Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate be in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, I want to take a few minutes to join my colleague, Senator Cassidy, to talk about the unspeakable tragedy that happened last Thursday near Gainesville, FL, when a large tractor- trailer crashed into a car, crossed into oncoming traffic, and struck a church van that was bound for Disney World.

I wish I understood why bad things happen to good people. There were five kids--five youngsters--from Marksville, LA, who lost their lives in that terrible collision. They were Joel Cloud and Jeremiah Warren, both 14 years old; Cara Descant, aged 13; Brieanna Descant, aged 10; and Cierra Bordelon, aged 9. These five youngsters were members of the United Pentecostal Church in Marksville, LA. They were five beautiful lives, full of potential, who were gone before their time. It is heartbreaking, and there are, simply, no words.

I will say it again. I wish I understood why bad things happen to good people. I can't imagine any greater suffering than a parent's being asked to bury a child. The love of a child is not like the love for a parent or a spouse or a sibling. That is deep love. Yet, as my late father used to tell me, ``Son, you will never, ever understand love until you have a child.'' I can't think of any greater suffering than to ask a parent to bury his or her child.

I want to tell each of these kids' families, the United Pentecostal Church in Marksville, the whole community in Marksville, and the Avoyelles Parish that the entire State of Louisiana grieves with you and that you are in our prayers.

The Marksville van was carrying some very precious cargo. In total, there were 12 passengers: 3 women--one of whom is pregnant--and 9 children. There were survivors--thank you, Lord--but many of the survivors were gravely injured, and I pray that they all have a swift and full recovery.

I want to express my sympathies to the families of the two drivers who died in that accident. I also thank the first responders who put themselves at risk every day to try to save lives during these catastrophes.

There are no words to describe this tragic accident. It happened far too close to the holidays, but there is never a good time. I am going to say it again. If I make it to Heaven, the first question I am going to ask is, Why do bad things happen to good people? For now, I just pray that these families will find the strength they need to go on and that all the injured are healed quickly.

Thank you.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I want to spend a few minutes talking about the so-called criminal justice bill that we will soon be voting on in the U.S. Senate. I want to make it very clear that I don't believe there is a single, solitary Member of this body who would do anything intentionally to jeopardize public safety. I don't believe that for a moment. I do believe, though, that there will be some sharp divisions over the merits of this bill. I don't intend to vote for the bill, but I recognize that sometimes fairminded people disagree. What I want to do today is to just share with you my perspective on this legislation.

There are some things in this bill I really like--the provisions to try to give prisoners job training and mental health counseling, and, in some cases, give them the opportunity to obtain a GED--the so-called anti-recidivism provisions. I support them. For years, I have argued that there is no reason, with technology, that we can't give every prisoner in State and Federal prison the opportunity to get a GED. I support the part of the bill that would house inmates, when we can, within 500 miles of their homes, so they can receive visits from family. I think that might help them not to recidivate.

There are other things in the bill that I like, but let me explain why I am not going to support--not going to vote for--the bill, although I will have some amendments to try to make it better.

My objection is to the approach of the legislation. I think it is backward. I believe the primary goal of a criminal justice system is not deterrence. It is an important goal, but it is not the most important goal. Neither is retribution nor rehabilitation. Rehabilitation, deterrence, and retribution are important goals of a criminal justice system, but they are not the most important. For most Americans, the most important goal of a criminal justice system is justice. Again, that is not to say that deterrence and rehabilitation aren't important, but they go to the effectiveness of your penal system. They have nothing to do with justice, which is what we try to do here in the U.S. Congress when we establish rules for sentencing criminals.

What is justice? It has been talked about, debated, and discussed through the ages. I can tell you what justice means to me and what it means to many people who are smarter than I.

Justice exists when people receive what they deserve. For example, justice exists when the people of Tibet are allowed to worship the Dalai Lama, because they deserve freedom of religion. Justice exists when a rapist receives a penalty that is proportionate to his crime. That, to me, is justice. I will say it again. Justice exists when people receive what they deserve. I didn't say that--not first. I agree with it. C. S. Lewis did in an essay called ``The Humanitarian Theory of Punishment.'' Before C. S. Lewis said it, Immanuel Kant said it, and before Immanuel Kant said it, Saint Augustine said it. I will say it again. Justice exists when people receive what they deserve, and that is what the American criminal justice system is about. It is not supposed to be primarily about deterrence and rehabilitation, though those are important goals. The ultimate goal is justice. That is why I think this bill is backward.

This bill says our sentencing provisions, as established by the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives, are unjust. That is the assumption in the bill. Rather than try to fix them, we are going to give almost unfettered discretion--if you read the 150-page bill carefully, and I have--to the bureaucrats in the department of corrections to fix our mistakes. If you follow the logic of the proponents of this bill, it is like putting paint on rotten wood. The sentences are unjust, they assume. Therefore, we are going to give the wardens and the Director of Bureau of Prisons the authority to let out whomever he or she wants to.

I know there are checks and balances, supposedly, built in there, but read the bill carefully. In the final analysis, this is going to be a subjective call as to who gets out early and who doesn't.

If you wanted a debate on this floor of our sentencing provisions and whether they are just, I would pounce on it like a ninja--I would be here all day and all night--but I am not going to vote to pass the buck to the bureaucracy and trust it to do the right thing. That is our job. If the sentences are unjust, then, by golly--by God--let's fix them, but let's not just give our authority to the Bureau of Prisons and expect it to fix our so-called mistakes.

Now, I am not conceding that we have made mistakes. I don't know because we haven't focused on the sentencing part. I am not sure that this body has the courage. I am just not sure we have the courage, and that disappoints me. That is why I am against this bill. We have talked a lot about rehabilitation, and we have talked a lot about deterrence, which are both important things. Yet we have talked very, very little about justice, and in the final analysis, that is what the American people expect from us.

I am going to offer two amendments that, I think, will improve this bill, and if my glasses had not fallen off, I would have read them to you. Instead, I am going to tell you about them, but I wrote them down carefully so I could try to be precise. They are very simple amendments. Senator Cotton and I are offering these amendments together. I am going to let him explain his amendment. Here is what my two amendments would do.

My first amendment would say that victims count, that victims matter. It would direct the Director of the Bureau of Prisons, before he releases an inmate early--a rapist, for example, because the warden or the director thinks he is nonviolent--to contact the victim of that rape and say: Hey, I have made the decision to let this guy out early, and I wanted to tell you about it, and I wanted to give you the date that he is going to be released. I want to give you a chance to write me a statement about how you feel about it, and I promise to read it.

It doesn't give the victim veto power. I wish it could. All it says is that before a warden lets a child molester or a pedophile or a rapist or a fentanyl dealer go, he has to call the victim, and if the victim is dead, he has to call the victim's next of kin and say: Hey, I have made the decision to let this person out. I wanted to tell you about it.

Here is the date I am going to let him out. You have the right to write a statement about it, and I promise you I will read it.

Some of our colleagues call that a poison pill. I call it fairness to the victims. I call it common sense. I call it justice.

The second amendment is equally simple. It just says to the Director of Bureau of Prisons: You are going to be letting these criminals go. Once a quarter, you have to make available to the public, without naming the inmates names--we are going to keep them anonymous--a list of the people you let out of prison early. You have to publish the crimes for which they were in prison. You have to publish their rap sheets so we can know what else they served time for, if any, in prison. You also have to tell the public whether they have been rearrested and, if so, what for.

That is it. Some of my colleagues call this a poison pill. I call it transparency, and I call it common sense.

I deeply regret--and I will conclude on this note--that I cannot support this legislation, because I think there are ways we can improve our penal system. In my opinion, if we want to do justice in a piece of legislation, let's not do it by giving our discretion and our law- making authority to the bureaucracy to decide who gets to stay in prison and who gets to go home early. We make those decisions ourselves on the floor of the U.S. Senate, in front of God and country and the voters. We don't hide behind a bureaucracy. That is why I am going to oppose this bill.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Certainly, I will.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I don't think there is a single solitary Member of this Senate who would do anything to hurt public safety--and I mean that. Certainly, my colleague Senator Durbin wouldn't, nor would Senator Grassley or Senator Lee. My problem with this amendment, which Senator Grassley explained very well, has nothing to do with an objection to faith-based organizations participating in anti-recidivism. In fact, I am amazed that the bill got this far with a provision that would prevent our faith-based organizations from participating in the anti-recidivism program. I am stunned that it got this far. So I certainly don't object to that. Indeed, later on, I hope we can offer that amendment separately.

I certainly don't object to Senator Cruz's suggestion that we not let dangerous people out of prison. So I am all for that portion of the amendment, and I hope we can deal with that separately.

What I am not for is extending the sentencing review commission and, yet again, creating more bureaucracy, because that is my problem with the whole bill. If you believe our sentencing laws are unjust, then I am prepared to stay here night and day through Christmas, and let's debate them and let's fix them, but that is not what this is doing. What this is doing is giving away all of our authority as U.S. Senators to nameless bureaucrats--I am not using that term in a pejorative sense--in the Bureau of Prisons to decide who gets to leave prison early and who doesn't. It is like putting paint on rotten wood.

So with respect to our Senator, my colleague, I object, with the caveat that I hope he will bring the two good parts of this amendment back later.

Mr. President, this amendment is very, very simple. This is what it does. It requires the Director of the Bureau of Prisons to do four things: No. 1, notify each victim--or if the victim of a crime is deceased, the victim's next of kin--that the Bureau of Prisons expects to release the inmate who committed the crime to the victim. So step 1, the Bureau of Prisons has to notify the victim that the person who committed the crime is about to be released.

No. 2, the Bureau of Prisons has to tell the victim--that word is used enough in this bill--the date that the inmate will be released.

No. 3, the Director of the Bureau of Prisons has to allow the victim or the victim's next of kin to make a statement about the inmate's release. It doesn't give the victim veto power, but the victim is allowed to make a statement. Finally, it requires the Director of the Bureau of Prisons to review that statement.

Now, this bill spends billions of dollars on our criminal justice system and on criminals--certainly hundreds of millions of dollars--but it doesn't do much for victims. All this bill would do is say that victims have some rights, too, and the victims' rights are very simple.

Let me give an example. If a rapist is about to be released from prison early, the Bureau of Prisons has to tell the rape victim that we are letting him out early and the date we are letting him out. The victim is entitled to make a statement, and the Bureau of Prisons has to read it. That is the least we can do for victims under this bill.

Mr. President, I know there has been some confusion about these amendments, as one sort of bleeds into the other, so without repeating myself, I want to describe this amendment very quickly.

This amendment would require the Director of the Bureau of Prisons, on a quarterly basis and without using the released inmate's name--so it would be anonymous--to publish, No. 1, the crime for which the inmate is or was imprisoned--I am talking about the released inmate-- the Bureau has to publish, No. 1, the crime for which the released inmate was in prison; No. 2, prior crimes for which the inmate was in prison--some would call that his rap sheet; No. 3, whether the released inmate has been rearrested, and if he or she has, what for, and the information would be broken down by State. This is merely reporting, and the objective is transparency.

Now there are provisions of this amendment--I don't want to mislead anyone--that will reassert the right of the victim to be notified when an inmate is released. I will just sum up by saying that I don't want to mislead anyone. There is a victim's right of notification provision in this amendment as well, but it is primarily a transparency provision.

I will be glad to answer any questions.

I yield my time.

Without objection, it is so ordered.

The bill was ordered to a third reading and was read the third time.

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

Mr. President, I have the honor of representing Louisiana in the U.S. Senate, and it gives me no pleasure to say that in Louisiana we have a crime problem.

In Louisiana and, frankly, in other parts of America, I regret to say, criminals are turning neighborhoods into war zones and small towns into drug dens and, in the process, families are being destroyed.

Now, some people make a youthful mistake, and they could benefit from a second chance. I think most Americans agree with that, but other people never change. I don't know why it is. If I make it to Heaven, I am going to ask, but there are some people out there, they are not mixed up, they are not confused, they are not sick, it is not a question of whether their mama or daddy loved them enough--they are just bad. Unfortunately, they are just bad.

For that reason, I think we all recognize that prisons are a necessary fixture that make our communities safer.

As we prepare to hear a bill or bills on changes to sentences for Federal prisoners, I wanted to share with the Senate a cautionary tale from my home State of Louisiana.

People in my State are being killed, and people in my State are being hurt because of these so-called ``criminal justice reforms''--I put that expression in quotation--that were put in place by my Governor.

Louisiana, about 14 months ago, started letting prisoners out of our prisons. The overall goal of the Governor was to save money. So far, I think he has let out about 2,000 prisoners. Now, the inmates he let out were not vetted. They weren't vetted by the probation boards, they weren't vetted by the parole boards to see if they were a threat to public safety. These prisoners he let go weren't paired with programs to reduce recidivism. He just let them go. He did it under a statute he named and called the Justice Reinvestment Act. It certainly wasn't any reinvestment in justice for the victims.

His law is failing the law-abiding public in my State. So far, 22 percent of inmates have been rearrested. Now, that is over 14 months--a very short period of time. The Governor and his Department of Corrections said: Well, we are only going to release nonviolent criminals. Well, somebody forgot to tell the criminals they were nonviolent.

In the 23rd Judicial District Court in Louisiana, which encompasses small towns and three parishes, one in three inmates that the Louisiana State government let go has been rearrested. That is higher than the 22 percent I just quoted. That is a recidivism rate of 33 percent in a little over a year.

I have talked to Louisiana's law enforcement officers and prosecutors. They don't support what the Edwards administration has done. Now, they are scared to say anything because the Governor controls a lot of their budgets and their money, but if you ask 9 out of 10 law enforcement officials in my State privately if they support it, they will tell you no, and the 10th is probably lying.

The head of the District Attorneys Association, in fact, has publicly said that Louisiana's streets are not safer because of this so-called criminal justice reform. He also noted that simply reducing prison population is not a measure of success. He is a wise man.

Louisiana State government now seems to care more about criminals than it cares about those criminals' victims. In fact, I have never heard my Governor talk about victims at all. It is always criminals.

I recently received a letter. We all get letters from constituents, but this one really--this one really shook me up. I received a letter from a constituent in South Louisiana about what this failed experiment of criminal release in Louisiana has cost his family. His words--this gentleman's words--have been weighing on my heart and on my mind since I read them, and I would like to read a bit from that letter now.

I am quoting: My name is Gary Prince, and my youngest son Jordan was killed by a drunk driver in May of 2015. He was only 18 years old, and he had just graduated high school 12 days before this accident. The man that killed him was driving the wrong way on Highway 90 near New Iberia and crashed into my son head-on. His blood alcohol level was .16, which is twice the State's legal limit.

He was sent to jail with a sentence of 15 years, but this person that killed my son served only 18 months in jail.

Mr. Prince, the father, goes on: There is a State law which States that anyone convicted of a DUI with vehicular homicide, with a blood alcohol level of .15 or greater, has to serve a minimum of 5 years without the benefit of early release. This was not taken into account for this criminal. My son was a good kid. He had a bright future. He wanted to follow in my footsteps and become a machinist. I feel that my family deserves better than this. I want you to know that when I say my prayers at night, I pray for a better Louisiana.

Mr. Prince, I want you to know how sorry I am for you and your family's loss. While the State of Louisiana might consider this a nonviolent crime, your family paid a horrific price for this man's behavior. I can't imagine anything worse than a man or a woman having to bury his or her son, especially a teenager. For your son's killer to be out on the streets after 18 months is more than just salt in the wound. It is a miscarriage of justice, and it is precisely what happens when policies like criminal release programs are pursued without considering the victims or their families. It is not justice.

I believe in justice. I think most Americans do. What is justice? We talk about it a lot. I agree with what C.S. Lewis said: Justice is when someone gets what they deserve.

I am not saying that deterrence and rehabilitation are not important in a prison system. They are. They have nothing to do with justice. They have to do with the effectiveness of your prison system.

C.S. Lewis said: Justice is when people get what they deserve.

Justice is when the people of Tibet, for example, get to worship the Dalai Lama because they deserve religious freedom.

Justice is when a rapist is sent to prison and stays there for a time commensurate with his crime. That is justice. He is getting what he deserves.

C.S. Lewis didn't just say that. Immanuel Kant said that. He said our penal laws are a moral imperative. He didn't say rehabilitation is unimportant. He didn't say deterrence is unimportant, because they are both important. They just have nothing to do with justice. Hegel said the same thing, and St. Augustine said the same thing--all of the great thinkers in history--that justice is when you get what you deserve.

It doesn't have anything to do with the cost of government. It doesn't have anything to do with deterrence. It

doesn't have anything to do with rehabilitation. Those are all important factors, but this has nothing to do with justice.

A criminal release program gone wrong has had other effects in Louisiana, too. It frees people like Tyrone ``Smokey'' White. Let me tell you about Mr. White. Our Governor let him go. He is a career criminal. He repaid the State promptly by robbing two roofers at gunpoint. Somebody forgot to tell Smokey that he was supposed to be nonviolent, too. Less than a week later, Mr. White was released under Louisiana's criminal release program, despite having more than 60 arrests on his record.

A criminal release program gone wrong looks like a convicted felon named Richard McLendon who, upon being granted early release, illegally gets himself a gun and uses it to fatally shoot another man in Bossier Parish. He then leaves his victim to die like roadkill on the side of the road with multiple gunshot wounds.

A criminal release program gone wrong in Louisiana, anyway, looks like a Dwayne Watkins. He is a pedophile. He had more than 21 arrests for child abuse and other assorted crimes on his record. He got to walk out of jail early--not just once but two times. Watkins earned 10 years for illegally possessing a gun as a felon, and he got out early, and he promptly sexually abused two young girls. He earned 3 more years in jail, and then, thanks to Louisiana State government and the Edwards administration, he got out early again. Give me a break.

In October, less than 2 months after his early release, he approached Kelly and Heather Jose at a shopping mall in Caddo Parish. When he asked to borrow their phone to call a cab, the couple offered him a ride. In Louisiana, we help each other. Well, Mr. Dwayne Watkins decided to repay their generosity by kidnapping them, shooting them, and burning them to death in their own car so badly that their bodies couldn't even be recognized. He is now awaiting trial for murder.

Kelly Jose, one of the victims, was an Air Force Reservist--God rest his soul--in Barksdale Air Force Base. He enlisted in the Air Force in 1998. Heather Jose, the other victim, was a small business owner. She loved working in the ministry of a church. They were good people. They were just trying to do a good deed. This was a senseless tragedy, and it did not have to happen.

Just this weekend, our sheriff from Caddo Parish rightly asked a question. He said: Why is Dwayne Watkins out of prison after violating his parole and sexually abusing two young girls? And many of us are asking that same question in Louisiana right now. But the answer is very simple--the Edwards administration's failed criminal release program.

I want to take a moment and consider what price we might be asking the families back home to pay for these criminal release programs. In my State, innocent people are scared, and rightfully so, that they might become victims of violent crime. We are reneging on the justice we promised the victims like Mr. Prince, who lost a child. Do you want to put a price tag on justice? Have at it. I don't.

In Louisiana, we also failed the Joses' three children. They don't have parents anymore. Mr. Dwayne Watkins took care of that. He should have been in jail serving his time. That is justice.

Louisiana's failed experience has cost law-abiding folks dearly in every corner of my State.

I just want to implore my colleagues in the Senate to please think about more than just the criminals. Think about more than just the money. Think about the lives of the victims and their families, as well, because they are supposed to count too.

Mr. President, I just want to make a few comments in memory of President George Herbert Walker Bush, whose funeral we attended today.

Losing a parent or a grandparent is never easy. I know I speak for the people in Louisiana when I offer my heartfelt sympathies to the entire Bush family in their time of grief. I want them to know their loss echoes in the hearts of all Americans this week. I also want them to know their family is in our thoughts and in our prayers as we mourn together.

At an age when most kids are trying to figure out what kind of smart phones they want to buy, President George H.W. Bush thought of nothing except answering the call of duty. He really was a part of the ``greatest generation.'' I believe he was a hero and a patriot, not because he made the choices that he made to fight for his country but because he got up and continued to make the choice to serve the American people every single day of his life as a Navy aviator, as a Congressman, as an Ambassador, as CIA Director, as Vice President of the United States, and, ultimately, as Commander in Chief.

President Bush, very simply, was a great American, not just because he served his country during some of the darkest days in world history--although he did, and he did courageously--but because he embodied so many of the values that distinguish the American spirit. Traits like bravery, selflessness, faith, and kindness are things we don't have enough of in the village of Washington anymore and seem to be in short supply, but President Bush had them in spades. He was smart as a whip. He was a patriot, but he was also a person who deeply believed in the importance of working together to try to build a better world.

Upon leaving office, President Bush started the Points of Light foundation. Points of Light is a charity whose mission is based on a fairly simple premise--that there is nothing more transformative than an individual's choosing to be generous with his or her time, gifts, and talents. This idea has resonated with millions of Americans across the world.

Since its founding in 1990, Points of Light has electrified the American spirit of volunteerism, and each year the foundation supports more than 20 million hours of community service--what an extraordinary legacy.

President Bush understood that at its core public service is about-- this is going to sound strange--loving your neighbor. The Points of Light foundation is a fitting legacy for this fine American who loved his country and his family to the fullest, and he devoted every day of his life to serving all 350 million of his neighbors. Without a doubt, he was one of the brightest of those thousand points of light, and our loss is Heaven's gain.

A smart person once told me that people don't really care how much you know until they know how much you care. President George Herbert Walker Bush knew a lot, but he cared a lot too.

America weeps, both in joy for his life and in sadness because his soul is in a better place but not with us. America and the world have lost a favorite son.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I want to take a moment to honor an American hero and a fellow Louisianan. In just a few days, Charles Davis, from Toledo Bend Lake, LA, will celebrate his 93rd birthday. Charles is a World War II veteran who gave many years of his life in the service of his country.

Charles Davis was 16 years old when Pearl Harbor was bombed. Like many Americans, the attack on Pearl Harbor led Davis to serve his country by enlisting in the Navy. While just a teenager, his service in the military took him around the globe, fighting for the country he loves.

During his time in the war, Charles served on a ship that was bombed while out at sea. He spent 37 hours adrift alongside 1,200 soldiers, with nothing to keep them alive other than their life vests. Charles thought he was going to die that day, but after 37 hours in the ocean, he was rescued. Nearly 300 of the men in the water with him did not make it. Among the men who died that day was another American hero, Charles's brother, Albert Anthony Davis.

Charles served in the military for 8 years and after the war returned to Louisiana to serve as a firefighter. As Charles celebrates his 93rd birthday, I want to honor his life and dedication to his country. He risked his life in service to his country and lost a brother and many comrades during the war.

Mr. Davis, we are grateful for your service, and I would like to wish you a very happy birthday and many blessings in the years to come.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to legislative session for a period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, I have 5 requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority leaders.

Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate:

Committee on Armed Services

The Committee on Armed Services is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, November 29, 2018, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing on the following nominations: Thomas McCaffery, of California, to be an Assistant Secretary of Defense, and William Bookless, of California, to be Principal Deputy Administrator, National Nuclear Security Administration, Department of Energy.

Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs

The Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, November 29, 2018, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Combatting Money Laundering and other forms of illicit finance: Regulator and Law Enforcement perspectives on Reform.''

Committee on Environment and Public Works

The Committee on Environment and Public Works is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, November 29, 2018, at 10:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``The Global Fight to End Modern Slavery.''

Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

The Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, November 29, 2018, at 10:30 a.m., to conduct a business meeting and hearing on the nomination of Erhard R. Chorle, of Illinois, to be a Member of the Railroad Retirement Board, Gordon Hartogensis, of Connecticut, to be Director of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, Robert L. King, of Kentucky, to be Assistant Secretary of Education for Postsecondary Education, and John P. Pallasch, of Kentucky, to be an Assistant Secretary of Labor.

Subcommittee on Energy

The Subcommittee on Energy of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, November 29, 2018, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 7187.

I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time.

I know of no further debate on the bill.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be discharged from further consideration of S. 3628 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time.

I know of no further debate on the bill.

I ask unanimous consent that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 309, S. Res. 92.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee be discharged from further consideration and the Senate now proceed to S. Res. 688.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Foreign Relations Committee be discharged from further consideration and the Senate now proceed to S. Res. 709.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to immediate consideration of S. Con. Res. 54.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the concurrent resolution be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.