A joint resolution providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection relating to "Indirect Auto Lending and Compliance with the Equal Credit Opportunity Act".

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to S.J. Res. 57, a Congressional Review Act resolution to repeal a very important guidance on indirect auto finance lending that was issued by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau all the way back in 2013, in order to prevent discriminatory lending.

Indirect auto lenders are lenders such as banks that work with car dealers to finance car loans for consumers. Mr. Speaker, first let me say that this is an inappropriate and misguided use of the Congressional Review Act that sets a dangerous precedent. While congressional Republicans so far have been very active in using the Congressional Review Act to tear down important regulations that protect Americans, today they are expanding their harmful efforts even further to now go after regulatory guidance issued by the Consumer Bureau years ago. This is a clear overreach that goes way beyond how the Congressional Review Act was intended to be used.

This resolution is one part of a widespread Republican effort to make it more difficult to hold financial institutions accountable. The Consumer Bureau's 2013 guidance on indirect auto lending was issued to provide clarity to indirect auto lenders and protect auto loan borrowers from discrimination. This is a market where discriminatory practices have well been documented. Since its establishment, the Consumer Bureau has levied more than $140 million in fines and penalties against lenders for engaging in discriminatory auto lending practices.

Just this January, an investigation by the National Fair Housing Alliance found that, 62 percent of the time, highly qualified minority borrowers seeking purchase and financing options for a car receive more costly pricing options than less qualified White borrowers receive for the same vehicle. According to the same report, less qualified White borrowers were presented with more financing options 75 percent of the time.

The guidance issued by the Consumer Bureau simply clarified that indirect auto lenders would be held accountable for violations of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, or ECOA, if they took part in discriminatory practices in the pricing of auto loans. Under ECOA, it is illegal for a creditor or a lender to discriminate against a person because of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, age, or receipt of income from any public assistance program.

So the issuance of this guidance, which also provided a number of steps to indirect auto lenders that they could use to ensure that they were in compliance with the law, was a commonsense action that has both protected borrowers from unfair practices and helped lenders stay on the right side of the law.

Proponents of this resolution say to the Consumer Bureau: Oh, you had no authority to regulate auto dealers. But that is not what is at issue here today. Let's be clear. The Consumer Bureau's guidance applies to indirect auto lenders, not automobile dealers.

This resolution would set back efforts to prevent discriminatory auto lending, make it harder for responsible businesses to follow the law, and harm consumers. It would not only repeal the Consumer Bureau's regulatory guidance on auto lending but could also prevent the Consumer Bureau from ever again issuing ``substantially similar'' guidance on the matter.

Furthermore, by setting this terrible precedent of repealing regulatory guidance, the majority is opening up a Pandora's box that could have deeply harmful consequences for the public and badly impede the important work of regulators, not just of the financial services industry but of all industries.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose the resolution and urge Members to vote ``no.''

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, this is about discrimination. This is not about false accusations. It is documented that these car

lenders have discriminated against people of color.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).

Mr. Speaker, the chairman just said that junk science was used; however, Republicans put out a report called, `` `Disparate Impact' Claims Against Vehicle Financing Businesses.'' Here it is. And guess what. The Center for Responsible Lending said that was junk science.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison), a senior member of the Financial Services Committee and a tireless advocate dedicated to combating discrimination.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial and Antitrust Law on the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I would encourage the gentlewoman to continue reading so that she can see, under the CFPB rule, that they have the ability to oversee the lending; and what she is talking about is the exemption of the automobile dealers, themselves, but not the lenders.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Takano), the vice ranking member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Foster), a Member who has shown true leadership in speaking out against this harmful resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. Speaker, I can't believe that in 2018 we are on the floor of Congress seeing the denial of some of my colleagues about discrimination in the auto lending business and defending the automobile lenders despite the fact there has been a study that shows that there has been discrimination.

The study should have included women, because they discriminate against women also. They think women are stupid and don't know how to negotiate a loan. Women have been taken advantage of too.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Capital Markets of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am sitting here appalled at what I am hearing from the opposite side of the aisle, the fact that they would use the Congressional Review Act to attack guidance and then have the audacity to say in the resolution that they can never, ever again in perpetuity ever have anything like this again.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I would ask the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly) to please not leave, because I want you to know that I am more offended as an African-American woman than you will ever be.

And this business about making America great again, it is your President that is dividing this country.

And don't talk to me about the fact that we don't understand. That is the attitude that has been given toward women time and time again.

I respect the Chair, but don't stop me in the middle when you didn't stop him in the middle. So I shall continue.

Don't you dare talk to me like that and think that somehow women don't understand what goes on on the floor of automobile dealers.

And I am saying that I will continue to do that. However, I don't appreciate that you did not interrupt him when he was making those outrageous remarks about him knowing more about discrimination than I know about discrimination. I resent that.

And I resent the remark about making America great again. He is down here making a speech for this dishonorable President of the United States of America.

Having said that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, there are times on the floor of this Congress that we hear some of the most outrageous comments in defense of some of the most outrageous practices.

This resolution is yet another harmful piece of legislation from the majority that should be rejected. Week after week, instead of working to benefit hardworking Americans and protect the public from abusive financial institutions, Republicans have advanced legislation to undermine and remove consumer and investor protections, threaten the stability of our economy and financial system, and benefit bad actors in the financial services industry. They are taking our system of financial regulation in precisely the wrong direction.

Today, as we have discussed, the majority is putting forth a Congressional Review Act resolution that would repeal important Consumer Financial Protection Bureau guidance to prevent discrimination by indirect auto lenders.

This resolution would set back efforts to prevent discriminatory auto lending, harm consumers, and make it harder for responsible businesses to follow the law. It is senseless and misguided.

The resolution would also set a dangerous precedent by repealing years-old regulatory guidance, which is not how the Congressional Review Act was intended to be used. Opening the door to inappropriate uses of the Congressional Review Act like this one threatens the important work of regulators, not just of the financial services industry, but of all industries.

So I call upon my colleagues across the aisle to work with the Democrats on policies that strengthen consumer protections, rather than the harmful rollbacks like the one before us today. I urge Members to oppose the resolution.

And I want my friends on the opposite side of the aisle to know that we don't easily get up and talk about discrimination against minorities and people of color. We don't like to have to do this. We wish that we had come to a time in the history of this country where it did not happen.

But I am appalled when the opposite side of the aisle stands up in strong defense of discrimination. If they were really interested in working with the Democrats they would say we have a better methodology of determining whether or not there is discrimination. We want to work with you. We want to do whatever is necessary to ensure that no one is discriminated against, yet I hear from Members like Mr. Kelly who come to the floor talking about we don't know what we are talking about, we don't understand it, we have never been on the floor of a dealership.

Oh, yes I have. My husband was in the car business. I know a lot about it.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 872, I call up the joint resolution (S.J. Res. 57) providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection relating to ``Indirect Auto Lending and Compliance with the Equal Credit Opportunity Act'', and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and submit extraneous material on the resolution under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which many of us know as perhaps the single, most powerful, unaccountable agency in the history of our Republic, a few years ago, issued guidance that essentially outlawed the practice of auto dealers in America being able to take wholesale finances from third parties and charge retail rates. They did this because the Bureau claimed that the practice potentially violated the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, known as ECOA.

Mr. Speaker, there were several different problems with this approach, not the least of which is at section 1029 of Dodd-Frank, which forbids the Bureau from regulating auto dealers. It is in the law, and so many of my friends on the other side of the aisle come to this very floor to jealously, religiously, and unrelentlessly, defend the Dodd-Frank Act.

I am anxious to hear their voices today, because to defend the Dodd- Frank Act, you must vote to overturn the Bureau's guidance because this was absolutely trampling upon the sacred ground of Dodd-Frank.

Now, I didn't support Dodd-Frank, but it is the law of the land, Mr. Speaker. And if there is anything, shouldn't lawgivers in this Chamber be committed to the rule of law, the laws that have been passed by the United States Congress and signed into law by the President of the United States? So no less of an authority than Dodd-Frank says: Bureau, thou shalt not regulate auto dealers. But they attempted to do it. So that was sin number one.

Sin number two: they didn't engage in rulemaking. This was guidance. Now, guidance is supposed to tell a market participant: Okay, we understand what you are trying to do, and what you are trying to do is permissible. But, instead, the Bureau flipped it on its head and said: No, you are not allowed to do X, Y, and Z, which is essentially rulemaking, Mr. Speaker.

And so what the Bureau did was they violated the Administrative Procedure Act, which is there to assure that market participants receive due process; that they are allowed notice; that they are allowed to comment; that they are allowed to participate in the democratic process by which rules are promulgated.

So, again, what the Bureau did was, as opposed to engaging in formal rulemaking as demanded by the Administrative Procedure Act--by the way, which was essentially defined by the Clinton administration--but they violated that. They just threw it out.

The third problem here, Mr. Speaker, is the Bureau claimed under its former Director, Mr. Cordray, now gubernatorial candidate Mr. Cordray, that they were a data-driven bureau. Well, guess what? They couldn't come up with any data of this purported violation of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act.

They claimed that somehow there was unconscious discrimination on racial basis, known as disparate impact. But where was the data? Auto dealers, by law, cannot keep records on the racial characteristics of their customers.

So what did the very enterprising Bureau do, Mr. Speaker? They guessed. Now, they came up with a great academic name for it: Bayesian Improved Surname Geocoding system. Do you know what that means, Mr. Speaker? They guessed. They looked at somebody's last name. They looked at a ZIP Code. They scratched their heads.

Oh, that person must be of Asian heritage.

Oh, that person must be of European heritage.

Oh, that person must be of African heritage.

They made it up. They had no data; so they made it up.

Now, because of all this, in the previous Congress, Mr. Speaker, this body voted overwhelmingly--overwhelmingly--to overturn the guidance. The vote was 332-96. Unfortunately, the Senate did not act then. Fortunately, today the Senate has now acted; so this body has the opportunity to overturn these many wrongs.

And let me end with this wrong: consumers are being hurt. An analysis by The Wall Street Journal showed that

many creditworthy borrowers, because of what the Bureau has done, will have to pay up to $586 more--$586 more--for their auto loans because of what the Bureau has done. Because of that, under the Congressional Review Act, it is time for Congress to say: We said what we mean. We are going to protect consumers. We are going to overturn the Bureau's guidance, and we are going to do it today.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Zeldin), an outstanding advocate for all the working people of New York, a member of the Financial Services Committee, and the author of the House companion bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds just to say that the study that my friends on the other side of the aisle allude to from the NFHA wasn't even in existence when the Bureau promulgated their guidance, number one.

Number two, it is based on 2 people, 2 people out of 325 million. This is beyond junk science. It is a mockery, an absolute mockery of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act when we are here today to ensure that working Americans of all colors and races and creeds get credit.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Luetkemeyer), the chairman of the Financial Services Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce), a senior member of the Financial Services Committee and chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Wagner), chairwoman of the Financial Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hill), the majority whip of the House Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Barr), the chairman of the Financial Services Subcommittee on Monetary Policy and Trade.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Kentucky.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Kustoff), a very hardworking member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman

from New York (Ms. Tenney), an outstanding member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly), an outstanding member of the Ways and Means Committee and chair of the Congressional Auto Caucus.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

It is rare, but I have found common ground with the ranking member; and the common ground is I have never heard such outrageous comments on the House floor as other Members of the other side of the aisle come and accuse us of defending discrimination?

Number one, almost half of her caucus supported S.J. Res. 57 to get rid of this in the last Congress.

And I hope every single car dealer in America is listening to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who have come down here on the House floor to accuse them of racism. With what? The proof of a report that has a universe of two?

Again, it makes a mockery of the Equal Opportunity Credit Act.

And for those to come to the House floor and say they are appalled by discrimination? Well, where were they when the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection was accused of having a pervasive culture of retaliation and intimidation? They were found to engage in discrimination, but what did we hear from the other side of the aisle? We heard crickets. We heard crickets, Mr. Speaker.

Now, what is next? What are we going to hear from our friends on the other side of the aisle next? Are we going to hear that every pharmacist in America is a Fascist? Are we going to hear that every single doctor in America is engaged in spousal abuse? Where is the proof?

People are trying to sell cars and help them get into transportation.

And, oh, by the way, Mr. Speaker, almost every American now has one of these. Go to your smartphone and Google ``auto finance.'' And guess what? At least on mine, it comes up State Farm, Lending Tree, Bank of America, Chase, RoadLoans. Nobody forces you to take the financing package of the dealer, even though often it is a better choice than other lenders.

It is so easy, Mr. Speaker, to come to the floor and say, My Lord, the charge is serious; therefore, you must be guilty until proven innocent.

This is an embarrassing day for the House, Mr. Speaker, absolutely embarrassing, and we ought to stand for the rule of law.

When my friends on the other side of the aisle so jealously guard the sanctity of Dodd-Frank, why haven't we heard their voice today? Why aren't they defending Dodd-Frank today? Because Dodd-Frank, itself, as coming down from Mount Sinai said, Thou shall not regulate auto dealers.

And so now we are throwing Dodd-Frank overboard. We are calling auto dealers racists. It is, indeed, outrageous comments. And to come here to the House floor and so recklessly make that accusation is an outrage, and it is why we need to ensure that S.J. Res. 57 is voted on affirmatively today.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I rise today to offer my support for Senator Moran and Senator Toomey's resolution using the Congressional Review Act to disapprove of the CFPB's 2013 auto finance guidance.

It is important that Congress disapprove this guidance because it was an attempt by the CFPB to make substantive policy changes through guidance rather than through the rulemaking process governed by the Administrative Procedure Act. It was also an attempt to regulate auto dealers who were explicitly exempted from the CFPB's supervision and regulation under the Dodd-Frank Act.

According to an internal CFPB memo, the CFPB rejected developing a rule using its statutory authority to regulate unfair, deceptive, and abusive acts and practices because ``the potentially unfair, deceptive, or abusive actions are ostensibly those of dealers, over whom we have no regulatory authority.''

As the Wall Street Journal editorial board noted, ``That didn't stop former CFPB chief Richard Cordray, who used the back door of auto- financing to regulate dealers.''

Make no mistake--the CFPB's decision to develop guidance instead of a rule was intentional. At Senator Toomey's request, the Government Accountability Office evaluated the bulletin to see if it should have been submitted to Congress as required by the Congressional Review Act.

The GAO concluded:

The Bulletin is a general statement of policy designed to

assist indirect auto lenders to ensure that they are

operating in compliance with ECOA and Regulation B, as

applied to dealer markup and compensation practices. As such,

it is a rule subject to the requirements of the CRA.

Plainly, the CFPB failed to follow the law by failing to submit the bulletin to Congress. Furthermore, issuing guidance instead of formulating a rule allowed the CFPB to sidestep important aspects of the administrative rulemaking process that provide for accountability, transparency, and thorough evaluation.

Federal agency rules are governed by the Administrative Procedure Act, which generally requires an agency to publish a notice of a rulemaking, take comments from the public, and establish an effective date for a rule. Notice and comment is a vital step in the process because it gives individuals and businesses subject to rulemakings the opportunity to provide feedback on the practical effect of a rule's implementation, and it allows an agency to adjust the rule as necessary to avoid any undue consumer harm. In contrast, bulletins generally do not afford the public an opportunity to lend their

voice to the process and have historically been used by Federal agencies to simply restate existing law to aid covered companies' compliance.

The CFPB's indirect auto bulletin represents a departure from typical Federal agency practice, as reflected in the GAO's conclusion that it is a rule subject to CRA requirements.

Without the opportunity for public comment and the ability for the bulletin to be revised to avoid any unintended consequences, auto dealers' incentive to act as an intermediary has been greatly diminished. As a result, consumers will be inconvenienced and have fewer and more expensive financing options when shopping for a vehicle.

Some people opposed to this resolution are concerned about what this means for regulatory guidance more generally. I would note that almost all guidance issued by agencies may qualify as a rule under the Congressional Review Act and must be submitted to Congress for potential disapproval. The CRA's definition of a rule includes, with some limited exceptions, ``the whole or a part of an agency statement of general or particular applicability and future effect designed to implement, interpret, or prescribe law or policy.''

Explaining the Congressional Review Act's definition of a rule, the GAO said: ``This definition is broad, and includes both rules requiring notice and comment rulemaking and those that do not, such as general statements of policy.''

This particular bulletin, according to GAO, ``advises the public prospectively of the manner in which the CFPB proposes to exercise its discretionary enforcement power and fits squarely within the Supreme Court's definition of a statement of policy.''

Congress has the power to overturn any agency rule. Under the Congressional Review Act, Congress has the power to overturn agency rules using an expedited procedure. There is nothing special about guidance issued by the agencies that should cause people to be concerned, especially a rule masquerading as guidance. Article I grants Congress legislative power, and by disapproving this rule, we are ensuring that the CFPB cannot issue a rule that is substantially the same as the one it just tried to issue.

There have also been questions raised regarding the flawed methodology the CFPB used in its supervisory and enforcement activities based on this bulletin to allege discriminatory auto loan pricing.

In November 2015, the House Financial Services Committee's majority staff issued a report exploring the CFPB's approach to enforcing the ECOA against indirect auto lenders. The report focuses on the controversial use of disparate impact theory and the CFPB's use of a flawed statistical methodology, which only takes into account an individual's last name and ZIP Code in order to determine a probability for race and ethnicity. This approach is less reliable than other, more proven methodologies. A November 2014 study estimated that only 24 percent of African Americans and 50 percent of Asians were correctly identified using this methodology.

In light of such significant concerns, the House introduced legislation in 2015 to nullify the effect of the bulletin and place guardrails around the development of any future indirect auto lending guidance. That bill garnered significant bipartisan support, passing the House by a vote of 332 to 96, including 88 Democrats.

This resolution has attracted substantial support, as well, including from 12 different organizations involved with helping consumers buy a vehicle and an endorsement via a Statement of Administration Policy from the White House.

For example, the chamber of commerce notes that ``internal documents [at the CFPB] demonstrate that even [CFPB] Bureau staff found the data and methodology intended to support the rule `unconvincing.'''

The Independent Community Bankers of America notes that ``since the issuance of the Bulletin, many community bankers have reported added difficulty in meeting the varying borrowing needs of their customers based on confusing and overly-burdensome guidance.''

The National Association of Auto Dealers notes that ``extensive bipartisan congressional engagement has identified several reasons to disapprove the CFPB rule/guidance, including a lack of due process, concerns about the CFPB's failure to adhere to Section 1029 of Dodd- Frank, and the negative impact on consumers and small business dealers.''

The American Bankers Association said that ``the regulatory and enforcement uncertainty caused by this Guidance has caused many banks to exit or to curtail their indirect auto lending, which limits consumer choice and increases the cost of credit.''

The American Financial Services Association said that ``the guidance is harmful because it pressures vehicle finance companies to limit consumers' ability to receive discounted auto loans from dealers. Furthermore, the guidance threatens to raise credit costs and push marginally creditworthy consumers out of the vehicle financing market, and has the potential to harm the vehicle industry and its associated U.S. jobs.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the five letters I cited be printed in the Record, as well as a joint letter from the National Auto Dealers Association, the National RV Dealers Association, the American International Automobile Dealers, the Auto Alliance, the National Independent Automobile Dealers Association, the National Auto Auction Association, the American Financial Services Association, the Recreational Vehicle Industry Association, and the Motorcycle Industry Council, all expressing their strong support for S.J. Res. 57.

Finally, President Trump's Statement of Administration Policy also endorses this resolution. I am going to read a few highlights from the statement.

This bulletin limits the ability of auto dealers to offer

auto loans to their customers and was not issued pursuant to

notice-and-comment rulemaking. As a result, the CFPB failed

to allow the public to comment before it made significant

changes to an important sector of the economy. Dodd-Frank

explicitly excludes the regulation of auto dealers from the

CFPB's jurisdiction. Disapproving this bulletin, therefore,

would provide consumers with more options for auto financing

while ensuring that the CFPB abides by congressional limits

on its jurisdiction.

This rule should be disapproved, and any future action on the matter should go through the appropriate rulemaking process established by Congress. If this rule stands, banks, credit unions, and finance companies holding nearly $1.1 trillion in outstanding loans will needlessly face significant liability, and the ability of auto dealers to play a valuable role by matching buyers and lenders will be diminished.

I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, today is tax day, 2 days later than April 15 actually, but nonetheless, today is tax day. I rise to speak about the impact of what we have done over the last 15 months to affect the future of our free enterprise system in America. When President Donald Trump took office last year, he set out with three clear priorities. Under the major objective last year, job one was to grow the economy. To do that, he charged us in Congress to focus on three things: regulations, energy, and taxes. In addition to those three, we were supposed to try to get to Dodd-Frank and take away some of the pressure on small banks and regional banks, which we have done this year in the Senate. Just a few weeks ago, we passed a bill. The reason that is important, those four things will free up some estimated $6 trillion in potential capital investment that has not been at work in our $20 trillion economy.

What we have just done with regulation, energy, and taxes will free up or have the opportunity to free up the $6 trillion. That is huge in this economy. In the regulatory environment last year, well over 860 regulations were reversed. It is the largest in history. Concrete steps have been taken to unleash our country's full energy potential, including with ANWR, the Keystone Pipeline, and adjustments to the Clean Power Plan and the waters of the United States, just to mention a few.

Finally, historic changes to the Tax Code were signed into law by President Trump. It used to be that today was a bad day in America, and we all dreaded it. It was the day we had to turn our taxes in. This year, it is actually a day of good news in that this is the last time the American people will have to file their taxes by using the old, outdated tax system that has become so archaic and so noncompetitive with the rest of the world. These changes to the Tax Code will bring relief to American workers and businesses. The average, median-income household in America--a family of four--will see its taxes reduced by about $2,000 a year, or more than half.

The change to the Tax Code of making our tax rate more competitive is making American-made goods much more competitive on the world stage. The greatest hindrance to and the greatest tax on the American worker in years past was this archaically high corporate tax rate. People said: Well, we just pushed all of those profits to the corporate entities. No, this is the greatest thing we could do for the American worker--to help them become more competitive with the rest of the world, to give them a level playing field. That is what we did in this tax bill.

We are already seeing the early positive results. Over 2 million new jobs have been created since President Trump took office, and consumer confidence is at a 17-year high. As an ex-retailer and a person who has worked with consumer products and in manufacturing for most of his career, I have watched this index. This is phenomenal to be at a 17- year high this early in this turnaround. It bodes well for the future of what we have just done.

CEO confidence is at a 20-year high. Some $2 trillion in overseas profits has potentially been unlocked to be made available now for capital investment back in this country. Yes, we already see public corporations making public statements in their quarterly earnings reviews about the capital investment plans they are laying out. We see investment increases being announced every month from public companies in America today. There is no question that businesses are beginning to bring those profits home and investing in our economy.

Nationally, in addition, over 4 million Americans have received bonuses and wage increases. Over 500 businesses have taken positive action, be it by giving out bonuses, raising wages, increasing 401(k) matches, or increasing their overall investments in their companies.

As a matter of fact, another benefit is that most of these public corporations have major foundations that do philanthropic work-- tremendously constructive philanthropic work. Most of these companies that have made these announcements about their own financial well-being and those of their employees have also dramatically increased their contributions to those philanthropic efforts and those trust funds.

In my home State of Georgia, dozens of companies are taking action because of these changes to the Tax Code, and they are making these statements public. Just go to any public corporation today that is in its latest quarterly return and look at what it is saying about how this tax change affects its business and the future of its employees. This is huge.

It is also huge for the entire country because we are much more competitive today than we have been. For years the Tax Code was working against American workers and our entire economy. It was crippling small businesses' ability to expand their companies and hire more workers. It was damaging our ability to compete with the rest of the world. Changing the Tax Code last year was the single greatest thing we could have done to have unleashed economic growth this year, and we are just getting started.

I have been through some of these large turnarounds, and I characterize this as a mega turnaround. After 8 years of the lowest economic growth in U.S. history, we are now on the rebound. That is so important for the future of our country in the long term. We have a $21 trillion debt today, as the Presiding Officer knows. One of the things we have to do in order to dig our way out of that is to get our economy healthy again. As documented by the CBO, or the Congressional Budget Office, a 1-percent growth in GDP will yield $300 billion of Federal revenue every year. That is $3 trillion over the next decade. With the projection that we are going to add $10 trillion to the debt over the next decade just from decisions that have been made over the last decade, we can see that just growing the economy alone is not enough to solve this debt crisis.

There are some in this body who have argued that this has been nothing but a boondoggle, nothing but a huge deficit-increasing exercise. Yes, there were identified costs included with this, but what was not considered by the CBO was the long-term return on investment, the leverage effect of that return on investment, or the leverage effect of this returning profit situation that we have coming back from the changes in the repatriation law. In addition to that, the CBO disagreed with using the impact of foreign direct investment, which I really don't understand.

I am proud that we got this tax bill done, and I know that the positive impact is really just beginning. There are other things we must do to deal with our national debt in the long term, like fixing our budget process, cutting back on redundant agencies, saving Social Security and Medicare, and finally getting after the spiraling nature of the underlying drivers of our healthcare costs and not just the insurance of it.

This wouldn't be happening without these changes to the Tax Code, however, and without a President with a new perspective in the White House. President Trump worked in the real world for decades, and he brings that sense of urgency to the White House. Today he is working at a business pace, not at a bureaucratic pace, and he is committed to keeping up the positive momentum.

This year, the pressure is on the other side because, right now, as we are

trying to deal with immigration, the labor issue might be a constraining factor in the ultimate growth of this economy, and we need to deal with that. For different reasons, both sides believe we need to be investing in infrastructure. I will remind my colleagues in this body that it was just in 2011 when this government threw $1 trillion into our economy. I would debate the benefit of that particular investment because it was not thrown at those stimulative issues that would grow the economy.

Today, America deals with a new world. The world situation has never been more dangerous. The best thing we can do for our military and for our people is to get this economy moving again and create a level playing field around the world to help our trade situation. That is what the President is trying to do right now--to create a more level playing field so as to grow our economy, fix our budget process, and deal with the spending issues that we have here at home.

I am excited to be a part of the Joint Select Committee on Budget Process Reform, which is charged with changing the way we fund the Federal Government every year. I am hopeful that will lead to a new budget process that will allow us to avoid the continuing resolutions and the omnibuses by which five or six people get in a room and decide how to spend $1 trillion. The tax changes alone will not dig us out of this debt crisis. We knew that this was the first step in getting it going, and I am delighted with the impact that it is having on our economy today.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I wonder if my colleague will yield on that point.

Mr. President, I appreciate the Senator from Alaska mentioning the broad base of support, and it occurs to me that this legislation has garnered the support of the chamber of commerce and organized labor.

Mr. President, in an effort not to take up too much time, the Senator from Alaska didn't mention that the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers is for this bill. The International Longshoremen's Association is for this bill. We have crafted something--with the help of Democrats and the help of Republicans, with the help of labor and business--that has brought these people together to help us protect American maritime jobs.

I want to commend the Senator from Alaska also for the work he has done in accommodating people.

I ask my friend, am I correct that this is not the first version we had of this bill?

I am not going to ask my colleague to yield all of his time to me, but I would just observe this to my friends on both sides of the aisle. This is the kind of bipartisan legislative effort on the part of my colleague from Alaska that ought to be rewarded.

A Member of the minority party has come to him expressing concerns, and those concerns have largely been met at every pass. It is not like we are trying to jam something on the part of the business community or the far right. I just have to say to my colleague from Alaska that he has done a heroic effort. We need a couple of more votes from people who have, at one time or another, expressed strong support for this legislation.

We really should send a signal to the American people that we trust each other, that we appreciate somebody like the Senator from Alaska who has bent over backward to make this work for America, to make this work for labor, to make this work for the waterway operators, and to make this work for the environment. I think this will enhance the environmental system in our waterways all over the country.

I thank the Senator for yielding time. Once again, I just have to say how much I admire the statesmanship of this relatively junior Senator from Alaska in working across the aisle and making this a bill that we ought to all be proud of.

I thank the Senator for yielding.

Mr. President, I once again rise to express my strong support for the Coast Guard reauthorization bill and the Vessel Incident Discharge Act, which is contained within it. I also wish to thank the, literally, dozens and dozens and pages and pages of organizations that have come forward and said that this is an important piece of legislation for job creation and for those people who want to make a living on our waterways in this vital, vital aspect of our economy.

To pick up on something we were mentioning a few moments ago, not only does this legislation have the support of the chamber of commerce, business associations around the country, and job creation associations around the country, it has the support of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, the International Longshoremen's Association, the International Union of Operating Engineers, and Metal Trades AFL-CIO and Maritime Trades AFL-CIO. I could go on and on, pointing out that this legislation has the support of both labor and management.

I appreciate people of diverse political ideologies coming together on something that is going to make it easier to do commerce in the United States. I just hope we can get the 60 votes we require for consensus here in this body. I know we are close. We have 60 people who have, at one time or another, expressed support for this legislation, and I hope we can come together in a convergence in a few moments when we vote for this.

I want to discuss a couple of misconceptions that keep floating around about the ballast water, incidental water issue.

First, some people are saying that the bill lowers the environmental standards for ballast water. Of course, nothing could be further from the truth. Why would these organizations come forward with this if we are going to lower the standards? The very language of the bill preserves current Federal standards. Also, the bill includes what is already in the law; that is, the Environmental Protection Agency will have a principal role in setting the national standard for ballast water discharge.

The new standards and requirements would be based upon a term of art, and the term of art in the language is ``best available technology economically achievable,'' BATEA. This term comes straight out of our current Clean Water Act. It is already there. But in the Vessel Incidental Discharge Act--which we hope we can bring to the floor in a few moments--the best available technology would be mandated for this new, nationwide standard. This standard would, of course, be enforced by the Coast Guard, but it would be developed by the EPA according to the most stringent, scientifically available standards we could possibly have.

What we are trying to do in this regard is free up commerce--free up working men and women, free up people trying to create more jobs in the maritime industry--from complying with a myriad of different requirements as we go State to State to State. Some 25 different States have a little bit of a nuanced approach to this. As you can imagine, if you are in the barge business or in the maritime business, it is almost impossible to comply with 25 separate standards. This would set one standard across the country, but it would be at the best available technology. So please, don't anyone think this is some sort of lesser technology. This is the best.

According to the very wording of the bill that we are asking the Senate to vote on today, EPA concurrence is required for these regulations to be established. It would not be able to be enforced unless EPA comes in and blesses it. And EPA would have a principal role in developing the proposed regulations.

Let me say a word or two about the Great Lakes. This seems to be a matter of concern and misunderstanding. There is a myth that this somehow harms the Great Lakes. I have to commend the principal author of this legislation and the Senator from Alaska, who is currently occupying the Chair, for being willing to accommodate our friends from the Great Lakes during this process. The Great Lakes gets a little extra treatment in this bill because of concerns they have raised.

Here is what will happen if we pass this bill. All vessels entering the Great Lakes will need to flush their ballast water before entering. The only ballast water then being discharged by Great Lakes vessels will be water that they have taken in from the Great Lakes. They have to flush their ballast tanks before coming in. That is an accommodation we have made to bring our friends from the Great Lakes into this issue. According to this bill, the Coast Guard, in concurrence with the EPA, would be required to establish best management practices specifically tailored to the Great Lakes.

I would just say to my friends, let's talk about the facts, but please don't make up arguments that are not based in fact. This legislation, if it passes--and I still think we have an opportunity to get 60 votes and move on to considering the substance--would use the best scientifically available enforcement possible. It would give our barge folks and our maritime folks just one thing to comply with rather than 25 or 26 or 27 different regulatory schemes. And what do those myriad of schemes do? Every time you have to hire a lawyer or a compliance person, it is money you take out of your bottom line that you would like to use creating a job in America. That is what these people want to do. They want to increase employment for these boilermakers and longshoremen who have endorsed this bill.

I say to my friends, let's not be confused with arguments that have come in in the last week or two that have no basis in fact. This is a bill about strong, strong requirements for the water that, incidentally, has to come out of the ballast tanks, and it is about strong enforcement by the Coast Guard of standards imposed by the EPA according to the best available scientific technology--strong requirements to protect our environment but also to protect jobs and commerce for Americans.

I think we are going to vote in 10 or 11 minutes. I urge my colleagues who have at one time or the other come forward and endorsed this very proposal, please stay with us on this, particularly based on the accommodations the Senator from Alaska has made to make the bill more accommodating and more conclusive of the concerns that have been raised. I urge a ``yes'' vote.

We are going to continue this fight one way or another. This is a day we ought to stand for doing something for commerce, for labor, for business, and in the name of bipartisanship and in the name of rewarding the way we ought to be legislating on the floor.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, before the Senator from New Jersey leaves the floor, I want to say, this Senator has run into few people who are as articulate and passionate to represent the least among us in our country. I want the Senator from New Jersey to know how grateful I am for his advocacy, for his determination, for his civility, for his passion, and for his heart.

I thank the Senator from New Jersey.

Mr. President, before this sounds like an admiration society, I will say it is genuinely felt.

Nomination of James Bridenstine

Mr. President, what I want to do is talk about the leadership of our civilian space program. Traditionally, the NASA administrator has been well qualified and is not controversial.

NASA is one of the few remaining areas that has largely avoided the bitter partisanship that has invaded far too many areas of government in our society today--until now.

The NASA nominee, Congressman Bridenstine, was nominated to head NASA last fall. His hearing in the Senate Commerce Committee was among the most contentious I have ever been a part of. He was voted out of the committee on party lines, and Senators on both sides of the aisle have expressed doubts, both publicly and privately, to me on his qualifications for the job.

The NASA Administrator should be a consummate space professional. That is what this Senator wants, a space professional, not a politician, as the head of NASA. That space professional ought to be technically and scientifically competent and a skilled executive. More importantly, the Administrator must be a leader who has the ability to bring us together, to unite scientists, engineers, commercial space

interests, policymakers, and the public on a shared vision for future space exploration.

As you know, our goal is going to Mars in the decade of the 2030s. We set the goal first with the Obama administration and now with the Trump administration. What pains me is, I believe the one who has been nominated to head this not partisan, not bipartisan--NASA has always been nonpartisan--agency, I am afraid we are hitting a different standard.

My concern comes from having witnessed very directly the tragic consequence when NASA leadership has failed us.

When it comes to the ultimate frontier of space, there are always going to be risks involved, but the NASA Administrator bears the responsibility, accountability, and the final decision for the lives of astronauts who explore the heavens on behalf of all of us.

I have personally witnessed--in both the Challenger and the Columbia accidents, we learned that engineers at NASA knew of the dangers and tried to sound the alarm, but NASA's management and its structure, while well-intentioned in both of those tragedies, filtered out debate and dissent, and the warnings of the engineers went unheeded with heartbreaking consequences. And so it was, in 1986, with the launch of the Challenger--10 days after this Senator had returned on the 24th flight of the space shuttle to Earth--there was the tragic consequence. Even the engineers out in Provo, UT, who were engineers on the solid rocket boosters, were begging their management the night before the launch to stop the count when they saw on NASA TV the icicles hanging on the launch tower.

We learned later in the investigation, knowing as we now know, that they had received back the solid rocket boosters from previous flights in January, where they saw blow-by of the hot gases past the field joints that were supposed to be sealed with the rubberized gaskets, called O rings, but because of the cold weather, they stiffened and did not seal the field joint, and the hot gases escaped. As the Challenger was traveling into the Florida sky, it hit right at the external tank, punctured the tank, and the crew was lost.

So, too, engineers in 2003 and before and crew members--like one of the best of the best, CAPT Robert Gibson, U.S. Navy, Retired, five-time shuttle astronaut, four-time commander--had pointed out after each flight, examining the orbiter, that it looked as though it had been shredded. In his words: It was as if you had taken a shotgun out and just shot buckshot into the delicate silicon tile. As a result, on launch, on ascent, pieces of the foam of the external tank were falling off and hitting the delicate silicon tiles of the space shuttle orbiter.

Of course, on that fateful day in early February of 2003, that is exactly what happened. A chunk of the insulation foam just about the size of an insulated cooler, on ascent, as the orbiter is accelerating, falls in the acceleration and hits the carbon-carbon fiber of the leading edge of the left wing and knocks a hole in it.

Of course, on ascent to orbit, there is no problem; on orbit, there is no problem. The problem comes after the deorbit burn and after the space shuttle falls for 30 minutes through the vacuum of space and then starts encountering the molecules of air in the upper atmosphere. As those upper atmosphere air molecules hit the underside of the space shuttle, the nose of the space shuttle, and the leading edges of the wing, the temperatures grow to over 3,000 degrees Fahrenheit, and there is a big hole in the leading edge of the left wing. Of course, the left wing burns up, and the crew is destroyed high in the descent over east Texas.

NASA's management structure, well-intentioned, filtered out debate and dissent, did not listen to those astronaut commanders like Hoot Gibson, and did not listen years earlier, in 1985 and 1986, to those engineers at Morton Thiokol. The result is the loss of 2 space shuttles and 14 souls, including on the Space Shuttle Columbia in 2003, the first Israeli astronaut, Ilan Ramon.

In the aftermath of Columbia, NASA was reorganized so that safety concerns from engineering and safety personnel are not squashed like they were, but instead elevated--ultimately, to whom? To the guy at the top, the NASA Administrator. To make those decisions, the Administrator must draw on all of his or her knowledge of the engineering principles and of space flight, all of his or her experience from managing large technical organizations, and every bit of judgment, reason, and impartiality he or she can muster.

Leading NASA is a job for an experienced and proven space professional. The success or failure of leadership at NASA is, quite literally, a matter of life and death.

I commend Congressman Bridenstine's time as a pilot, and his service to our country in the military is commendable. But it does not qualify him to make the complex and nuanced engineering, safety, and budgetary decisions for which the head of NASA has to be accountable.

Furthermore, Congressman Bridenstine's recent public service career does not instill great confidence about his ability to bring people together. His record of behavior in Congress is as divisive as any in Washington, including his attacks on Members of this body from his own party. It is hard to see how that record will endear him--and, by extension, NASA--to Congress and, most importantly, endear him to the American people.

Finally, given NASA's mission to study the Earth--that is one of NASA's missions--Congressman Bridenstine's past statements on climate change are troubling, to say the least. Particularly in this administration where words like ``science-based'' and ``climate change'' are being scrubbed from government documents and where some scientists have been restricted from speaking publicly about scientific findings, NASA needs an Administrator--a leader, a strong leader--who understands the critical importance of studying the Earth and is willing to put his job on the line to protect NASA's scientists. Congressman Bridenstine's record suggests that he will do otherwise.

I don't come to this decision lightly. I hold nothing against him personally. He is a very likable fellow. My decision is not politically motivated. In fact, I supported the nomination of Chief Financial Officer Jeff DeWit because he was qualified for the job as Chief Financial Officer, and he was confirmed without a problem and is in that job. Of course, if Congressman Bridenstine is, in fact, confirmed, I will work with him for the good of our Nation's space program.

My opposition to this nomination comes from decades of experience and an understanding of NASA's history and having lived through some of its darkest moments.

I have no doubt that the nominee is passionate about our space program, and I don't doubt his motivation or his intentions. What is not right for NASA is an Administrator who is politically divisive and who is not prepared to be the last in line to make that fateful decision on go or no-go for launch. Therefore, I will oppose this nominee.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, the Senate pays tribute this morning to a beloved American who passed away yesterday.

To our 41st President, her lucky husband, Barbara Pierce Bush was a beloved wife and partner for more than seven decades. To the American people, whom she lovingly served as an exemplary First Lady, she was one of the most respected and well-liked public figures of her generation. And to the 5 children, 17 grandchildren, great- grandchildren, and all the family Barbara Bush leaves behind at the age of 92, she was a beloved matriarch. By all accounts, she was equally capable of building up those she loved most and poking fun at them when they deserved it. Put simply, Barbara was a founding partner of the most influential political family of our era.

The epic love story of George Bush and Barbara Pierce began at a Christmas dance in 1941. The intimacy of wartime love letters beat back the vastness of oceans, and they married just weeks after George returned from the Pacific.

George once wrote that his beloved wife has ``given me joy that few men know.'' Barbara put it this way just a few weeks before her passing: ``I am still old, and still in love.'' The love story grew and grew. Eventually, it incorporated the entire Nation.

Barbara embraced the mantle of ``America's grandmother.'' The self- deprecating humor in that title was classic Barbara, but her plainspoken humility concealed formidable strengths and talents. Even under all the bright lights and the pressures of public scrutiny, she always combined wit with warmth, smarts with common sense, and great toughness with greater compassion. The beneficiaries of these qualities were many. The cause of literacy, in particular, bids farewell to a devoted champion, but above all, Barbara's life was defined by love. She loved her husband and her family. She loved her country, and America loved her back.

Today, the Senate stands united, as does the Nation, with the Bush family and their great many friends. We join them in mourning their loss and in prayer.

Congressional Review Act Resolution

Mr. President, later today, the Senate will vote on rolling back another piece of Obama-era overreach. Just like the historic 15 times we have already used the Congressional Review Act, the goal here is simple: We want to protect consumers and job creators from needless interference by the Federal bureaucracy. Today, thanks to Senators Moran and Toomey, we can make it 16. We can nullify a particularly egregious overstep by President Obama's Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and notch another victory in this Congress's record of rolling back overregulation.

Nomination of Carlos Muniz

Mr. President, we will also vote to confirm President Trump's choice to serve as general counsel at the Department of Education, Carlos Muniz. This qualified nominee has been waiting for his confirmation vote since October. I would urge everyone to join me in voting to confirm him.

Coast Guard Authorization Bill

Mr. President, we will also vote today to advance the Coast Guard Authorization Act. This is an important step for brave men and women whose work often flies under the radar. Today, as ever, the United States calls on our Coast Guard to carry out critical safety and security missions with little room for error. Just last year, Coast Guard personnel stopped over $7 billion in illegal drugs and contraband from crossing our borders. They guarded and maintained shipping lanes, and they risked their lives to lead heroic rescues after Hurricanes Harvey and Irma.

In addition to authorizing funding for the Coast Guard, this legislation includes a bipartisan measure that is particularly important to States with navigable inland waterways, such as Kentucky, Mississippi, Alaska, and others. I am very proud to have worked with Senators Wicker, Sullivan, Thune, and Rubio to make sure this provision was included. In Kentucky, 1,900 miles of navigable waterways are used to ship everything from agriculture to coal. They support 13,000 maritime jobs, and those jobs support countless others throughout America--moving food from the fields, energy to homes and businesses, and exports to market.

Our vessel owners and operators have been saddled with uncertainty. They have faced a patchwork of overlapping, duplicative regulations enforced by the Coast Guard, the EPA, and the States. This inefficient regulatory regime unnecessarily raises costs and jeopardizes jobs.

Our provision, the Commercial Vessel Incidental Discharge Act, would clean up that mess and make life easier for American mariners and vessel operators, while still protecting our environment. It would give them regulatory certainty and a single, uniform, cost-effective standard enforced by the Coast Guard. This predictable structure will protect our natural resources, while ensuring that commerce can flow freely to market.

This provision commands broad bipartisan support. It has been reported favorably out of the Commerce Committee six times during the last three Congresses, including when my Democratic colleagues controlled the committee.

I am glad that this year we have the opportunity to reauthorize funding for our Coast Guard and deliver this key victory at the same time.

Tax Reform

Mr. President, on another matter, I noticed that a number of my Democratic colleagues attended a small protest rally yesterday. It was right here on the Capitol grounds. Apparently, it was put out by a number of leftwing pressure groups, including moveon.org, Planned Parenthood, and Big Labor.

What were they protesting out there? What outrage brought leading Democrats to join this protest on the east front of the Capitol? It turns out it was the fact that Republicans let middle-class families and American small businesses keep more of their own money. That is right. The Democrats are rallying to repeal the tax cuts. Never mind that our own pro-growth tax reform has led to thousand-dollar bonuses, pay raises, educational opportunities, or other new benefits for literally millions of Americans. Democrats still want to repeal it. Never mind the new estimate that says tax reform will yield more than 1 million new jobs in the next decade or the fact that jobless claims are at their lowest levels since--listen to this--1973.

No amount of good news will shake Democrats' confidence that they know how to spend the American people's money better than the American people themselves. My friend the Democratic leader said so right here on the floor a few weeks ago. This is exactly what he said: ``There are much better uses for the money.'' Really? On average, a family of four earning a median income will save about $2,000 on their taxes. I don't think a middle-class family will have difficulty finding good ways to use $2,000. They certainly don't need a bureaucrat to do it for them. Maybe they need a new washer and dryer or a new refrigerator. Maybe it will help them make the downpayment on a second car. Maybe they will use it to keep up with rising health costs since ObamaCare has utterly failed to keep costs down for American families. Whatever they choose, I am glad Republican tax reform is letting hard-working parents keep more of their own money.

But my Democratic colleagues obviously disagree. They are rallying to take back--to take back--that family's money so they can spend it themselves. They are so out of touch that they scoff at $2,000 tax cuts, thousand-dollar bonuses, and permanent wages increases for hourly workers. They call them ``crumbs''--``crumbs.'' To be fair, in the wealthiest parts of San Francisco or New York, maybe $1,000 does look like a rounding error. We know those are the places our Democratic colleagues are literally focused on. When President Obama was in power, Democratic policies fueled an incredibly uneven economic recovery. By one estimate, the biggest, richest urban areas captured 73 percent of all job gains.

Meanwhile, millions of Americans in smaller cities, small towns, and rural areas saw little or no progress. Believe me, after years of being left behind by Democratic policies, the middle-class Kentuckians I represent and hard-working Americans all over the country do not see a $1,000 bonus or a $2,000 tax cut as ``crumbs.''

Democrats protest America's tax cuts, bonuses, and new jobs. They can protest it all they want to, but Republicans will keep defending middle-class families.

Mr. President, I want to say a few words--I know a number of my colleagues have--before I start my discussion on the very important Coast Guard bill we are debating on the floor.

America lost a wonderful example of a strong woman, Mrs. Barbara Bush, yesterday. I think the entire country and I know the whole Senate sends its prayers and condolences to the Bush family.

If you want an example of an American citizen who represents strength, dignity, and class, and who really served our Nation so well, it was Barbara Bush. The thoughts and prayers of the Senate are with the Bush family right now.

Coast Guard Authorization Bill

Mr. President, as the Presiding Officer who sits on the Armed Services Committee with me knows, each year this body, the Congress-- House and Senate--passes the Defense Authorization Act or the NDAA as it is called. It is an important bill. It moves forward the policies and authorizations of spending for the men and women serving in the military. It can be contentious, but at the end of the day for over a half century we have moved that bill forward each year.

We always forget one of the branches of the U.S. military--the men and women who serve in the Coast Guard of the United States of America. We don't always move the Coast Guard Authorization Act forward. That is not because they are not as important as the other Members of the military. In some ways, it is just a twist of the organization here in Congress. The Coast Guard is under the jurisdiction of the Commerce Committee not the Armed Services Committee and is under the executive branch jurisdiction of the Department of Homeland Security, not the Pentagon. It is still an incredibly important organization for all of us, and so today we are going to vote on the Coast Guard Authorization Act, that we should be moving every year just like we move the NDAA because the men and women who serve in the Coast Guard are some of America's finest citizens.

I see my colleague from Mississippi, Senator Wicker, joining me on the floor. We have been working on this bill, the Coast Guard Authorization Act, for about 1 year now. We faced a lot of roadblocks, and we have moved forward on a bipartisan basis to finally get this important bill to the floor.

As the chairman of the subcommittee in charge of the Coast Guard, I feel it is very important to take a minute on the Senate floor to speak about what the men and women in our Coast Guard do on a daily basis so everybody, the people watching back home and the people in my State, the great State of Alaska, know just how important the Coast Guard is and how we are focusing on them.

Many people in the country know the Coast Guard as the heroic Americans who literally come out of the sky to rescue us when we are in trouble, particularly on the high seas. I have heard them described as angels in helicopters with courage and dignity and strength. When they show up, it is certainly America witnessing its very best.

Let me give just a few examples of what the Coast Guard does on a daily basis--certainly in my State. Here are a few examples from just the past few weeks:

In Oregon, a Coast Guard aircrew rescued four commercial fishermen after their 54-foot fishing vessel capsized off the coast of Rockaway Beach.

In Kauai, HI, the Coast Guard is assisting in recovery efforts following a storm dropping more than 27 inches of rain, causing severe flooding.

On Sunday, the Coast Guard rescued four people from the water in Blackwater Sound near Key Largo, FL, and they rescued eight people aboard a disabled vessel just a few days ago near Pensacola Bay Bridge,

Mr. President, I won't go into it. I have seen a lot of these kinds of letters supporting legislation, but I have rarely seen a letter that is pages and pages long--steelworkers, International Union of Operating Engineers, Juneau Charter Boat Operators Association, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, Eastern Lake Erie Charterboat Association. This letter supporting the Coast Guard bill has many different groups supporting it, and that is why there has been so much strong bipartisan support.

Mr. President, I will be glad to yield.

That is correct.

That is correct.

We actually made literally dozens of changes over the last several months

to accommodate almost every single Senator that had requested a change to address some of their issues. We have made numerous changes to this bill, for Republicans and Democrats, to make sure we have strong bipartisan support, and we are certainly hoping that the changes we made for so many Senators who have been supportive of the bill will now lead a strong bipartisan vote here in a little bit.

They have not only expressed strong support but have cosponsored this legislation.

I thank the Senator from Mississippi for his very kind words. This has been a team effort. We have been working together. Democrats have been working with us. My colleagues from Florida, from Pennsylvania--we have all been down here talking about this. I know there are going to be strong votes in favor.

I do want to mention that the minority leader was just on the floor, and he ended his remarks that he just made a couple of minutes ago about how it is really important for the Senate to get back to bipartisan accomplishments that help the American worker. He just said that. Well, my colleague from New York, I couldn't agree more. That is what this bill is.

I am going to mention one other thing before I actually do my presiding time. I appreciate the Presiding Officer giving me a few additional minutes before I get in the Chair.

We have been dealing with this issue. Some have raised the issue that they are concerned about what the vessel incidental discharge provisions in this bill that I just talked about could do to the environment. I am from the great State of Alaska. We have the most pristine, beautiful environment in the world, and the cleanest water in the world. We want to keep it that way. I am all about that.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this document be submitted in the Record called ``The Vessel Incidental Discharge Act: Good for the Environment--Good for Business.''

This document has myths versus facts on what people are saying that this bill could do, and then it gives you the facts. I am not going to read each one, but if we have to have a debate on it, I certainly will read each one. It is really important to see this wasn't created by Senator Wicker or me. If you look at the author of this, it was the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation--our committee--written by the minority staff. What does that mean?

This is a Democratic staff under the minority and the Ranking Member on the committee saying that all the things you are hearing about how this is going to be bad are not true. Those are myths. These are the facts. These are our Democratic colleagues rebutting some of the people now looking to maybe not vote for this.

I ask all of my colleagues who are on the fence to take a look at this really well-produced myths-versus-facts sheet that was produced by our Democratic colleagues on the Commerce Committee because, again, it goes to what Senator Wicker was talking about--that this is a very strong bipartisan bill that we have been working on for months or really years. This has passed out of committee, I think, six different times with strong bipartisan support, including when the Democrats were chairing the committee.

I want to say to all of my colleagues that it is not just what is in this bill on the VIDA provision, or the discharge provision.

The bill is about the Coast Guard, the men and women serving in the Coast Guard. Every year, as I mentioned, we pass the NDAA, which is great--Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines--but we always forget about the Coast Guard, and we shouldn't be doing that. They are heroic young men and women. We can send a bipartisan signal today that we care about them. We are recognizing the heroic work you do for this country and the lives you save every day. We have your back.

I urge all of my colleagues, particularly my colleagues who know this issue, who have voted for this bill to come out of committee many times--there are well over 60 of us--to vote yes on this important bill when it comes to the floor in a few minutes.

I yield the floor.