 12 of them are Democrats, and one of them is Senator Schumer. Judge Gorsuch was supported, of course, by both of his home State Senators for the Tenth Circuit. One happened to be a Republican, and one a Democrat. He has been recognized as a great jurist by Members from both parties. For instance, when he was sworn into the Tenth Circuit, Senator Salazar, then a Democratic Senator from Colorado, remarked that the judge ``has a sense of fairness and impartiality that is a keystone of being a judge.'' The judge happens to be fourth generation Coloradan. He is eminently qualified to be the next Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. His decades of experience span many facets of our legal system. A graduate of Columbia University and Harvard Law School, the judge was also a prestigious Marshall scholar at Oxford. He served as Principal Deputy Attorney General at the Department of Justice. Judge Gorsuch also knows the Supreme Court well, having clerked for Supreme Court Justices Byron White and also Anthony Kennedy, who is still on the Court. He currently serves with distinction on the Tenth Circuit, where he has established himself as a mainstream judge with a reputation as a fair and brilliant jurist. As a mainstream jurist, Judge Gorsuch enjoys broad respect across the ideological spectrum. At the confirmation hearing for his current judgeship on the Tenth Circuit, he was introduced by Republican Senator Allard from Colorado and Democratic Senator Salazar from Colorado. Senator Salazar, of course, isn't exactly a conservative firebrand, having most recently served as head of the transition team of Secretary Clinton. At his hearing in 2006, William Hughes, Jr., a Democratic candidate for the House of Representatives, authored a strong letter of recommendation for Judge Gorsuch stating: I have never found, nor thought, Neil's views or opinions to be tainted or swayed by any partisan leanings. Quite to the contrary, his approach to all things professional and personal has always been moderate and practical. There are plenty of other examples of strong bipartisan support for Judge Gorsuch. Even observers in the press recognize his reputation for fairness. Just last week the Denver Post endorsed the judge, saying: He ``has applied the law fairly and consistently.'' Judge John Kane, a colleague on the District Court of Colorado, appointed by President Carter, says this about Judge Gorsuch: [He] listens well and decides justly. His dissents are instructive rather than vitriolic. In sum, I think he is an excellent judicial craftsman. After his nomination was announced last evening, the highest praise so far came from President Obama's former Solicitor General, Neal Katyal, who described the nominee this way: Judge Gorsuch is one of the most thoughtful and brilliant judges to have served our nation over the last century. As a judge, he has always put aside his personal views to serve the rule of law. To boot, as those of us who have worked with him can attest, he is a wonderfully decent and humane person. I strongly support his nomination to the Supreme Court. To me, following the law wherever that law and case may lead is perhaps the most important attribute for a Supreme Court Justice to possess. That principle guided Justice Scalia's decisionmaking and it is also how Judge Gorsuch has said judges should approach the law. The judge once wrote, quoting Justice Scalia: If you are going to be a good and faithful judge, you have to resign yourself to the fact that you are not always going to like the conclusion you reach. If you like them all the time, you are probably doing something wrong. That gets back to something very basic. A judge is supposed to be dispassionate. A judge is supposed to leave their personal views out of it. A judge looks at the law on the one hand and the facts of the case on the other and makes the decision based on just those two things. So from what I have learned so far, the judge's judicial record reflects this philosophy of being dispassionate, following the Constitution and the laws passed by Congress. I think he said last night something like this: A judge is supposed to judge and a legislature is supposed to legislate, and a judge should not be legislating. Judge Gorsuch doesn't legislate from the bench, nor does he impose his own beliefs on others. To quote from a speech at Case Western, he said that judges should strive ``to apply the law as it is, focusing backward, not forward, and looking to the text, structure, and history to decide what a reasonable reader at the time of the events in question would have understood the law to be--not to decide cases based on their own moral convictions or the policy consequences they believe might serve society best.'' I believe it is this fundamental sense of fairness and sense of duty in upholding the Constitution and the laws passed by Congress that has led Judge Gorsuch to be a highly regarded jurist. After the tragic passing of Justice Scalia, we made it clear that the Senate would wait for the American people to have a say in the future of the Court. I said even before the election that no matter who won the Presidential election, we would move forward with the new President's nominee. I maintained this position even on the eve of the election, and I maintained that position even when everyone seemed to believe that our next President would be Secretary Clinton. I have been consistent. Unfortunately, some of my Democratic colleagues--the very Senators who held all those rallies chanting ``we need nine''--have already said they intend to do everything they can to stop this eminently qualified judge. That is very, very unfortunate. I hope and trust that approach won't be uniform on their side. So I look forward to moving forward with a hearing, when we will learn a great deal more about Judge Gorsuch, and I look forward to an up-or-down vote on his nomination. I thank the Senate, and I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

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

Mr. GRASSLEY. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to honor an Iowa teacher who has clearly had a major impact on his students and his community because I was contacted by a number of Iowans regarding their desire to find some way to recognize him. The following is what they told me. A teacher of 39 years at Columbus High School in Waterloo, IA, Gary Schneiders has been awarded the McElroy Trust Gold Star Teacher of the Year in the Cedar Valley and Teacher of the Year at Columbus High School. During his time at Columbus, Gary Schneiders has taught world history, applied economics, current world history and advanced placement European history. Through his world history and European history classes, Mr. Schneiders has taken it upon himself to educate his students about the many sacrifices our military men and women have endured throughout history. This February, Gary Schneiders will be leading his 12th group of students to France and Belgium for a 12-day trip ``To Experience, To Learn, To Honor, To Remember.'' This is the theme each year for his AP Euro trip. Mr. Schneiders leads the students along World War I's Western Front starting in Verdun, France. His students experience the battlefields and trenches of the First World War. They visit some of the great museums and monuments honoring the soldiers who fought in the war. Most importantly, they go to many of the cemeteries and memorials to the many soldiers who fought for the various countries in that Great War. At the American memorials and cemeteries like Flanders Field and the Meuse Argonne, the largest American cemetery in Europe, the students lay flags and roses at each Iowa soldier's headstone. They also lay a wreath at the memorial itself, where Taps and the National Anthem are played. Because World War I is little remembered these days, the American cemeteries see very few visitors from the United States. The administrators of these memorials and cemeteries are excited to see Mr. Schneiders each year with his fresh class of students. During the latter part of the AP Euro trip, Mr. Schneiders takes his students to the beaches of Normandy. He shows the students firsthand what difficulties our soldiers had in taking the beaches. On their last day in Europe, Mr. Schnieders takes his students to Omaha Beach and the Normandy American Cemetery. Mr. Schneiders takes his students down to Omaha Beach so they can see the distance our soldiers had to cover while carrying heavy packs and under constant fire. The students then go up to the top of the beach where the Normandy American Cemetery and Memorial is located. The students again put American flags and roses at each soldier from Iowa. They also take the sand they brought from Omaha Beach and wipe it over the name on each headstone so the name of the soldier and the State of Iowa becomes easily visible. The students again lay a wreath and Taps and National Anthem are played throughout the cemetery. Two weeks after returning home, Gary Schneiders and his students put on a presentation for the local veterans and community. The students set up various multimedia exhibits to share the experiences from their trip. This has become a great event each year for local veterans and the community. To conclude, I was told that Gary Schneiders' dedication to his school, veterans, and his students has been invaluable to his community. If Gary Schneiders has anything to do with it, his students will continue ``To Experience, To Learn, To Honor, To Remember'' our veterans. So I congratulate Gary Schneiders on his dedication to his school, students, veterans, and community.