Floor Statements

Mr. President, I was necessarily absent for vote No. 253 on October 30, 2017, on the confirmation of Trevor N. McFadden to be U.S. district judge for the District of Columbia. Had I been present, I would have voted yea.

Mr. President, I was necessarily absent for vote No. 254 on October 30, 2017, on the motion to invoke cloture on the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to be U.S. circuit judge for the Seventh Circuit. Had I been present, I would have voted nay.

Mr. President, I was necessarily absent for vote No. 255 on October 31, 2017, on the confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett to be U.S. circuit judge for the Seventh Circuit. Had I been present, I would have voted nay.

Mr. President, I was necessarily absent for vote No. 256 on October 31, 2017, on the motion to invoke cloture on the nomination of Joan Louise Larsen to be U.S. circuit judge for the Sixth Circuit. Had I been present, I would have voted yea.

Mr. President, I was necessarily absent for vote No. 257 on November 1, 2017, on the confirmation of Joan Louise Larsen to be U.S. circuit judge for the Sixth Circuit. Had I been present, I would have voted yea.

Mr. President, I was necessarily absent for vote No. 258 on November 1, 2017, on the motion to invoke cloture on the nomination of Allison H. Eid to be U.S. circuit judge for the Tenth Circuit. Had I been present, I would have voted yea.

Mr. President, I was necessarily absent for vote No. 259 on November 2, 2017, on the confirmation of Allison H. Eid to be U.S. circuit judge for the Tenth Circuit. Had I been present, I would have voted yea.

Mr. President, I was necessarily absent for vote No. 260 on November 2, 2017, on the motion to invoke cloture on the nomination of Stephanos Bibas to be U.S. circuit judge for the Third Circuit. Had I been present, I would have voted nay.

Mr. President, I was necessarily absent for vote No. 261 on November 2, 2017, on the confirmation of Stephanos Bibas to be U.S. circuit judge for the Third Circuit. Had I been present, I would have voted nay.

(At the request of Mr. Schumer, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. President, I ask the Senate to join me today in recognizing the work of the Guadalupe Centers in Kansas City, MO. Their mission is to improve the quality of life for individuals in the Latino communities of greater Kansas City, and they excel at their mission. Many Kansas City families view Guadalupe Centers as a pillar in their lives. I am here today to honor the Guadalupe Centers as the standard all community organizations should strive to become.

Founded in 1919, the Guadalupe Centers originally served as a safe haven for Mexican immigrants who experienced discrimination, poverty, and lack of social services following the Mexican revolution. During the subsequent decades, the centers expanded its services to include English classes, boys' and girls' clubs, adult education classes, and home economics. Much of this expansion came under the leadership of Dorothy Gallagher, known as the Godmother of Guadalupe.

While the Guadalupe Centers continue to assist members of the Latino community balance life in the United States while maintaining their cultural heritage to this day, it has also expanded significantly. As Kansas City's Latino population grew and prospered, the centers added employment assistance programs, a credit union, a health center, counseling, youth programs, a preschool program, and the Alta Vista Charter High School. In 2013, the Missouri Public Charter School Association recognized Alta Vista High School as the ``Missouri Charter of the Year.''

To kick off Hispanic Heritage Month each year, the Guadalupe Centers host the Blanco y Negro Awards gala in Kansas City. While honoring individuals and institutions critical to the growth and development of the organization, the gala also assists with funding the nonprofit. Last year alone, the Guadalupe Centers served over 9,268 individuals and families through its variety of programs and services. It will be my honor to attend the Blanco y Negro Awards gala on September 15 to support the Guadalupe Centers and honor the beginning of Hispanic Heritage Month.

Since 1988, we have celebrated Hispanic Heritage Month from September 15 to October 15. Each year, we take these 30 days to commemorate the significant contributions of Hispanic and

Latino Americans to our country. Our 58 million Latino colleagues, neighbors, and friends teach our children, enhance our economy, and honorably serve in our military. Hispanic Americans have embodied our entrepreneurial spirit and influenced our communities since America's inception.

America's annual tribute to Hispanic heritage reminds us of the extraordinary impact those in the Latino community have made to our Nation. Without vital organizations like the Guadalupe Centers fostering communal development, the American Dream might be out of reach for many.

I ask that the Senate join me in commending the Guadalupe Centers on their 98 years of providing education, youth development, and health and social services to the greater Kansas City Latino community, along with celebrating the beginning of Hispanic Heritage Month.

Mr. President, will he yield for a question about the bill? He clearly knows more about it than we do because he has seen it for much longer than we have.

He will not yield for a question?

Madam President, I intend to offer the following motion to H.R. 1628, and I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record. The motion is supported by Senator Donnelly.

Mr. President, I was necessarily absent for today's vote on confirmation of Executive Calendar No. 104, William Francis Hagerty IV to be Ambassador to Japan. Had I been present, I would have voted yea.

Mr. President, I have to say that there are a lot of things my friend from Wyoming could have said in his objection, but to lecture us about bringing out a bill that people have not had a chance to read or study is rather rich at this moment in our legislative journey on healthcare. I do not know if he thought that through before he said it, but I can assure you

that when it came out of his mouth, all of us on this side were saying: You have got to be kidding me. Really? It was just a little much.

I know we are all talking around the obvious, and that is that we need to fix the healthcare system in America so that people do not have to go into their pockets as often, so that insurance is reliable, and so that the markets are more stable. We are going to have a lot of opportunity, I hope, to come together and do just that. I hope my friend from Wyoming and my other friends on the other side of the aisle will be part of that.

Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. President, the next time I will know, when he is giving a speech, before he objects, to start then.

I am pretty sure that his staff in Wyoming is not coming up to Washington to buy their insurance. I am pretty sure that all of our staffs--I am pretty sure the Presiding Officer's staff, those who work for him in Utah--are not coming to Washington to buy their insurance. I am pretty sure Senator Manchin's staff and Senator Patty Murray's staff and all of our staffs who live all over this great country are not coming to Washington to buy their insurance. They are getting good health insurance plans.

I just think it takes incredible nerve to lecture me about people in Missouri having no insurance while the Senator from Wyoming is objecting to letting them get the same insurance he has. Really? That is what this has come to, this partisan exercise?

We don't have to fix this permanently this way, but we could do it just temporarily to give people peace of mind until we figure out the right way forward. But how dare Members of this Chamber tell people in my State they are not entitled to buy what we have, when they have no other options at this moment.

Let's move forward together and fix it--all of it. But to get a lecture that people in my State don't deserve what my staff has or what Senator Barrasso's staff has--no wonder people are upset with Washington.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, fair elections and voting rights for all Americans are integral to our way of life. Today I wish to honor a dedicated public servant and great Missourian who has spent her entire career ensuring these principals for Boone

Countians, Missourians, and people of the United States, Ms. Wendy Noren. After 39 years in the Boone County clerk's office--35 as the Boone County clerk--Ms. Noren is resigning on June 23, 2017.

Wendy began her service to Boone County as deputy county clerk in 1972. She won her first election to county clerk in 1982 and won the next eight consecutive elections, only once having an opponent.

In addition to registering generations of Missourians to vote, Wendy has worked tirelessly during the last 35 years to ensure smooth, fair, and accurate elections and results. She is a leading election expert at local, State, Federal, and international levels. Some of her accomplishments include serving as an international elections monitor in Albania in 1997 and again in Bosnia in 2001; in 2008, she hosted international election experts studying methods for conducting elections. As the legislative chair of the Missouri County Clerks and Election Authorities, she helped draft several Missouri election law reforms, assisted in writing the Help America Vote Act, and was a part of the reformation of national election policies after the 2000 election. Ms. Noren has been reappointed to the US Election Assistance Commission every 2 years since first being appointed in 2004.

Closer to Missourians' hearts, Wendy is implicitly trusted for her fairness and accuracy and her tireless devotion to ensuring all Missourians have the opportunity to vote. Concerned that rural counties couldn't afford election expenses prompted by the Help America Vote Act, she advocated that the Federal Government assist local election authorities to implement the law. She has been an early adapter of technology to assist voters to register, to be informed about elections, and to securely cast their votes. For instance, rather than using the existing software to join a federally required voter registration database, she developed her own, saving taxpayers approximately $125,000.

I ask today that my fellow Senators join me in recognizing Wendy Noren, Missouri's own ``Empress of Elections,'' as a great Missourian, Boone Countian, and public servant dedicated to ensuring all Americans--and, indeed, citizens of the world--are able to participate in fair, free elections.

Mr. President, I was necessarily absent for today's vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the nomination of Robert Lighthizer to be U.S. Trade Representative, with the rank of Ambassador. I would have voted yea.

Mr. President, there is a question Americans should be asking all of us every day: Who are you fighting for? We should be asking ourselves that. Who are we fighting for?

Here is who Joe Manchin is fighting for--Senator Manchin, my colleague from West Virginia, and my other colleagues who are here on the floor: Billy Hull. He is a retired coal miner with 30 years of working at the Peabody Coal Mine near Montrose, MO. He wrote me a letter earlier, about 6 months ago, saying in part:

My wife and I, married 59 years fall under the Patriot Coal

Companies Voluntary Employees Beneficial Association. My wife

Earlene is a 2 time cancer survivor and I suffered a stroke

in 2012. If we lose our benefits it will be hard for us to

afford our medicine cost.

So these folks were made a promise by--I am accused of being a fan girl of this guy, and I am a fan girl of Harry Truman. I think he was plain-spoken. I think he was earnest, honest, and kept people like Billy Hull in the front of his mind 24/7--good, salt-of-the-earth, hard-working people who play by the rules. Mr. Hull played by the rules. Thousands of coal miners in our State played by the rules, and their widows played by the rules.

The promise made by Harry Truman deserved to be kept. The promise deserved to be kept. So my friend, Senator Joe Manchin, decided he wasn't going to go with the flow around here. He was going--I think he said at one point on the floor, I think his quote was: If you don't stand up for something, we don't stand for anything. And he decided that he was going to get this done.

Now, I have to tell you the truth. For about 2 years, everywhere you went, you would walk behind Joe, and Joe would be trying to talk to somebody about the miners. After he would walk off, people would whisper: You know, it is never going to happen. We are never going to get this done. It is not going to happen.

I can't tell you how fun it is to celebrate getting something done.

We bail out everybody around here. We bail out Wall Street. We bail out banks. We bail out corporations. We are busy figuring out how we can cut the wealthiest's taxes, as we speak. It is all about making it easier for folks who have plenty. Why is it so hard to help the people who don't have anything--who depended on a promise, just to have the basics in their lives, and put in long days of work for years as their part of that bargain?

I am so proud of Joe Manchin. I can't imagine how proud the coal miners in his State must be of him. I am glad we had an opportunity to stand with him as he stood for something. I am proud that we got it done.

Now we have another big task because there is another bunch of people out there; really, we are running roughshod over them, and that is a bunch of truck drivers, truck drivers in my State who have driven trucks for 35, 40, 45 years, understanding that at the end of that long period of time, they would have a pension. It is not their fault that the pension is not there for them.

I have to tell Joe that I have to sign him up. I want Senator Manchin as the captain of the team as we now go on to fight for the pensions these people have earned.

If we can bail out everybody we are bailing out, if we can cut taxes by $7 trillion, surely, we can find the money to make good on these promises.

Thank you, Mr. President.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask the Senate to join me today in honoring the life of Ina Boon, a beloved member of the St. Louis community. With her passing, Ina has left a powerful legacy of public service that will always be cherished, and St. Louis will not be the same without her.

In addition to being a wife, a mother, and dear friend to so many, Ina was a

fighter. Not the kind you see shuffling in rings on television; Ina was a special kind of warrior. Her weapons were her voice, her feet, and, as anyone who knew her would tell you, her tenacious nature. Her cause was one that is dear and relevant to every American--true freedom, equality, and justice for all. For decades, Ina fought on the front lines of the civil rights movement for justice and equality for all citizens in my home State of Missouri and in numerous other States throughout the country.

For more than 50 years, Ina was the fearless leader who served tirelessly at the helm of the St. Louis NAACP Region IV branch. Whether she was advocating for diversity and inclusion in hiring and housing practices, fighting for equal access and fair treatment in healthcare and education, or helping young people find jobs and urging them to register to vote, Ina's life reveals an inspiring commitment to social change and progress.

Her half-century record of service provides a clear example of how much good can be accomplished with a steadfast and caring spirit. At the same time, Ina's life shows the selfless and generous heart of a public servant. When times were lean at NAACP, Ina worked hard and faithfully while giving up her pay. Additionally, even though she was committed to large-scale, systemic social changes across the State and country, Ina was equally committed to her family and her neighbors. She nurtured her son, mentored young people, and remained active in her church, serving in various leadership positions.

Ina recently passed away at the age of 90. She was blessed to live a long life and bear witness to some incredible historic moments in our State's history and our country's history as well. I know that Ina was humbled to play a role in some of these moments. With Ina's passing, we have lost a prolific public servant and a dynamic individual. Ina is survived by her son Gentry, as well as nieces, nephews, grandchildren, great-grandchildren, and a host of extended family members and friends.

It may come as small comfort to them, but Ina will forever be a part of St. Louis history. She will always be remembered for her leadership, passion, and activism. Right now, many of my fellow Missourians are justifiably saddened by the loss of one of our local champions, but my hope is that Ina's legacy will inspire current and future generations of leaders to continue the vitally important work of perfecting our vibrant, diverse Union.

I ask that the Senate join me in honoring the life and legacy of Mrs. Ina M. Boon.

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

Mr. President, I rise to ask my colleagues to support the bill that is in front of us, S. 89, which will allow the historic Delta Queen paddle wheeler to return to operation on the Mississippi and Ohio Rivers.

This bill is supported by the National Trust for Historic Preservation, the Seafarers International Union of North America, along with a whole lot of excited people who live in Kimmswick, MO, where this boat will have its home base.

The Delta Queen is an important piece of history. The vessel connects us to a time before railroads and highways, when rivers were key arteries of travel and commerce in this country. It was first placed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1970 and was designated as a national historic landmark in 1989.

The Delta Queen's steel hull was originally built in pieces in Scotland and then was assembled in Stockton, CA, in 1926, until the beginning of World War II, when it ferried passengers between Sacramento and San Francisco. During the war, she was acquired by the U.S. Navy to support its operations in the San Francisco Bay. Following the war, she was taken to Cincinnati, where she took passengers up and down the river system for the next 60 years.

Three different U.S. Presidents have sailed on the Delta Queen-- Herbert Hoover, Missouri's own Harry Truman, and Jimmy Carter. In fact, President Carter went on a week-long campaign tour on the vessel in 1979, along the Upper Mississippi.

For years, this vessel was home-ported in Cincinnati and was later used as a hotel in Chattanooga. Should the bill before us be enacted, the Delta Queen will be home-ported in Kimmswick, MO, just south of St. Louis. There, its operations will create more than 170 jobs and have an economic impact of more than $36 million, which is a big impact for one boat in a small community.

The bill before the Senate today would reinstate the exemption that the Delta Queen repeatedly received in the past when it was grandfathered from regulations that occurred in 1966, which prevented wooden boats from having passengers overnight. Congress repeatedly renewed this waiver from 1968 to 2008 and recognized that these regulations were primarily designed for ships on the high seas and that this ship was a link to an important time period in American history.

Over the 40 years that the Delta Queen had its exemption, it operated without incident, but the exemption was allowed to expire in 2008. S. 89 adds a new number of safety provisions as a condition of the waiver, making it a very strong improvement over every previous waiver that was issued by Congress during that time period.

I will not go through the long list of safety requirements that are contained in this legislation. Suffice it to say that they must alter the boat; they must protect the engine and boiler systems with non- flammable materials, and they must receive special training.

The owner cannot disclaim any liability for any crewmember's or passenger's injury or death.

The Coast Guard has to conduct an annual audit and inspection of the vessel. In order to receive the waiver, the vessel must have the boilers and generators that meet current Coast Guard standards, which means that the current owners of the boat are going to invest millions in order to bring it up to the safety standards that are necessary for today's traveling public. It has to have noncombustible enclosures that are equipped with fire suppression systems, and multiple forms of egress are provided off the vessel's bow and stern.

It is also reiterated in this legislation that the Coast Guard has the authority to immediately withdraw its certification of inspection for the owners' failure to comply with any requirement in this bill, in addition to other penalties permitted by law.

In short, we have taken important steps to make this historic piece of riverboat history safe for the traveling public. Frankly, I think people need to remember the lengths to which we go in restoring and preserving historic buildings in this country. We do not make them tear them down. Rather, we make them comply with certain safety standards. We treasure the fact that we are saving historic buildings all over this country.

This is saving a historic vessel. It is very important that we save this vessel not only for what it represents to our country but also for what it means in jobs and economic activity to an important area of the State that I love to call home.

I thank Senators Brown, Blunt, Boozman, Cassidy, Cotton, Kennedy, and Portman, who joined me in introducing this legislation, and Chairman Thune and Ranking Member Nelson, who have been so helpful in moving it through the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee.

I know it is a phrase that we like to use around here and that sometimes it is not true, but this really is a bipartisan effort. This really is an example of people coming together who have common sense in order to put a boat back on the river that means a lot to history, that means a lot to the traveling public, and that uses common sense in addressing safety concerns that are necessary because of the historic nature of the boat.

I ask that all of my colleagues support this bill and return the Delta Queen to her rightful place on the Mighty Mississippi.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I want to begin my remarks today by paying tribute to a strong, wonderful civil rights leader, Ina Boon, who passed away a few days ago. She was 90 years old, and she really was the strength and heart of so much of the civil rights work that went on in the St. Louis area.

She began working for the NAACP during the 1950s, and she will be sorely missed. She was an extraordinary woman. I think it is important to put a tribute to her in the record of the Senate.

Because of the other thing I want to talk about today, I want to mention that Ms. Boon, after graduating from Sumner High School in St. Louis, attended Oakwood University in Alabama, which is one of the special historically Black colleges and universities in our country.

Secretary DeVos

Mr. President, that brings me to what I want to talk to the Senate about today and what I want to try to emphasize. Betsy DeVos has been given one of the most important positions in education in this country. Call me old-fashioned, but I think it is pretty important that the Secretary of Education have a basic working knowledge of history. It is one thing to appear for your confirmation and have no idea what the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act is or not have a working understanding of the Federal laws as they relate to education in this country, but it takes it to a whole new level that someone who is Secretary of Education would make the kind of statement that Secretary DeVos made in the last few days.

I want to read it aloud. This is the statement from the Secretary of Education following a listening session with historically Black college and university leaders. I want to pull out the quote that I think is important for us to dwell on today. The quote is as follows: ``Historically black colleges and universities are real pioneers when it comes to school choice.''

Now, let's be clear about what historically Black colleges and universities were. It wasn't about a choice. It was about racism. That is where these colleges came from. It wasn't that a young Black student looked at the State university and said: Well, I have to decide; do I want to go to the University of Alabama or do I want to go to a historically Black college and university? It may be that way today, but it was not when they began. They were established because do you know what the University of Alabama said to African-American students?

You can't come here. You are not welcome. You are not allowed to darken our doors. There was no choice.

This was the Jim Crow era of racism and segregation.

In 1862, President Lincoln signed the Morrill Act which provided land for the purposes of colleges in each State. In 17 of those States, mainly in the South, Black students were prohibited by law from attending these land grant colleges. The second Morrill Act of 1890 required States to establish a separate land grant college for Blacks if Blacks were excluded from existing land grant colleges. Many of our great HBCU's, like Alabama A&M, Florida A&M, and Lincoln University, in my home State of Missouri, became public land grant colleges after the second Morrill Act of 1890. These schools were not established because someone thought there should be school choice. These schools were established because racism left Blacks without any choice. When Blacks tried to attend schools like the University of Alabama and the University of Mississippi, they were blocked and there were riots. The fact that Secretary DeVos doesn't understand this basic fact is appalling.

Her statement was wrong. It was offensive, and it should be corrected. We need the Secretary of Education to have a basic fundamental understanding of history in the United States of America, especially as it relates to education. Is there anything that was more important in the history of our country than the struggle for equality in education? Is there anything that is more important than recognizing and understanding that for years in this country, young Black people could be punished for learning how to read? They would be told: You are not welcome, even if the universities were public universities.

So shame on Secretary DeVos. Shame on her for not understanding history, for trying to shoehorn the racist history in our country into her talking points about school choice. That is wrong, and it should be corrected.

I hope it was an oversight. If it was, I hope she will admit her mistake and acknowledge that historically Black colleges and universities in the United States of America were not about choice. They were about racism. They were about trying to provide an opportunity. They were mostly a movement that was largely led by ministers and academicians from other parts of the country, trying to make sure that in a land that professes equality and justice for all, education is the most fundamental of opportunities that must be afforded to every single citizen.

So no, it wasn't about choice, Secretary DeVos. It was about something else. It is important that as the leader of education in this country, you acknowledge the history that is the underpinning of the importance of historically Black colleges and universities in our country.

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, most Americans don't know who the Director of OMB is, but I want to stand today and explain what an important position in our government it truly is.

The Director of OMB is responsible for not only implementing and articulating the President's budget but also safeguarding the regulatory process. I would say there is another part of the job because when you are Director of OMB and you are putting the budget out, you also have to understand the checks and balances of our government, including that there are two Houses in Congress and there are different opinions in Congress. Sometimes, in order to get a budget, the word ``compromise'' has to be utilized, which, by the way, was one of the favorite concepts of our Founding Fathers in our Constitution. That is why they embraced checks and balances, because they wanted to foster compromises and consensus.

That is why Representative Mulvaney is not the right person for this job. He is someone who has been a disrupter. There is a place for disrupters in government. I am not casting aside all disrupters, but I don't think a disrupter belongs as the head of the OMB.

Some people are going to talk a lot about his career and quote him: ``We have to end Medicare as we know it.'' Others will talk about how he has agreed with the characterization of Social Security as a Ponzi scheme; that he has advocated raising the Social Security eligibility age to 70, even for people who would be as old as 59 right now and maybe having worked in physical labor all of their lives. Yes, he has advocated dramatic changes in dismantling Medicare and Social Security in many ways. I would like to focus on the fact that he thinks it is OK to default on the debt, that he thinks a government shutdown was good policy in terms of making a point, and that he has supported indiscriminate cuts to our defense budget that were a blunt instrument based on an ideology and not a thoughtful position based on our national security.

I listened to Mr. Mulvaney as he said to me in a one-on-one meeting how he would prioritize the debts he would pay if he defaulted on the debt. Wouldn't that be a great addition to the chaos we are all feeling right now; that the U.S. Government would be Turkey or Greece or another country that is having trouble meeting its obligations.

We have been a beacon on the Hill not just for freedom and not just for liberty but a beacon on the Hill in terms of economic strength. The notion that we would not rise to our obligations--understanding, as Congressman Mulvaney does, that this is not a spending issue; this is a meeting-our-obligations issue. This is like buying a pickup truck and halfway through the payments you decide you don't want to pay anymore. This isn't a matter of deciding whether you are going to buy the pickup truck in the first place. That is the appropriations process. Raising the debt limit is merely deciding we are going to pay our obligations.

So the fact that he believes brinkmanship is a good thing in terms of shutting down the government, the fact that defaulting on our debt is an option for Congressman Mulvaney, the fact that if you look at those positions, you realize compromise is not part of his vocabulary; that brinkmanship and rigid ideology is what he would bring to this process, that is the last thing we need in Washington, DC, right now, brinkmanship and rigid ideology, especially when it comes to our budget and prioritizing our funds.

So I cannot support Congressman Mulvaney. As the ranking member on the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, I hope I can urge my other colleagues to understand that there are many people whom I could support for Director of OMB, but Congressman Mulvaney is not one of them.

Mr. President, I was necessarily absent for today's vote on the confirmation of Thomas Price to be Secretary of Health and Human Services. Had I been present, I would have voted nay.

(At the request of Mr. Durbin, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.