Terrorism Survivors Student Loan Deferment Act

Mr. President, I compliment our colleague from Florida on his articulating this powerful vision for humankind, which is the ability to look into the night sky and ponder the mysteries of the universe, the mysteries of life, in the most complete way. America has led this scientific adventure, this scientific journey, and we must continue to be at the lead of this journey for all of the reasons he has laid out today.

I thank my colleague from Florida for leading Congress in pursuing and advocating for this vision and for developing the instruments on the ground and the instruments in space that will advance our knowledge.

Equality Act

Mr. President, I rise to speak about a different vision, the vision articulated in our Constitution, those first three words of our Constitution, ``We the People.''

It is this vision of a nation founded on the principle of a government that would serve not the privileged, not the powerful, not the few, not the elite, but serve the entire set of citizenry. Those powerful words were put in supersized font in our Constitution. So from across the room, you might not be able to read the details, but you can read the mission: ``We the People''--a government of, by, and for the people, as President Lincoln so eloquently said.

But this vision in the Constitution followed up on the principles articulated in the Declaration of Independence. In 1776, 56 of our Nation's best minds, our best leaders, gathered together in Philadelphia to debate, to work out a document unlike any other in history--a document that changed the course of world history--the Declaration of Independence. It said: ``We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.''

Together, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution laid out the vision for our grand experiment in democracy, our grand experiment in establishing a democratic republic--a nation, of, by, and for the people, where each and every person is equal, each and every person has the ability to pursue their happiness, to pursue opportunity. We may not have always succeeded, but for centuries, the story of our Nation--the American story--has been one of striving to live up to that promise of a more perfect union, where every citizen is equal, every citizen has opportunity, and every citizen can pursue happiness.

Martin Luther King said in the midst of the civil rights struggle:

Human progress is neither automatic nor inevitable. . . .

Every step toward the goal of justice requires sacrifice,

suffering, struggle; the tireless exertions and passionate

concern of dedicated individuals.

And it is with that type of tireless exertion and passionate concern that we have been on this path toward equality and opportunity for all.

We have made a lot of strides. We have broken down a lot of barriers in overcoming discrimination and in advancing opportunity for one group of Americans after another. For women, for African Americans, for indigenous peoples, for immigrants, for Americans with disabilities, the journey goes on and on. But regardless of how far we have come, it is clear we still have a long way to go.

There are still too many of our friends, too many of our neighbors, too many of our coworkers, our brothers and sisters who don't enjoy the same rights and protections as everyone else. They are members of the LGBTQ community, and they continue to go through every single day confronting discrimination simply because of who they are or whom they love. That is simply not right. There should be no room for that kind of hate, for that kind of discrimination here in the United States of America.

That is why this week I have reintroduced the Equality Act. I have reintroduced it with powerful support from Senator Tammy Baldwin and Senator Cory Booker, who have really been the leaders who have driven this forward here in the Senate. We have been joined now by 43 additional colleagues, so that is 46 Senators, original cosponsors, in support of this vision of equality. That is a powerful stride from where we were just a few years ago, when we didn't even have an Equality Act to be presented here in the halls of Congress.

We launched this act in partnership with the House, where Congressman David Cicilline has been the leader, and he has been joined by 194 of his colleagues as original cosponsors.

John Lewis said during the civil rights struggle: ``If not us, then who? If not now, when?'' All of us should be called to action in this fight for the fundamental principle of equality, for us to stand up together and declare once and for all that discrimination based on sexuality and gender identity is not welcome in this country. We must make nondiscrimination the law of the land here in the United States of America.

It is certainly true that we have made some progress in recent years. We passed the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr., Hate Crimes Prevention Act, which expanded the definition of a Federal hate crime to include assaults based on sexual identity or gender orientation. We repealed don't ask, don't tell, a policy that banned LGBTQ soldiers from serving openly in our military for 17 years and that forced more than 13,000 servicemembers out of the military with dishonorable discharges.

What we did was undermine the effectiveness of our military by taking away the enormous talents and skills of those individuals. And 6 years after repealing that policy, our military is stronger for it.

In the Affordable Care Act, we make sure that no one can be denied healthcare because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. Then, in 2013, the Supreme Court ruled that the Defense of Marriage Act, which defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman, was unconstitutional, it was discriminatory, it was in fundamental violation of the vision of our Constitution.

Then, in 2015, the Supreme Court found, in Obergefell v. Hodges, that love is love, regardless of gender or sexual orientation, and required all States to recognize same-sex marriages and issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

One barrier after another--one barrier after another of discrimination, one barrier after another that presented an obstruction to opportunity has fallen in a relatively short period of time, and that is something all of us should celebrate in the vision of equality and opportunity embedded in the vision of our Nation. But we cannot allow ourselves to lose sight of the fact that as much as these have been steps forward, we are still far from ending discrimination to the LGBTQ community here in America.

Today, every State is required to recognize same-sex marriages and issue wedding licenses to same-sex couples. But 30 of those States still do not have a legal framework that ends discrimination. In 30 of those States, the legal framework of the State does not prevent someone from being fired from their job for being gay or lesbian or transitioning; those States do not have a structure which prohibits a same-sex couple to be refused services, to be evicted from an apartment, to be banned from a restaurant, to be denied opportunities to serve on a jury, to be turned away at the door in pursuit of a mortgage.

We hear these stories from individuals. Ask the science teacher who was fired after telling her principal that she and her wife were planning to get

pregnant or the same-sex couple that was forced to leave a park after kissing in public or how about the woman who was fired from her job as a security guard in a Savannah hospital, and when she took the hospital to court, she lost under the framework of law in that State.

Or ask the LGBTQ community in Orlando. What we see is that when we have discriminatory laws, a discriminatory legal structure, that engenders discrimination, and the discrimination facilitates and engenders hate, and hate leads to violence. So we saw in Orlando when last summer a crazed gunman attacked those who were at the Pulse Nightclub and took the lives of 49 innocent people.

The States that have no framework are many. They cross our country-- Idaho and Montana and Wyoming, North and South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas and Oklahoma, Arizona, Alaska and Texas, Missouri, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Tennessee, Kentucky, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Virginia, North and South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama and Florida--no legal structure to end this sort of discrimination.

At some point in their lives, approximately two-thirds of all LGBTQ Americans face discrimination because of their sexuality or gender identification. Roughly a quarter of lesbian and gay and bisexual working Americans have lost a promotion because of nothing more than who they are or whom they love. And nearly--in fact, more than a quarter of transgender, working Americans report that in just a single year, they have been fired or not hired or denied advancement.

There is no Federal framework to end discrimination. Today, only 20 States and the District of Columbia have passed laws banning discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity in the workplace, in housing, in public accommodations. Another three States have a partial set of protections. But instead of seeing the remaining States that still have a framework that provides for discrimination, we have seen more and more discriminatory legislation--laws like North Carolina's HB2, the so-called bathroom bill, which said that transgender individuals had to use a bathroom that matches their birth certificate and which blocked local jurisdictions from passing antidiscrimination measures to protect LGBTQ citizens; or Senate bill 149 out of South Dakota, signed into law in March, saying that LGBTQ people who want to adopt or foster children can be rejected by State- funded agencies based on the religious beliefs of the agency.

Already this year, there have been more than 100 discriminatory pieces of draft legislation offered in State legislatures across our country.

As long as people in our Nation are afraid to put their spouse's photo on their desk at work, as long as citizens are worried about being evicted from their apartment, as long as Americans can be denied service at a restaurant or a hotel room or kicked out of a public park or denied the right to use a bathroom just for being who they are or for whom they love, we need to keep fighting. We need to keep pushing to end discrimination.

Imagine, if you will, when you open a business in America, the principle, since the 1964 Civil Rights Act, has been that you open the door to all. You don't let in a person with one color of skin and slam the door on the next who has darker skin. You don't let in one gender and slam the door on the other gender. You don't let in one ethnicity and slam the door on the other ethnicity.

These fundamental provisions of equality, where the door is open to each citizen by those who provide services to the public--that is the foundation for each individual to be able to live their life fully, to be able to fully pursue their potential, to fully pursue their opportunity, to fully pursue happiness as envisioned in the Declaration of Independence.

A former Senator of this body, who served here when I was an intern in 1974, who served here in 2009 when I came to the U.S. Senate, Ted Kennedy said: ``The promise of America will never be fulfilled as long as justice is denied to even one among us.'' Yet justice is denied every day--every day--in 30 States across our Nation where the door of discrimination is slammed shut on lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender individuals.

We the people in America understand that it is time to stop slamming the door of discrimination shut and open the door to full opportunity and full equality as envisioned in our founding documents. Sixty percent of Americans support same-sex marriages. More than half oppose North Carolina's bathroom bill and other similar bills that discriminate against transgender individuals.

According to one study by the Public Religion Research Institute, more than 70 percent of Americans support comprehensive Federal legislation. Public opinion is in support of moving forward--moving forward to keep the door of opportunity open and to stop slamming the door of discrimination in the face of our citizens. It is time for us to stand up for our fellow citizens, time for us to speak out against this discrimination, time for us to declare once and for all that every American, no matter who they are or whom they love, deserves to live free from fear, free from violence, and free from discrimination. It is time for us to stand with our friends, our neighbors, our coworkers, and our brothers and sisters in the LGBTQ community. It is time for us to move forward and create nondiscrimination legislation based on the same sound foundation that has served so well in regards to addressing discrimination in other parts of our society, and that is the 1964 Civil Rights Act. It is time to consider the Equality Act in the Senate of the United States.

At a time when so much discrimination, so many daily assaults occur on our fellow citizens, shouldn't we be holding a hearing to have these citizens speak up and share their stories? Shouldn't we be holding a vote to determine whether or not we truly believe in our constitutional vision? Shouldn't we have to confront the fact that we still have discrimination in housing, in employment, in schools, in restaurants, and in theaters? In fact, in every walk of life in America, in 30 States, we still have this discrimination without a legal framework in those States to provide protection.

Under the Equality Act, sexual orientation and gender identity receive the same clear level of protection that race, religion, gender, and ethnicity already enjoy, thanks to the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The Equality Act will help us fulfill the promise of America, as Ted Kennedy presented it, that justice under the law is not complete when it is denied to even one among us.

I am a steadfast believer in our Nation's founding principle that all of us were created equal, that we are ``endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.'' But you don't have liberty if the door of discrimination is slammed in your face when you seek an apartment. You don't have liberty when the ugly face of discrimination blocks you from an opportunity to serve in a job. You don't have pursuit of happiness when you face a discriminatory framework in 30 of our 50 States.

We all ought to have the same freedom to be who we are, to love whom we love, to pursue our lives and careers free of discrimination. I will not rest until that is true for everyone in our country. I say to my colleagues: Let us all not rest until we complete this vision of opportunity and equality for all.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that if the motion to concur in the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 244 is agreed to, the Senate proceed to the consideration of H. Con. Res. 53, an enrollment correction to H.R. 244, that the resolution be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Madam President, I have come to the floor this afternoon

to speak on the Omnibus appropriations bill that is now before the Senate. We will have an opportunity to vote on that very shortly here.

I would like to take a few moments to explain why I intend to support this legislative measure. I support this bill because I think it is good for the country, and I believe it is good for my State of Alaska.

I think what we have seen through this appropriations process is a negotiated bill going back and forth between both sides, between both bodies, and it is a bill that funds the Federal Government through the end of this fiscal year. It is far from perfect. I think we recognize that, but it is tough to find legislation anyplace where we are all going to be in agreement that it has everything each of us wants. I do believe it is a solid bill. It is a solid, bipartisan effort, and I would urge my colleagues to support this bill.

The first thing it does is it prevents the government from shutting down. Simply put, there are very few things in my mind that would warrant a government shutdown. The people of this country expect us to govern. They don't expect us to come to work and say we are going to shut it down. They expect us to figure out how we are going to fund it, to keep it open, and to do so in a responsible way that allows for the priorities to be reflected. I think we have done that.

I feel very strongly that those who would suggest that the way to deal with things is to shut it down is not the proper approach. That is why I have supported Senator Portman's legislation to put an end to government shutdowns. We just don't need disruptions that ultimately hurt our economy and hurt our families.

I certainly would have preferred a process that would allow for funding the government by passing appropriations measures on an individual basis, one by one. My colleague from Vermont, who is on the floor, has been around for a few Congresses, and he knows that used to be the way we handled appropriations. We had an approps bill come to the floor. We debated it. We amended it. We moved it through. We worked through that process. It was somewhat tediously slow at times, but it was a very open and collaborative process that I think reflected, again, the priorities around the country.

What we have in front of us is a measure that did in fact go through the full appropriations process, all 12 appropriations bills. It made it through the committee. Sometimes not all of them do, but for fiscal year 2017, these appropriations bills did.

As we saw at the end of last year, there was an agreement that we would not move forward with the appropriations bills at that time-- actually, it was probably less than an agreement, but a decision was made--and we are here, as of May 4, still working on fiscal year 17.

This is clearly not the best option, in my view, in terms of how we handle our appropriations bills, but it is where we are right now, and the option we have in front of us, in my view, is clearly the best option.

Continuing resolutions are just not a way to operate. I think they are poor policy. Keeping funding at previous levels doesn't allow for Congress to have any input on any new priorities. In some cases, programs receive more money than they may actually need at that time; thus, you have a situation where you are ending up wasting dollars, rather than being good and efficient stewards of the taxpayer dollars.

I think we saw that with this omnibus bill we have in front of us now, it gave our new President the opportunity to weigh in. Clearly, we heard President Trump's priorities expressed not only throughout the campaign but early in his new administration, his priorities on national security, making sure that from a defense perspective and border security, these issues were addressed. I think we have done so in a responsible way on the defense spending side but also with a comprehensive approach to border security and utilizing new surveillance and new technologies.

This bill consolidates or terminates dozens of existing programs and rejects unnecessary spending tax dollars. It reduces spending and wasteful programs, eliminates unnecessary, ineffective, and duplicative programs.

Again, I think what we have put together within this appropriations omnibus is a spending proposal that does apply the taxpayer dollars responsibly. Overall, the bill puts real dollars behind our Nation's priorities by enhancing our national security, investing in education infrastructure and innovation, as well as improving the health and well-being of all Americans.

I would like to take just a few moments to speak specifically to some of the provisions that will be helpful in my State of Alaska. The omnibus bill sustains Alaska's contributions to our national defense, helps to protect our fisheries, address high energy costs, helps our very struggling timber industry in Southeastern Alaska, and helps keep the Federal Government's commitment to Alaska Natives.

There are some programs that would appear to be pretty small, but in terms of consequence and impact on Alaska, they are quite significant.

Essential Air Service, we provide funding in this measure that helps maintain commercial air service to as many as 60 small communities in the State. The reason it is called Essential Air Service is because in most of these communities, there is no other way to get to these smaller communities. There is no road access. There is no other way. You might be able to run a riverboat out, but in terms of ability to access, this Essential Air Service is exactly that.

The bill provides for new investments in the Coast Guard that will help increase safety in Alaska's waters. There are infrastructure improvements in Kodiak to support homeporting Offshore Patrol Cutters in the Arctic region and funding for new cutters that we will see stationed throughout Alaska.

There is a lot going on in the news right now with regard to Russia and North Korea, and it certainly is front and foremost for Alaskans. We have our neighbors to the west of us there, in Russia, and of course we are within range of anything North Korea might consider. So there is a very keen interest and a desire to ensure that our Nation is investing in our Pacific and our Arctic defense.

This bill recognizes the issue, and it recognizes the strategic value that Alaska has. It provides $4.3 billion for the procurement of F-35s, including some of those that will be based in the interior part of the State. We saw the need for the next generation of fighter jets in Alaska when, just a few weeks ago, Russian planes were buzzing the coast for 4 days straight. Well, today's news reups that. F-22s intercepted two Russian Bear bombers 50 miles southwest of Alaska, according to the news this morning.

Again, when you are thinking about the investments we make to provide for our Nation's security, Alaska sits at the center up there in terms of strategic location.

There is also money for developing the long-range discrimination radar at Clear and funds for the ground-based missile defense at Fort Greely. Again, this is very significant at this time, given the geopolitics not too far from our State.

Another key part of our Arctic defense strategy is finally being realized, after years of me kind of pounding on this drum--funding for icebreakers. As of right now, we are woefully behind when it comes to our ability to maneuver in the Arctic regions in our waters. So there is $150 million in advance procurement funding for an icebreaker that is in the DOD budget and an additional $55 million in the Coast Guard budget. It is imperative that we move to fund a new icebreaker now.

We also recognize the role the Coast Guard plays in terms of national defense across the country, particularly in the Arctic. So the bill provides $1.3 billion in acquisition construction and improvement money. The Coast Guard needs to recapitalize its aging fleet, and we see this no more apparent than in Alaska. A ship that was built back in 1971 is still being used to patrol areas that are perhaps some of the roughest seas in the world. This is not smooth water sailing. Congress needs to recognize the role played by the Coast Guard, not only in national defense but in drug interdiction, fisheries patrol, and safety encroachment, and we must give it the assets it needs to do its job well.

On the education front, this bill provides funds for our public schools, including money for programs that were authorized in ESSA. It funds IDEA,

Carl Perkins, impact aid, and 21st Century Community Learning Centers. Especially important for us in Alaska are the programs like ANEEP, Alaska Native Education Equity Program, strengthening Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian-serving institutions, tribally controlled colleges and universities, and Indian education national activities.

We have all come to the floor over the course of these past few months this Congress to talk about the impact on our communities of the opioid epidemic in this country. This bill helps to get money where it is needed to help fight this epidemic.

Over $1 billion is provided to various programs and agencies to specifically address this problem. Over $600 million of that will go to SAMHSA, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, including $500 million for a new program that was created by the 21st Century Cures Act that we passed earlier last year. The CDC, the Department of Justice, and the VA will see increased funding to help deal with this scourge of addiction.

As chairman of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Approps Subcommittee, the division G of the omnibus is of particular significance to me. The Interior appropriations section probably has more impact on the State of Alaska than most would realize. It controls funding levels for the Federal agencies and Departments that have a huge presence in my State: BLM, Forest Service, EPA, Fish and Wildlife Service, Indian Health Service, BIA, and National Park Service. These are all within the auspices of Interior.

I will give you some of the highlights within the Interior bill. This is the centennial year of the National Park Service so we were able to do more to help address the maintenance backlog within our park system.

The two agencies that deliver services for Indian communities, BIA and Indian Health Service, we did our best to support those programs which are critical to the Indian community. For those agencies, we have provided full contract support costs. We continue Tribal court funding for those Public Law 280 States. We have really worked to do what we can within IHS to address the issues of suicide, domestic violence, alcohol, and substance abuse programs. Making sure we are doing right by providing the support for our healthcare facilities is critically important.

We also have oversight of the EPA within our jurisdiction. I have heard some criticism from some that we didn't do enough to reduce EPA spending and then others are saying we took too much from the EPA, but what we really looked to try to do was to take a commonsense approach, focus resources on the programs that do the concrete things to improve the quality of the environment for the public when it comes to clean air and clean water. We need to effectively make sure that whether it is the WIFIA program, the State revolving funds for our water and our waste water programs, making sure we have the resources to do right by our communities, and making sure there is clean air and clean water, whether it is the Targeted Air Shed Grant Program, which helps communities deal with pollution issues and air issues--I think we did a fair job with the EPA budget.

Again, we have worked to reduce in areas where we are just staffing up for initiatives that quite honestly have been questioned and challenged, making sure we are focusing on the priorities that deliver on EPA's mission, which is clean air and clean water.

Madam President, the last thing I would like to add is what we were able to do with regard to wildfires because this is an issue for so many of us in the West. We were able to include funding for wildland fire management programs to fully fund the 10-year average of suppression costs, as well as to allow for emergency funding in the event that we have a catastrophic wildfire season. I think we all understand the challenges our agencies face when we have fire borrowing going back and forth. So this is an effort we have long sought to address, and we will continue to work on that.

It has been interesting to watch and to read the news about this omnibus. You have the President who said: This is good. This is what winning looks like. You have Democrats who have said: We won.

It is not about a win for the D's or a win for the R's; it is about making sure this is right for the country. I would suggest that if both sides are taking credit, we must have hit the sweet spot somewhere in the middle.

I think at this place where we are right now, with over 7 months into this fiscal year, it is well past time that Congress pass a bill that funds the government for the balance of this fiscal year. These are uncertain times for the country--uncertain times certainly in my State--and I think it deserves some certainty from us. It is a good bill, and I think we owe it to the American people not to create unnecessary and unwanted drama about whether the Federal Government remains open for business.

I urge my colleagues to support this measure.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, as one of the Senators who has read this bill, I would note that most of this bill has been here since November. We were prepared to go in November and vote on each part of it separately.

I would advise the distinguished senior Senator from Arizona, who is a friend of mine, that his party did not want to go forward in November. They were asked by the then-President-elect not to go forward with it, and his party said it would not go forward with it. We could have passed all of the bills separately in November.

I would also note, as the distinguished senior Senator from Alaska said on the floor a few minutes ago, that Republicans and Democrats have been working very closely on this appropriations bill. She expressed--and I absolutely join her in this--that we go back to the way it always has been. My party is not in control of the schedule in the Senate, but I would ask that all of us in both parties work together and start doing the appropriations bills one by one, as we always have. In fact, this bill is the product of many long weeks and days and nights and weekends. I know. A lot of times, I went to bed at midnight, and my staff kept on working.

I thank Republican Chairman Thad Cochran, of Mississippi, for his leadership in reaching this agreement of keeping the government open for business. It is how Congress can and should work.

Forget the rhetoric. Forget political brinkmanship. This agreement shows something we have worked on and that when we come together and work through our differences--both parties here and both parties in the other body--that we can do the work of the American people.

I think the package before us is a good deal for the American people, and I will vote for it, but we should not be celebrating this fact. On this, I agree with the distinguished Senator from Arizona in that we should not be finishing our work 7 months into the fiscal year. I wish his party had allowed us to do it last November. These bills could have been and should have been finished then. In fact, we were 98 percent done with our negotiations, both Republicans and Democrats, when then- President-elect Trump said: Pencils down, and put everything on hold. The Senator from Arizona and his party have been operating on a continuing resolution ever since. I am glad to hear him say this is not the way he wants to do it.

I, certainly, agree with the distinguished senior Senator from Alaska when she says this is not the way to do it. Those of us who have been here for a while know that does not work and it is no way to govern.

It is my goal--and I believe Chairman Cochran shares this goal--to return to regular order, which is when we consider each appropriations bill in committee, debate each one publicly on the floor, and then vote it up or down. That is the way we should operate. That is what the American people deserve. I look forward to working with Chairman Cochran to make this a reality when we return, in very short order, to the fiscal year 2018 bills.

I have been on the Appropriations Committee for decades, and I have served as either chairman or ranking member of different subcommittees there, just as I have served as chairman or ranking member on Agriculture and the Judiciary. Yet I decided this year to take on the vice chairmanship of the Appropriations Committee because I believe in the power of the purse, in the ability of this committee to make a real difference in people's lives, and because of the respect I have for Chairman Cochran.

Our national budget is a reflection of our Nation's priorities, and the appropriations bills are where our priorities become realities. I am pleased to report we have worked hard to reflect Americans' values in the fiscal year 2017 consolidated appropriations bill before us. I think we have reached a good deal.

I am pleased that on a bipartisan basis we have rejected President Trump's ill-considered proposal to slash domestic programs by $15 billion, including deep cuts in the NIH and low-income energy assistance. I am glad to see a $2 billion increase for the National Institutes of Health. I was proud to have brought then-Vice President Biden to the University of Vermont last October to discuss his Cancer Moonshot Initiative and to see and hear how Vermonters are contributing to research to better treat--and hopefully cure--cancer. NIH funding is central to this effort.

Last year, the NIH accounted for nearly $40 million in research funding for the University of Vermont. Everybody--Republicans and Democrats--agree they have spent it well. This research is leading to advancements in lung disease treatments, cancers, and to more effectively using genome testing to advance the emerging and promising field of precision medicine.

In this bill, we were able to protect funding for LIHEAP. As the distinguished Presiding Officer and I know, we are in States in which the temperatures can often plunge way below zero. LIHEAP is a vital lifeline--certainly in the State of Vermont--to prevent people from being forced to make the wrenching choice of putting food on their tables for their families or keeping them warm.

We have also put in $512 million--nearly double the resources available last year--to combat the opioid epidemic. This is a plague that grips every community in the country. It does not make any difference whether one is a Republican or a Democrat. It is hitting all of us. It is a problem that does not know the difference between rich or poor, urban or rural, Republican or Democrat. I think every Senator probably knows someone or a family with someone who has been in the grips of opioid addiction. My wife and I have sat down at kitchen tables with grieving parents who have lost their children. We have spoken to first responders who have seen so many people die. We have to confront this problem head-on in this country.

We are doing a number of other things. We are protecting funds for the EPA at the critical moment of confronting climate change. In that regard, I was pleased that Marcelle and I were able to host hundreds of Vermonters who had driven all night long in order to join the hundreds of thousands of people in the Nation's Capital for the Climate March.

I see that the distinguished chairman has come on the floor. I ask unanimous consent that I be able to yield to him, without losing my right to the floor, so I may finish my speech when he is finished.

Mr. President, I note that the chairman and I are well aware of how well things go when we take each one of these bills. He certainly has led that effort, and that is the way we should do it.

I mentioned this when the Vermonters were here last weekend. Marcelle and I hosted them, so many of whom had driven through the night to join the hundreds of thousands of people in the Nation's Capital for the Climate March. Many of them asked: Why can't we do it the way we used to? I told them we were ready to go to all of the bills in November, and I am sorry that leadership said no.

There are things on which we have done a lot in this bill. Those of us on the Appropriations Committee have read this bill, and we have read most of it since last November.

The EPA provides funding to improve the environmental quality and ecological vibrancy of our small State's great Lake Champlain, the jewel of New England, as well as crucial funding for similar partnerships all over the country.

I am also pleased to report what is not in this bill. In a bipartisan way, we get rid of more than 160 poison pill riders--riders that would have undermined the health insurance of millions of Americans by attacking the protections they have under the Affordable Care Act and riders that would have slapped restrictions on women's access to healthcare, especially in rural areas, and riders that would have rolled back consumer financial protections of Dodd-Frank regulations and weaken environmental protections. Let's have votes up or down on those issues, anytime you want, but not in a must-pass spending bill.

I also particularly welcome the fact that not a single cent in the bill will go toward building President Trump's misguided wall on the southern border. When that issue came up in our debate, I said: Well let's have a vote, up or down, in the House and in the Senate, on the wall, where all Republicans and all Democrats vote. If it passes, then I will stop my objection. Nobody wants such a vote because not enough people support it. The American people should not, and they will not, be forced to pay tens of billions of dollars for a bumper-sticker solution to an incredibly complex problem--a wall that the President promised that Mexico, not American taxpayers, would pay for, even though all American taxpayers know that Americans, not Mexicans, would pay for it. His own department estimates that it would cost U.S. taxpayers $22 billion. Some said during the debate: Show me a 30-foot wall, and I will show you a 31-foot ladder. I can also show you pictures of small prop planes and boats and tunnels. A wall is nothing more than an illusion. It is a false promise of security. Instead of debating this boondoggle, which Democrats as well as Republicans and Independents oppose, let's consider real solutions with comprehensive immigration reform.

In 2013, the Senate passed the large effort of Republicans and Democrats working together on comprehensive immigration reforms. Let's resume that debate and not throw money at this expensive illusion, where we are cutting vital medical research at the National Institutes of Health and others to pay for it.

There are a lot of anti-science proposals and impulses in the proposals that came from the administration, and I am proud that both Republicans and Democrats rejected them.

So I support the bill before us. I am proud to join with Chairman Cochran. It is not a perfect bill, but no products we all come together on are perfect. But on balance, it is a good deal for the American people. It reflects values of both Republicans and Democrats. The bipartisan work that brought us to this point shows what is possible and it lays the groundwork for our negotiations on the fiscal year 2018 appropriations bills.

So I want to extend again my thanks to Chairman Cochran and to the subcommittee chairmen and ranking members. It takes a tremendous amount of work to draft each of the underlying bills contained in this consolidated appropriations bill. While we were negotiating, I remember being on the phone at 10, 11 o'clock at night, night after night, but I went to bed, and the staff would keep on working until 2 or 3 in the morning.

So I thank the staff of the Appropriations Committee and subcommittee clerks on both sides of the aisle, who have been here day in and day out for many weeks. I certainly thank my staff director, Charles ``Chuck'' Kieffer, deputy staff director Chanda Betourney, and Jessica Berry, Jay Tilton, JP Dowd, and Jean Kwon, as well as Senator Schumer and his staff, including Gerry Petrella, Meghan Taira, Mike Lynch, and Mike Kuiken for the assistance they provided. I want to recognize and thank Bruce Evans and Fitz Elder from Chairman Cochran's staff, the majority staff director, and deputy staff director. They worked very, very hard and in their usual professional and courteous manner. I want to thank Bob Putnam, Hong Nguyen, and George Castro for the support they provide to the committee every day. And finally, I want to thank the editorial and printing staff, without whom we could never have produced this bill. Valerie Hutton, Penny Myles, Elmer Barnes and Karinthia Thames were here day and night, week after week, editing the dozens of drafts that ultimately became this consolidated bill. They work in relatively obscurity, but their expertise and dedication is not lost on us. We depend on them and we greatly appreciate what they do.

Lastly, on a personal matter, I wish to take a moment for special recognition of Charles Kieffer. Chuck is well known to the Senate. He is a familiar figure here in this Chamber. He has served on the Appropriations Committee for many years, under numerous chairmen and vice chairmen. I was grateful that he was willing to take on and continue there when I took over as vice chairman.

What a lot of people don't know is that he has been working around the clock on this, and in March he lost his father Jerry. Just a few weeks ago, he lost his mother Fran.

If you know even a little bit about his parents, there is no doubt where Chuck gets his dedication to public service. His father Jerry served as the executive director of the National Cultural Center at the Kennedy Center. He held positions in the Truman, Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, and Carter administrations.

Chuck's mother Fran was a longtime member of the League of Women Voters. She dedicated time to numerous civic institutions throughout her lifetime. At 93 and 89, respectively, Jerry and Fran lived a long and full life, including a marriage of 68 years.

Their loss will be profoundly felt by their family and friends. My and Marcelle's thoughts are with Chuck, his wife Meg, and their family. I thank him for his tireless dedication to this institution, even during a time of great

personal sorrow. I would like to think that his parents are looking down from their place of eternal reward with a great deal of pride in their son.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I come to the floor once again to discuss the threats facing our country, the challenges confronting the brave men and women of our Armed Forces. I feel compelled to remind my colleagues about what is at stake because of our failure right here to provide them the resources and equipment they need and deserve, placing their lives at greater risk. That is not my opinion; it is the opinion of the uniformed leaders of our country who have stated time after time that because of our sequestration and our mindless meat ax, we are putting the lives of the men and women who are serving our Nation in uniform at greater risk.

Don't we have an obligation to try to stop that? Obviously, there is not a majority here in the Senate who believes we should, to our everlasting shame. Unless we change course, we will only continue that failure.

We are about to vote on yet another Omnibus appropriations bill. It is well over 1,000 pages. Look here; this is what we are about to vote on without a single amendment--without a single amendment. Is there any Member of the U.S. Senate who has read this? Is there any Member who has read this bill of over $1 trillion that we are about to vote on? Many of us are going to be compelled to vote for it because we don't want to shut down the government again. The American people don't want the government to shut down, no matter what some colleagues of mine say. But here it is.

I challenge any of my colleagues to come to the floor and tell me they have read this bill.

Is it any wonder that the American people are fed up with this way of doing business? There are 1,000 pages--1,000 pages. That is what we are going to vote on in a relatively short period of time--haven't read it--no amendments.

I am sure there may be some provisions in this 1,000-page document that Members would like to modify, like to add to. But what business are we doing? What is the world's greatest deliberative body doing here in a couple hours? We are going to vote yes or no on a 1,000-page document. Shame on us. Shame on us.

Not a single appropriations bill--we have an Appropriations Committee. They have their subcommittees. My friend and colleague from Vermont is here and wants to talk about it. They churn out individual bills. I believe there are 13 of them, one of them being Defense, by the way. But all of that is without amendment, without debate on the floor of the world's greatest deliberative body. Yet we are going to go ahead and vote yes or no.

Many of us are going to vote yes because we don't want to shut down the U.S. Government. We don't want to deprive our citizens of the goods, services, and provisions that a government is supposed to provide people. I don't want to shut down the Grand Canyon again, my friends. I don't want to deprive people from all over the world the ability to see the Grand Canyon. So what do we do? CRAs.

I am all in favor of repealing regulations that are onerous and bad for America and small businesses and large. Is that a rationale for what we are about to do?

I say to my friends on the other side of the aisle: You blocked many of these bills that we wanted to bring to the

floor. You blocked them. Why? For what purpose? Of course, on this side of the aisle, we have agreed to do something like that.

So I just say to my colleagues: You should not be curious when you see the approval ratings of the Congress of the United States in the teens.

Again, as I said, we will be blamed for putting our men and women in uniform at greater risk. That is not John McCain's view; that happens to be the opinion of our uniformed service Chiefs who are telling us that when we are not funding the military, we are putting the lives of the men and women serving at risk.

We passed the Budget Control Act 6 years ago as an attempt to address our spending problem. This legislation led to a $443 billion cut to defense. What has also happened? Deficits came down for a while, and we are on track to return to $1 trillion deficits again in a matter of years. The national debt is set at $20 trillion and has grown and will continue to grow.

We slashed our military, friends. We slashed it. Yeah, great job, we slashed the spending on the military. In fact, if you look, you will see the only portion where there has been a reduction in spending is where? Defense.

When you look at the past several years since sequestration, do you think the world has gotten safer? Do you think the men and women who are serving are better protected, better equipped?

We have 60 percent of our F-18s not flying. Why? No parts. We have two submarines tied up at the pier for a year because they cannot leave the pier. The Air Force is 1,000 pilots short.

What have we done? We have cut defense spending by 4 percent. Meanwhile, the interest on the debt has increased by 7 percent; nondefense, 19 percent; and the elephant in the room, the third rail that none of us want to touch is mandatory spending; that is Social Security and Medicare, primarily.

What have we done? We have shortchanged the men and women who are serving in the military, trying to defend this Nation while nondefense spending has gone up by 19 percent.

So the next time I hear one of my colleagues say: Well, we should continue to cut defense spending because of the debt, we have already done that. We have already shortchanged the men and women who are defending this Nation.

Over the past 10 years, as I mentioned, mandatory spending has grown by 56 percent, and defense has been cut by 4 percent.

The death spiral is occurring. We are in budget cuts with a high operational tempo, and the military is now in a vicious cycle. The death spiral works like this. This is the death spiral, OK? Constant and frequent deployments increase costs. To send our men and women overseas into harm's way increases costs. The more you fly the plane, the more it costs to maintain the plane. The more you deploy a soldier, the more you have to pay him or her to stay in the military.

When budget top lines are determined by politics and not requirements, the Department of Defense has to make tradeoffs. For example, the military may forgo buying military equipment to keep up with wartime costs, but this exacerbates the problem. Our equipment gets older as it is used more and the cost of maintaining aging equipment skyrockets. Here is the death spiral, why the state of our military is what it is today.

Three--count them--three of our Army brigades are at the highest level of readiness. Four of 64 Air Force squadrons are ready to fight tonight; that is four out of 64. Less than half of the Marine and Navy planes are ready for combat. The Air Force has a pilot shortfall of 1,500--1,000 of which are fighter pilots. The Navy has a maintenance backlog of 5.3 million days. The ship maintenance backlogs are so bad that some ships are like the submarine USS Boise, which is tied up in port and isn't qualified to dive and recently missed a deployment.

Look at this graphic. These are the aircraft--all of them that are fully mission capable. These are the Army units that are ready to fight tonight. This is the U.S. Air Force, and these depict the airplanes ready to fight; Marine Corps aircraft, the same way.

So here we are with this situation, and what are we doing? We aren't really addressing the issue because we are going to be faced in the next year or so with the same budget problem of sequestration.

While this is happening, our enemies aren't sitting still. Our adversaries are not waiting for this body to wake up to do its job and act. While we have forced our military to make tradeoffs between supporting immediate operational requirements and future modernization, China, Russia, and other adversaries have been singularly focused on developing military capabilities to target U.S. forces and take away our unique military advantages.

Our military has multiple missions. Our adversaries have one mission, and that is to undermine U.S. military superiority. I regret to inform my colleagues that they are succeeding much more than we anticipated.

The fact is, the U.S. military advantage is eroding. National Security Adviser GEN H.R. McMaster summed it up best when he testified that the U.S. Army is outgunned and outranged. The reality is not much different across the military services.

The President understands it. Rebuilding the military has been a major priority for this administration, but we have to face the simple fact that the military buildup proposed by this President is illegal because the Budget Control Act forbids it. Over the next 4 years, the Budget Control Act's caps on defense spending would leave President Trump $216 billion short. Even President Obama's budget was $113 billion above the BCA caps, and that budget barely slowed the deterioration of military readiness and capabilities.

I regret to say, Chairman Thornberry, the distinguished chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, and I fare even worse against the BCA. We believe that rebuilding our military will require a defense budget of $640 billion in fiscal year 2018. Sustaining that level of funding over the remaining years with the Budget Control Act would require an additional $433 billion.

Give our men and women in uniform a budget that will allow them to rise to meet the challenges of the 21st century. Congress must change the Budget Control Act, and the only way to do that is with a bipartisan budget agreement. As we stand here, there is no serious conversation that I am aware of in this body or anywhere else in Washington about what the agreement would look like or what it would achieve.

The next 4 years can't be like the last 4 years. We must find a way to provide the military with the resources they need and deserve to perform the missions we assign them. We must provide them with the timely authorization of appropriations bills. We must provide them with something they have not had for years--certainty--so they can properly plan and efficiently use taxpayers' dollars to defend the Nation.

What are we looking at right now?

We are going to pass this thing. It will pass. Then, in September-- how many months is that now? It is about 5 months from now--we are going to be bumping up against the same ceiling and the threat of shutting down the government. Are we going to wait until the beginning of September before we start to address this or not? Is that the kind of fiscal cowardice we are going to perform? We are going to see this movie again and again and again and again unless we repeal the Budget Control Act and start providing for the men and women who are serving this Nation and the challenges we are facing, which any military expert will tell you are the greatest they have been in 70 years. We have to stop this.

We will paper over our failures with continuing resolutions. We will cut piecemeal deals in the midnight hour that fail to fix the serious challenges this country faces. We will accept these outcomes because they are better than yearlong continuing resolutions or shutdowns. We will clear the pitifully low bar of success we have set for ourselves, and all the while, challenges we will have been charged to address will only get worse. We have to break this cycle.

After several years of political gridlock, we know a bipartisan budget deal will be necessary to pass appropriations bills. Let's try a novel idea. Why don't we work on the deal now? Why

don't we sit down together, with all of us recognizing the challenges to our national security, and fix this problem instead of kicking the can down the road? My friends, if we do not, I guarantee you we will be doing this same thing again in September. What is that? We will be looking at another 1,000-page bill--1,000 pages that none of us has read. Oh, I take it back. There may be four or five Senators who know what is in it. Maybe 4, maybe 5, maybe as many as 8 out of 100 will know about it. If we do not stop this, this is exactly the movie we are going to see come September--not acceptable.

Don't we owe the men and women who are serving in uniform in harm's way today--several of whom have just been killed in the last few days-- more than what we are giving them? Don't we owe them the best equipment and the best training we can possibly provide them with rather than their being dictated to by a meat-ax called sequestration? Don't we?

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Today, Mr. President, I rise to speak from the floor of this proud Chamber for the first time. My message today is, at once, a warning and an invitation.

Dear colleagues, as our Senate increasingly grows more partisan, we move further and further away from the practical governance our Founding Fathers espoused, and so today I would like to talk about the principle of the common good in the hopes that this body might be reminded that is our unifying purpose for serving.

Two Hoosiers exemplify the principle of working for the common good that I believe our Founding Fathers envisioned.

Governor Ed Whitcomb was the 43rd Governor of Indiana. A hero from World War II, he twice escaped capture from the Japanese, making it to safety by swimming through shark-infested waters all night to get to safety. Whitcomb pursued the common good in the midst of a rift in his own Republican Party. He successfully led Indiana in improving our State's highways, mental health services, and creating our State's Higher Education Commission. He bucked his own party's interests frequently to do what he thought was right for Hoosiers. Governor Whitcomb has been described as Indiana's most amazing Governor. He passed away this past year and in tribute Republicans and Democrats alike acknowledged that he served all Hoosiers well.

Coach John Wooden was born and raised in Indiana, and he learned to coach basketball there before heading to UCLA where he became one of the most successful college basketball coaches of all time. Wooden understood the importance of working together as a team, that working together as a team was better than working as individuals. Wooden acknowledged this principle in saying, ``Ten field horses couldn't pull an empty baby carriage if they worked independently of one another.'' He also said, ``If you want to go fast, go alone. But if you want to go far, you need a team.''

These two Hoosiers remind us that we are here not to work for ourselves or our parties, but the interest of all Americans for the common good of the American people.

Can we perpetuate our Founders' brilliant system to safeguard our liberties by vesting power in the American people themselves?

Our charge is simple, but it will not be easy: for our republican system to endure, we must breathe life back into the notion of the ``common good'' through the relentless application of common sense.

Now, I don't profess that Hoosiers have a monopoly on the common good, but rather than allowing ideological labels to guide policymaking decisions, we should instead be guided by what we in Indiana call Hoosier common sense. It is the notion that we should be guided by the facts, and that we are open to change or new ideas, regardless of ideology, when presented with results.

The common good--I happen to know from personal experience that any young boy or girl who grows up in Indiana already has a keen sense of the thing.

I was raised in a place where neighbor cared for neighbor. This is the common good in practice.

I lived among people of character who made others' concerns their own concerns. This is the common good.

I benefited from the selfless contributions of Americans who invested their own time, their own attention, their own resources and talents into helping their fellow Americans. This is the common good.

I came to know rank-and-file citizens who quietly took the initiative to care for the forgotten Hoosiers who needed a hand up. This is the common good.

With respect, my colleagues, I note that this outline of the common good would fully satisfy any ordinary rank-and-file Hoosier, and most ordinary Americans, but sadly, in our modern politics sometimes our most stubborn partisans resist even the most self-evident truths. Forgive me as I must demonstrate that what works in practice also works in theory.

I will borrow from 18th century political theorist and English statesman Edmund Burke, for he brightly illuminated this notion of a common good. Burke argued that the common good could only exist where rule of law exists. Rule of law, properly understood, requires a shared allegiance by which people entrust their collective destiny to others who can speak and decide in their name. This, said Burke, is a partnership between the living, the unborn, and the dead.

The common good requires individual cooperation and compromise.

Burke noted that individuals are not simply a compendium of human wants and individual happiness is not realized by merely satisfying those wants. Our own happiness is linked to one another's happiness.

Our purpose, then--our duty--in both our private and public capacities, is to preserve a social order which addresses the needs of generations past, present, and future. This is our duty.

In the Marine Corps, I learned something about duty and practice. Marine leaders of every rank teach through the power of their example that every marine has a duty to serve a cause greater than themselves. Marines learn to venerate sacrifice for the greater good. We are trained to refrain from self-indulgent behavior, to check our egos at the door, and to never let ambition interfere with judgment.

For marines, our comrades' lives and our country's future depends on embracing uncomfortable facts and then improvising, adapting, and overcoming those facts together.

Of course, in the marines, there was no red State or blue State. Every marine fights for red, white, and blue. Marines don't have the luxury of stubbornly clinging to false doctrines or failed practices, and neither do we. Every day our men and women who wear the uniform from every branch take up arms ``to provide for the common defense''-- come what may.

Colleagues, if we are to keep the Republic, we too must remain open to fact-based conversations, to new information, and to new, better approaches.

Now look, I understand that this is not the United States Marine Corps. We have been issued a pen and a microphone, not rifles, but like the marines, we should be working to advance a common mission, common goals. We are the trustees of the common good.

Now, please don't misunderstand me. As a marine, I like a good fight as much as the next guy, but let's resolve whenever possible to fight together because I know most assuredly we are fighting for the same people--and, in most cases, we are fighting for the same ends.

I am fighting for Steve, a self-employed laborer from Indianapolis. Steve's in his fifties, but he hasn't seen his takehome pay increase in decades. Colleagues, you are fighting for Steve, too.

I am fighting for Whitney, a high school student from Gary. Whitney doesn't come from money, and she worries about the future. She is a hard-working student who helps her family how she can through a part- time job, but Whitney doesn't know if she can afford a college education. Colleagues, you are fighting for Whitney, too.

I am fighting for David, an Army helicopter mechanic from Evansville who spent nearly 15 years in uniform. David is exhausted by his countless overseas deployments, and he prays that his family will find relief from the stresses and strains of an overstretched force.

Colleagues, you are fighting for David, too.

I am fighting for Carrie, a single mother of three young children from Paoli. Carrie is addicted to opioids. Her aging mother tries to make a bad situation better, but she is fearful the family will not find a way out of the crisis. Colleagues, you are fighting for Carrie, too.

I am fighting for Sherman, a trucker from Fort Wayne. Sherman is quickly approaching retirement. Sherman has put a small nest egg away for retirement, but in a few years, he and his wife will depend on Social Security and Medicare to make ends meet. Colleagues, you are fighting for Sherman, too.

I am fighting for Bob, a single father of two boys from South Bend. Bob's been able to pull together care for himself and his children by piecing together various forms of public assistance. Bob wants a better life for himself and his boys. I hope we are all fighting for Bob--I hope we are fighting for every single American.

Let's resolve to fight for these people. Let's renew our vow to fight for them more than we fight with one other.

Let's come together to grow our economy by simplifying our Tax Code and reducing the burden of Federal regulations. I ask you, colleagues, to join me in supporting the REINS Act, which I championed in the House of Representatives. Let every proposed major regulation come before this body for a vote before it can take effect, then let the American people hold us accountable when those regulations kill jobs and constrain household incomes.

Let's come together to help Americans acquire the skills to meaningfully participate in this 21st century economy. If we cooperate, we can develop new solutions for financing higher education that liberate students from avoidable student debt, like income share agreements. ISAs keep score with outcomes, so people aren't punished if they are unemployed or have low incomes.

Let's come together to better serve the poor, the vulnerable, those on the margins of society. My social impact partnership bill passed unanimously out of the House last Congress.

This Congress, the Senate should come together to allow private investors to provide operating capital to those social service providers with the proven capacity to achieve measurable improvements in chronic social problems like homelessness and long-term unemployment.

If targeted improvements are achieved, government saves money and repays the project's initial investors, plus a modest return on investment.

Let's come together to restore confidence in our foreign policy and protect our men and women in uniform. While we rebuild our military, let's ensure we are optimizing every instrument of national power. The American people won't tolerate wasteful or ineffective foreign aid expenditures, but they will continue to support investments in smart, effective diplomacy.

Let's work with this administration to reform the State Department and foreign bodies like the United Nations.

Earlier, colleagues, I spoke of a former Republican Governor of Indiana, Ed Whitcomb--but there was another Whitcomb who was Governor, James Whitcomb, a Democrat, who also went on to serve in this body before passing. He also made his mark as Governor, saving the State from insolvency, establishing institutions for the physically and mentally handicapped, and advancing the first system of free public education.

But even more impressive is his dedication to those Hoosiers who fought from Indiana in the Mexican-American War. With Indiana's budget broke and our credit in shambles, Whitcomb took out personal loans to purchase arms and send these Hoosiers out in service of our Nation. Two Whitcombs, one Republican and one Democrat, who served our State and Nation for the common good.

In closing, colleagues, allow me to acknowledge that folks in your States probably feel a lot like those in Indiana: they are frustrated by our failure, and the Federal Government's failure to live up to the high expectations Americans have for other pillars of our public life-- our churches, our State governments, and so on. Where good old Hoosier common sense seems to inform work in those areas, in Washington, our common sense is too often crowded out by stale partisan battles and unyielding ideological biases.

Colleagues, our charge, our duty, is to advance the common good by identifying common goals and then using common sense to further advance those goals.

In spite of our principled disagreements, let us disagree without questioning each other's motives; let us work through tough problems. Let us be principled in our beliefs but pragmatic in advancing those beliefs. Let us adapt to new realities. Let us have the courage to change our minds. Let us put results over rhetoric. Let us find practical solutions to pressing challenges. Let us, first and foremost, never forget that we are custodians of the common good.

My fellow Americans, let us rededicate ourselves to remain one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you.

Recognition of the Majority Leader