Floor Statements

Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 3383 to the language proposed to be stricken by amendment No. 3224.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with and for the opportunity to make a few remarks about my amendment.

Thank you.

Mr. President, I am joined in this amendment with Senators Cruz and Lee. I thank Senator Roberts and Senator Stabenow for their work on this bill.

The farm bill is a must-pass bill. It is important. I realize that. America was born on the farm. Seventy percent of the cost of this bill has to do with food stamps, and I am pleased to have the opportunity for us to discuss a way to improve our food stamp program.

As I said yesterday, I don't want to take away food stamps from people in need. I do want fewer people to need food stamps. In our country, I am very proud of the fact that if you are hungry, we feed you. If you are homeless, we house you. If you are too poor to be sick, we pay for your doctor. But the best way to continue the food stamp program and our other social programs is to make sure that they are efficient and that we save as much money as we can from those who would abuse the program in order to really help those in need.

This amendment will make responsible changes to the SNAP program by updating photo identification requirements related to electronic benefits transfer systems in the Food and Nutrition Act, and it will also take the very important step of having work requirements for able- bodied adult individuals without dependents. We are not talking about someone with kids or taking Grandpa out of the nursing home. And it would require State agencies to operate work activation programs for eligible SNAP participants.

Madam President, I would like to talk today for a few minutes about food stamps and the farm bill. Let me preface it by saying, it has been my experience that the American people are the most generous people in the world.

We spend about $1 trillion of taxpayer money at the Federal, State, and local levels helping our neighbors who are less fortunate than we are. In America--and I am very proud of this--if you are homeless, we will house you. If you are too poor to be sick, we will pay for your doctors. If you are hungry, we will feed you. That separates our country from a lot of other countries

that exist and have existed in the world, and I am very proud of those principles as an American. So I do get upset when people suggest that the American taxpayer is not generous with his or her money. We are the most generous people in the world.

In that regard, I know that for many Americans, the Food Stamp Program--we call it the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, some people call it SNAP--means the difference between an empty stomach and a warm meal, and that is just a fact. I am talking about the men and women, many of whom are hard-working, who do all they can to provide for their families, but they need just a little extra help to put food on the table. The American people are happy to provide it.

Each and every year, the Federal Government spends more than $68 billion to make sure no American has to wonder where his or her next meal is going to come from. It is the generosity of the American people that pays for those meals.

If the Food Stamp Program is going to continue to provide food to the 42.2 million Americans who use their benefits every month--and I want you to think about that number--42.2 million Americans out of a country of over 120 million, including one in five Louisianians, we have to do our part to ensure our program's integrity.

This is a natural fact. The Food Stamp Program is rife with fraud and criminal activity. Every year more than $1.2 million of SNAP benefits are stolen or misused by criminals. So it is no wonder Congress has been discussing requiring photo identification at the point of sale for the Food Stamp Program since the 1970s.

As early as 1981, our GAO testified--and GAO, they are not politicians, not Republicans, and not Democrats. I don't mean this in a pejorative sense, but they are bean counters. GAO testified that such efforts would be effective in reducing overissuance, but we have not acted.

Reform is long overdue, and the time to act, it seems to me, is right now when we are considering the farm bill. If SNAP is going to be available to the people who depend on it most of the years to come, we have to do more to ensure that taxpayer dollars are going where taxpayers intended them to go.

That is why I have offered an amendment to the farm bill which will help protect our precious SNAP dollars by requiring a photo ID to use your benefits. It doesn't take anybody off the rolls, it just says you have to have a photo ID to use your benefits.

This amendment is very simple. It will require States to list on EBT cards the names of all of those who are eligible to use the EBT card. Household members listed on the card must then produce photo ID at point of sale when they use the EBT cards--about as simple as you can get.

Two States right now are already doing it and doing it successfully. One State is Maine and one is Massachusetts. They both have successful SNAP benefit photo ID bills in law that are already saving thousands-- indeed, probably millions--of taxpayer dollars. This should send a very clear message to every Governor and every legislature and every Congresswoman and every Congressman that food stamp reforms can work.

In the past few months, we had numerous SNAP benefit fraud cases that have been identified throughout our country. In Tennessee, for example, two men were found to have been selling their EBT cards to undercover cops in exchange for cash and heroin. In New Jersey, a couple managing a grocery store exchanged more than $4 million in SNAP or food stamp benefits for cash between the years 2014 and 2017.

In Rochester, NY, a storeowner was found to have used cash to purchase food stamp benefits from beneficiaries for less than half their full value over a 5-year period. Now that is not what the American taxpayer intends the Food Stamp Program to do. That one individual's criminal actions cost taxpayers and people who really need food stamps $1.2 million. That was only one act, and I could go on and on.

In the farm bill, we are asking the taxpayers to spend $68 billion a year. We throw this figure ``1 billion'' around like it is a nickel. A billion dollars is a lot. If I started counting right now to a billion--1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10--it would take me 32 years to count to 1 billion. It would be 2050 when I finished. I wouldn't make it.

We are asking taxpayers not to spend $1 billion a year, but $68 billion of their money on the farm bill. We have an obligation, therefore, to keep an eye on that money and to make sure it is going to those who need it the most. The Federal Government and not a single one of us in this Congress should stand by and tolerate criminal stealing from the mouths of children. That is not a Democratic principle; that is not a Republican principle. That is a human principle.

We owe it to the American taxpayer and to every family who relies on food stamps to put food on the table to protect the program from those who would take advantage of our generous American spirit. It is in that spirit that I will be offering my amendment.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I rise to discuss, once again, an issue of utmost importance to the people of Louisiana and to the millions of Americans who live in coastal States or in a floodplain. I am talking, of course, about the National Flood Insurance Program, or as we refer to it, the NFIP.

As one knows, in the absence of reauthorizing legislation, this program will expire at the height of hurricane season, and its expiration will leave more than 5 million American families and businesses without insurance and, therefore, in limbo. For the good of our national economy, we simply cannot allow that to happen. That is why I am requesting a vote to extend the program through hurricane season as either an amendment to our farm bill or after recess as a stand-alone bill. My amendment to the farm bill is clean. It would be a 6-month emergency extension that would just maintain the status quo and give flood insurance policyholders peace of mind while allowing us to put together a viable, bipartisan, long-term reform bill.

As one well knows, flooding is the No. 1 natural hazard in this country. It poses an extraordinary risk to both life and property. Of course, families who live near oceans, lakes, rivers, and bayous rely on the NFIP to protect their homes and businesses. Yet winter storms and snowmelt also flood thousands of properties every year, and you don't have to live in a coastal State to have a bad rainstorm. In fact, you are twice as likely to have your home flood as you are to have it catch on fire, regardless of where you live. I can assure you that regardless of where you live, if you have 20 or 21 inches of rain over a 2-day period, you are going to flood. I do not care if you live on Pikes Peak.

If you do happen to have your home or business flood, your normal homeowner's policy is not going to help you. You are not covered. That is why Congress created the NFIP, and that is why we need to continue it. Yet we find this program in jeopardy once again. I mean no disrespect, but Congress has repeatedly and consistently mangled the reauthorization of the NFIP.

Despite its being the primary source of flood insurance coverage for millions of American homeowners, Congress allowed the National Flood Insurance Program to expire four times in 2010, for a total of 53 days. Those disruptions had lasting effects on ordinary Americans. In June of 2010, for each day the NFIP had been expired, over 1,400 home sales had been canceled or delayed.

This had injected uncertainty into a fragile housing market. It had disrupted mortgage lending and had sent our local economies into a tailspin. If the NFIP were to lapse this July--and unless we do something, it will lapse on July 31--the National Association of Realtors estimates that more than 40,000 home sale closings will be affected each month.

As it now stands, we have 21 Senate session days until the NFIP expires at 12 midnight on July 31. I regret to say that no meaningful progress has been made with regard to our efforts to confect a reform bill that would continue and improve the NFIP. To make matters worse, our friends in the House of Representatives decoupled the NFIP from spending bills in the omnibus, which has only increased the likelihood that the NFIP will be allowed to expire, which is unacceptable.

Without independent reauthorizing legislation--either stand-alone legislation or an amendment to our farm bill--Congress stands poised to bring our domestic real estate market to a standstill and leave Americans in our coastal States and elsewhere exposed in the middle of hurricane season. We simply cannot afford to let down that many Americans who depend on the National Flood Insurance Program.

Again, I strongly encourage my colleagues to support this emergency extension of the NFIP, which I am working on, along with Senator Cassidy, who is the senior Senator from Louisiana and whose support I greatly appreciate.

We are a month away from a lapse of the NFIP--21 working days in the Senate. That is why I am requesting a vote on a clean, short-term, status quo reauthorization that will get us through hurricane season.

I thank the Presiding Officer.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, 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 rise today briefly to thank President Trump. I want to thank him for our summit with North Korea in Singapore.

Only Nixon could go to China, and I think only Trump could go to North Korea. I understand that he went to Singapore, but you get the point. It is a beginning. It is a baby step, but it was an important step, and I want to thank President Trump for taking it.

Certainly, there is nothing in the history of Kim Jong Un or his father or his grandfather that would cause us to be optimistic. So I think the President and all Americans are entering into this discourse with eyes wide open.

We also know that Kim Jong Un is not coming to the table out of the goodness of his heart. President Trump and the U.S. Congress have hit him with sanctions, and we have hit him so hard that he is coughing up bones. I hate to do that to the people of North Korea, but we had no choice.

I think Kim Jong Un is coming to the table also because he understands that, for the first time in a long time, America means what it says and a military option is on the table. He saw what happened to Assad in Syria, not once but twice.

So we enter into this discourse with North Korea, as I said, with eyes wide open. An old comedian once said that sincerity is everything. Fake that, and you got it made.

Well, we don't know whether Kim Jong Un is sincere yet. We will probably find out when the President asks

for authority to send in inspectors from America to inventory Kim Jong Un's nuclear arsenal, his nuclear technology, and his missile technology. If the answer is ``no, we can't do that,'' or if Kim Jong Un takes evasive measures to try to hide his weaponry, then, we will know, but we will have tried.

I want to thank President Trump today on behalf of all Americans who believe in peace for the successful start of what I hope will be a successful summit and relationship with North Korea.

Thank you, President Trump.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I rise today because, in my judgement, we are in the midst of a deeply troubling trend regarding banking and the Second Amendment. I know that seems a bit strange. What does banking have to do with the Second Amendment? I have wondered that myself. Allow me to explain.

We have 120 million gun owners in America. Like those Americans, I am alarmed by the activist anti-gun policies unveiled by the ``we are smarter than you'' financial elites who run two Wall Street banks: Citigroup and Bank of America. They have a political agenda, and those banks' political agenda stands to hurt many small businesses in my State of Louisiana that are going to lose their banking services simply because these small businesses choose to exercise their constitutionally protected Second Amendment rights.

On March 22 of this year, Citigroup issued a press release. That press release detailed how Citigroup will penalize banking clients who follow Federal, State, and local gun laws. Citigroup's new policy will tell businesses what kinds of firearms they can stock, what kinds of accessories those small businesses can stock in their stores, and who they can sell them to. I thought this was America.

This new policy has already taken effect all across Citigroup, and it has impacted hundreds of small businesses, institutional clients, and even their credit card partners.

Not to be outdone, 2 weeks later, Bank of America joined in. On April 10, Bank of America announced that it will no longer loan money to businesses that, in its opinion, are ``deplorables'' because those businesses manufacture legal semiautomatic rifles. Targeting firearms owners and business owners is not only an affront to responsible, law- abiding, constitutional gun owners across this country; it is a threat to the sanctity of our very Constitution and the Second Amendment

I realize that the management of these two banks have a constitution whose bill of rights jumps from one to three, but I can assure them that in the Constitution read by the rest of America, there is a Second Amendment.

I have written to both the chief executive officers of Citigroup and Bank of America about my concerns, and they have yet to respond. I understand that Mr. Brian Moynihan, the CEO of Bank of America, is actually here in Washington lobbying folks on Capitol Hill this week. I suppose he was too busy to come by and address my concerns. Once again, I invite him to come by my office and speak about this in person.

I can't overstate the gravity of this issue. It is important for consumers and businesses all across America. Both Citigroup and Bank of America are considered by the U.S. Government to be ``systemically important banks.''

That means they are too big to fail. That is why the American taxpayers had to bail them out in 2009.

The American taxpayers, many of whom Citigroup and Bank of America now condescend to across our great land, gave Citigroup $476 billion of their hard-earned money--not $476 million to bail out Citigroup, $476 billion. And the American taxpayers, many of whom choose to exercise their rights under the Second Amendment and whom these banks are trying to now punish, gave Bank of America $336 billion in 2008 and 2009 to keep them from going broke.

These banks are supposed to act as a source of credit for households and businesses and local and State governments and as a source of liquidity for the entire banking system, but that also means their corporate policies will have ripple effects through every corner of our economy, from consumers and businesses of all sizes to banks and nonbank holding companies.

If the banking system worked like a grocery store, I would still disagree with these new anti-gun rules by Citigroup and Bank of America, but I would respect their rights to enact whatever corporate policies align with their beliefs. But banks are not grocery stores. A grocery store doesn't need a government charter to operate. A grocery store doesn't have a government corporation backed by the taxpayers of this country to insure their deposits. A grocery store doesn't have a government bank that pays them interest. Banks do.

One grocery store doesn't get so big that it lends and borrows and buys and sells from nearly every other grocery store in the country. Citigroup does, and so does Bank of America.

A grocery store doesn't need an $812.3 billion bailout from the American taxpayers, many of whom choose to exercise their rights under the U.S. Constitution, including, but not limited to, the Second Amendment.

Citigroup and Bank of America have decided to make banking a red- versus-blue issue by trampling on the Second Amendment rights of small business owners and therefore all Americans.

If additional big consumer banks come out with similar anti-Second Amendment policies, it will get harder and harder for businesses in my State of Louisiana and small businesses in other States and elsewhere to find banking services. We will have red banks, and we will have blue banks. I don't think that is what we want in America.

I want to make sure that the Federal Government isn't rewarding this behavior with even more taxpayer dollars. I think $1 trillion to bail out these two banks by the American taxpayers is quite enough.

I have already petitioned the General Services Administration to cancel the Federal Government's $700 billion contract with Citigroup, and I have urged officials in the State of Louisiana to reevaluate all State contracts with any Wall Street bank that chooses to implement an extra-legal policy that infringes on the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Citigroup and Bank of America owe their continued existence to the generosity of the American taxpayer. If it weren't for the American taxpayer, there would be no Citigroup; there would be no Bank of America. I find it very disturbing that these Wall Street banks may be profiting from taxpayer-funded contracts at the same time they are pushing a political agenda--and that is what it is, a political agenda--and severing ties with law-abiding businesses in the process. Given the size of these banks, it is likely that the same is true in States across America.

I find it offensive--I find it offensive--that Wall Street banks are taking taxpayer dollars with one hand and condescending to them with their ``we know better than you do'' attitude by using the other hand to come after the guns those taxpayers lawfully own under the Second Amendment. Rather than impose its political agenda on law-abiding citizens, these Wall Street banks ought to remember how taxpayers spent billions of dollars--almost $1 trillion--to bail them out after the 2008 financial crisis. They owe a tremendous debt to the American people, and it seems they have a very short memory.

We don't need red banks in America. We don't need blue banks in America. We need safe banks in America.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I have 6 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 Energy and Natural Resources

The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, June 5, 2018, at 10 a.m. to conduct a hearing.

Committee on Foreign Relations

The Committee on Foreign Relations is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, June 5, 2018, at 2:30 p.m. to conduct a hearing on the following nominations: Georgette Mosbacher, of Florida, to be Ambassador to the Republic of Poland, and Stephen Akard, of Indiana, to be Director of the Office of Foreign Missions, with the rank of Ambassador, both of the Department of State, and Mark Rosen, of Connecticut, to be United States Executive Director of the International Monetary Fund.

Select Committee on Intelligence

The Select Committee on Intelligence of the Committee on Armed Services is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, May 24, 2018, at 2 p.m. to conduct a closed hearing.

Subcommittee on Consumer Protection, Product Safety, Insurance, and

Data Security

The Subcommittee on Consumer Protection, Product Safety, Insurance, and Data Security of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, June 5, 2018, at 3 p.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``Preventing Abuse in Olympic and Amateur Athletics: Ensuring Safe and Secure Environment for our Athletes.''

Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard

The Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, June 5, 2018, at 10 a.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``A Decade of the Digital Coast Partnership Program: Successes and Opportunities.''

Subcommittee on East Asia, The Pacific, and International Cybersecurity

Policy

The Subcommittee on East Asia, The Pacific, and International Cybersecurity Policy of the Committee on Foreign Relations is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, June 5, 2018, at 10 a.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``Next Steps on U.S. Policy toward North Korea.''

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

Mr. President, in a few minutes we are going to be voting on President Trump's nomination of

Mr. Kurt Engelhardt to be a judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, and I can't think of a nominee who is more deserving and more qualified for this job.

Judge Engelhardt is the chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. He has been on the Federal district court bench for 17 years. If you add up all of the cases he has actually tried to verdict or to judgment, I think it is somewhere in the neighborhood of 75 to 100. That is on top of hundreds--undoubtedly, thousands--of motions that he has heard. He is eminently qualified. Yet, rather than recite his resume, I wish to share a personal experience that I had in Judge Engelhardt's court.

A number of years ago, the city of New Orleans sued a major Wall Street investment bank in a dispute over a $171 million bond issue. The bonds are called pension obligation bonds, and it is an extraordinarily complex transaction. I was called as a witness because, at that point in my life, I was the State treasurer of Louisiana and the chairman of the State bond commission, and we had jurisdiction over the bonds when they were issued.

I was not exactly sure whether I was a fact witness or an expert witness, and the lawyers fought over that for a while. My point is that I was on the stand for, maybe, 5 hours, 6 hours, and I got to observe a little bit about the case and about Judge Engelhardt.

The plaintiffs' counsel, who represented the city of New Orleans and the firefighters' pension system, were a handful of the finest lawyers in the State of Louisiana--indeed, I would say, in the country. A partner and number of associates from a major Wall Street law firm represented the Wall Street investment bank. In addition to their lawyers, there were dozens of clerks and associates and paralegals, who made it look like Bourbon Street on Saturday night because there were so many people. I remember thinking how many thousands and thousands and thousands of hours these lawyers and paralegals and clerks had spent in understanding this case. One could tell very quickly that both sides--both sets of lawyers--knew this case backward and forward and had almost memorized the depositions.

As a lawyer, it was fun for me to watch as they were going at it hammer and tongs. I mean, they could recite chapter and verse from the legal briefs, from the law books, from the depositions. Yet there was one person in that courtroom, among all of these accomplished professionals, who knew more about the case than anybody else. He was the presiding judge--Kurt Engelhardt. He had total command of the subject matter. That was not easy, as this was a very complex municipal securities offering. He had total command of the courtroom.

With both sets of lawyers being aggressive, accomplished litigators, they tested him quite often. That is what good lawyers do. They will push the envelope. He maintained firm control without ever raising his voice, and I got to watch him in operation for 5 or 6 hours. I had never been in his courtroom before, but after watching Judge Engelhardt in operation, I understood why just about every lawyer in Louisiana who files a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana hopes that he or she will get Judge Engelhardt for the judge, because he is that good. The only group of lawyers I know who hopes it doesn't get Judge Engelhardt for a judge in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana is made up of those who are unprepared or who don't know their cases, because he is not going to tolerate the court's time being wasted.

For that reason, I am proud to stand here today, along with my colleague, the senior Senator from Louisiana, Bill Cassidy, and recommend categorically and unequivocally--unconditionally--to my colleagues the nomination of Judge Kurt Engelhardt to be a member of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. He will serve us proudly and well.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, it is my honor to recognize Canal Coffee from Kinder, LA, as the Small Business of the Day for the 2018 National Small Business Week. Small businesses like minority and veteran-owned Canal Coffee exemplify the pursuit of the American dream.

Canal Coffee is owned and operated by Priscilla Mayfield and Rodrick James. James, affectionately known back home as Coffee Man, was born in Bossier City, LA. After serving in the U.S. Army for 8 years, James attended the Culinary School of America and worked as the executive chef at Coushatta Casino Resort. In the fall of 2016, the duo opened the original Canal Coffee on the corner of 4th Avenue and 9th Street in Kinder, LA. Since then, they have opened two more locations in Oberlin and Shreveport, with a third location coming soon. The goal is to open a total of 25 Canal Coffee shops in the next 5 years. James says his recipe for success is to ``stay in front of God and work hard.''

Canal Coffee should not only be admired for their business success, but also commended for giving back to the local community. As a part of their Community Strong campaign, Canal Coffee donates a portion of their high school football game concession sales to schools in Allen Parish. They also extend the shop's closing time to midnight so that the kids have a safe place to socialize after games.

I would like to extend my sincerest congratulations to Canal Coffee on being recognized during the 2018 National Small Business Week. You make Louisiana proud, and I look forward to watching your continued growth and success.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to complete my brief remarks before we vote on the nomination of Mr. Duncan.

Thank you.

Mr. President, in a few minutes, we are going to vote on the nomination of Mr. Kyle Duncan for a position on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

Mr. Duncan was nominated by President Trump. He has been vetted-- examined, if you will--extensively by the White House. He has been vetted--examined, if you will--extensively the Department of Justice. He has been vetted by the FBI. He has been vetted by the American Bar Association, and he has been vetted by the Senate's Judiciary Committee. All of those entities have found that he is qualified-- indeed, more than qualified--to sit on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

If you look at his resume and his experience, you will understand why. Mr. Duncan clerked for the Honorable John Duhe on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. As you know, Federal clerkships are highly coveted, but judges generally pick the top students and the top members of their class. Mr. Duncan was picked.

He has an LL.M. from the Columbia University School of Law, one of the finest law schools in the world. Mr. Duncan is an honors graduate of LSU Law School and an honors graduate with a B.A. degree from Louisiana State University as well.

He has argued over 30 cases in Federal and State appellate courts. Some lawyers never argue a single one. He has briefed, prepared, and argued some 30 cases.

He served in the office of the attorney general in the State of Louisiana as appellate chief. He has represented my State in many high- profile cases, and he also has experience as an assistant solicitor general in the attorney general's office in Texas.

Those who know Kyle and who have participated in the vetting process know that he is articulate, a careful thinker, and has a deep understanding of the importance of the separation of powers, and for that reason, he has been supported by a bipartisan group of both current and former lawyers.

I do not recognize the Kyle Duncan being described by some of my colleagues. I say this with all due respect. I think some of my colleagues, in criticizing Mr. Duncan, are confusing the role of the lawyer and the client.

I used to practice law. When a client came to me and said ``Kennedy, I need you to represent me,'' I did what they asked in that particular lawsuit. If his position was lawful, I would say: OK, tell me what your problem is and what your arguments are, and I will look at it from my standpoint and maybe supply some additional arguments under the law. But when my client described to me his problem and his analysis of it, I can't remember a single time when I said: Oh, jeez, I don't agree with you. I don't like your politics. I just don't agree with your position. I could have, but that was not my role as a lawyer. So long as what my client was proposing was legal, my role as their lawyer was that they were entitled to legal representation. My role was not to substitute my judgment for theirs.

I have listened to my colleagues' criticism of Mr. Duncan. They don't know what his beliefs are, with all due respect. They have said: Well, in this case, he said that, and in this case he said that, and in this case over here, he said that, as though it was his point of view. They were his clients' points of view.

Mr. Duncan has developed an expertise in constitutional law. He is a senior partner in a boutique firm. That means, of course, as you know, a smaller firm that has a specialty here in Washington, DC. Clients from all over the country and from all over the world come to him with constitutional law problems, and they ask him to litigate. They ask him to espouse their point of view--not Mr. Duncan's point of view, but the client's point of view. It is just not fair, it seems to me, to criticize a lawyer for doing what he is bound by our code of ethics and, indeed, the law to do.

If I didn't think Kyle Duncan would call the balls and the strikes based on the rule of law that we cherish in America, I wouldn't be standing here today, but he will. I would respectfully suggest that all of my colleagues put aside the politics, put aside whether they like President Trump, and look at this man for himself. What they will see is a very qualified, very successful lawyer who worships the rule of law and who will apply the law as this Congress and the U.S. Supreme Court have dictated.

Thank you, Mr. President.

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

Mr. President, sometimes--not always--but sometimes Congress operates under the principle that anything worth doing is worth overdoing, and that, to some extent, is what happened with Dodd- Frank.

It has been almost 8 years since Dodd-Frank took effect, and in that time, well over 1,700 community banks have consolidated, merged, or shut their doors forever. We are going backward. That is an average of one every 3 days.

I was reading this morning that in the last 3 years, only 13 new banks have been formed in America. That is not 13 per year, that is 13 total. Before Dodd-Frank, we averaged about 100 a year. Across America, banks of all sizes have closed more than 10,000 branches. Acknowledging the damage Dodd-Frank has wrought for our local economies is long overdue, and it is high time we did something about it.

In my State of Louisiana, out-of-control compliance costs have led to banks boarding up their windows. That means, at this point in time, in at least 15 communities in my State, folks do not have access to a bank or to a credit union. For Louisianians living in these banking deserts, getting a check or a savings account may be little more than a pipedream.

I am not suggesting to you that everything in Dodd-Frank was misguided. I think we had a handful of institutions that precipitated, in part, the meltdown in 2008, and Dodd-Frank regulates those institutions, but not every financial institution, particularly a community bank and a small credit union, should be lumped in with the larger financial institutions.

To return to my point, even the ordinary act of cashing a paycheck-- something that goes sight unseen for most Americans--is next to impossible without paying high fees at the convenience store, a pawn shop, or a payday lender. Because of the shrinkage in the banking community in Louisiana, every day, ordinary Louisianians are being told to participate in the economy, manage their finances, save for their kids' future, and plan for their retirements when, thanks to Dodd-Frank and its overregulation of medium-sized and community banks and credit unions, too many Louisianians don't even have a bank branch in their community.

I think it is time to swing the pendulum back toward simple, sensible regulations. We have legislation that will be on the floor this week in the Senate that will do that. It is called the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act. I call it the Dodd- Frank fix bill or the Dodd-Frank reform bill. It doesn't destroy Dodd- Frank. It doesn't eliminate it entirely. It just brings some common sense to the legislation. I think it is a vital step in the right direction. Dodd-Frank, to some extent, particularly for medium-sized and smaller financial institutions, was like using a sledgehammer to kill a gnat. All our reform bill does is suggest that we ought to try using a flyswatter instead of a sledgehammer.

The changes made in our bill will not mean the banks that are given relief will go unregulated--far from it. They will still be heavily regulated. They just will not be overly regulated as a result of the Dodd-Frank bill.

Everybody in America knows that community banks and credit unions, which I refer to as relationship bankers, played no role--none, zero, zilch--in the 2008 financial crisis. When former Chair of the Federal Reserve Yellen testified during her term in office before the Banking Committee, I asked her point-blank: Chairwoman Yellen, what did the community banks

do wrong to contribute to the economic meltdown in 2008, and she responded: Nothing.

The businesses of these small institutions revolve around lending. I am talking about community banks and credit unions. They lend to farms, mom-and-pop businesses, and homeowners. They are not hedge fund managers. They are not playing the margins. Yet the small banks are the ones that are suffocating under the weight of Dodd-Frank's 20,000 pages of regulations. Let me say that again. Dodd-Frank is about a 900-page bill, and it has 20,000 pages of regulations.

Ultimately, our communities pay the price for the costs that have been imposed upon small- and medium-sized banks to comply with Dodd- Frank, when these banks did nothing wrong in 2008.

Studies show that when a bank branch shuts its doors, on average, the number of small business loans made in that community falls by 3 percent, and that has certainly been the case in Louisiana. The experts say the neighborhoods can take more than 8 years to recover. You multiply that by 10,000 branches that have closed across this country, and the figure is breathtaking. It doesn't take an economist to see that the ultimate cost of Dodd-Frank on our communities in Louisiana, in Texas, and elsewhere has been job losses and economic decline.

Fortunately, I think we can start to see a light at the end of the tunnel--at least if our Dodd-Frank reform bill passes. Dodd-Frank, as you know, said that all banks are created with equal risks and should be subject to the same regulations. From the largest bank to the smallest bank, they all create equal risk for the American financial system, and they should be subject to the same regulations. Whoever came up with that rule must have parachuted in from another planet.

I am cosponsoring the Dodd-Frank reform bill because I believe an international bank--and I think common sense tells us this--with $50 billion in assets poses a different risk to our economy than a community bank in Bossier City with 30 employees. The Dodd-Frank reform bill acknowledges that banks come in all different shapes and sizes and purposes, and it treats them accordingly.

We have had 8 years under Dodd-Frank to see what this level of government regulation means for our economy, and it is time to find some balance. Dodd-Frank's purpose was to prevent another financial crisis. Yet, in practice, banks across this country are now able to offer fewer products, fewer services, and fewer loans at much, much higher prices as a result of overregulation by Dodd-Frank. If we want to get our economy back on track for working and middle-class Americans, it has to stop.

I have been working closely with my colleague Senator Schatz on a bipartisan amendment to our Dodd-Frank reform legislation to protect consumers. Americans shouldn't have to spend months fighting to correct inaccurate information on their credit report when they didn't consent to have it collected in the first place. They shouldn't be penalized because a credit reporting agency, such as Equifax, can't keep their data safe.

Our proposal would require that the Big Three credit reporting agencies work together to create an online portal that gives consumers access to their credit reports and their credit scores. This website would allow folks to see what information has been collected about them, see who has viewed their credit report and why, and opt out of having their information packaged and sold to third parties. It would make it simple for people to dispute inaccuracies on their credit reports. In short, it would give consumers control over their financial information once again.

I respectfully urge my colleagues in the Senate to support this necessary amendment.

To conclude, the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act--the Dodd-Frank reform bill that I have been talking about--will help promote stability in our financial markets. It will protect American consumers, and it will give breathing room to some of our smaller banks and to our credit unions. It will ensure that consumers and small businesses continue to have access to mortgage credit and to capital. I respectfully submit that it will help ensure that our relationship bankers--95 percent of the bankers in America, the ones on whose back this country was built--can afford to keep their doors open and continue lending to the middle-class drivers of our economy.

Thank you.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, it is very hard, as the Presiding Officer knows, to become an icon in television news as station owners change, as demographics change, and as on-air personalities change. The ``Guinness Book of World Records'' actually tracks the longest serving television news broadcaster. In case one is curious, the current record holder is a broadcasting legend named Don Alhart, who has been delivering the news in Rochester, NY, for 51 years. I am happy for Mr. Alhart, but Sally-Ann Roberts could have taken that title from him had she not decided it was time to pass the baton.

After 41 years at WWL-TV Channel 4, in the great city of New Orleans, Sally-Ann Roberts is embarking on a new chapter in her life. She is retiring today. If anybody is worthy of icon status, it is Sally-Ann, and she is absolutely humble about it. If you talk to her about her career, she will probably turn the conversation around to you. If you insist on talking about her career, she will always give credit to her parents for instilling such a strong work ethic and a love for the Lord in their children.

Ms. Roberts came to WWL-TV from Laurel, MS. She was working as the weekend anchor in that small, wonderful town. She didn't even work every weekend; she worked every other weekend. Talent, though, does not stay hidden in America. A WWL-TV journalist by the name of Angela Hill, an icon in her own right, stopped near Laurel for the night. She turned on the television, saw Sally-Ann, and immediately told her news director to hire Sally-Ann. Angela recognized intelligence and talent when she saw it. Very shortly thereafter, Ms. Sally-Ann Roberts had the city hall beat in New Orleans, and the rest, they say, is history.

For the past 26 years, Sally-Ann has anchored the morning show on WWL-TV Channel 4 in New Orleans. She is as much a part of the morning routine in New Orleans as eggs and beignets. Part of the reason people feel so comfortable with Sally-Ann is her positive attitude and pleasing personality. During cooking segments, she has been known to sneak bites of the crispiest bacon. During stories about neglected children--stories that would break anyone's heart--she would often tell us that she was shedding light on the need for foster parents, always trying to be positive.

The Presiding Officer probably knows Ms. Sally-Ann Roberts's little sister. Her name happens to be Ms. Robin Roberts. Robin is an anchor on ``Good Morning America.'' A few years ago, Robin was diagnosed with a very rare blood disorder. A bone marrow transplant saved Robin Roberts's life. Sally-Ann Roberts provided that lifesaving bone marrow. Here is a typical story about Sally-Ann. She went through the bone marrow collection process on a Tuesday and a Wednesday. By Thursday, she was dressed to the nines and doing a national interview to emphasize how quick the recovery time is. She wanted to educate America about bone marrow donation.

Let me say again that Sally-Ann Roberts is an icon, and I don't use that word lightly. If she had wanted, she would have probably been anchoring the evening news before a national audience, but she loved and still loves New Orleans, and that was where she chose to remain.

She has had an extraordinary career as a broadcast journalist. I know she is excited about what comes next. I suspect she will spend some time with her grandchildren. I suspect she will continue writing books and also driving home the importance of bone marrow donation. Sally- Ann, I know, will not just put her feet up and sit. Audience members like me are grateful she devoted such a lengthy chapter of her life to Louisiana and to our great city of New Orleans.

God bless you, Sally-Ann Roberts. Thank you for giving so much to our community and to our State.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, 47 days is how long it has been since President Trump signed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act into law, and what a 47 days it has been. We are already beginning to see what meaningful tax relief looks like for middle- and working-

class Americans. In just 47 days, well over 3 million American workers--the people who get up every day and go to work and obey the law and try to do the right thing by their kids--have received wage increases, benefits increases, and/or bonuses.

I have heard a number of so-called experts say--and it has been my experience that the experts are almost always wrong, but that is a separate subject--that if Congress reduced the corporate tax rate from 40 to 21 percent and if Congress lowered taxes on subchapter S corporations, LLCs, LLPs, sole proprietorships, and family farms, the benefits would only be felt by the so-called rich. I, respectfully, suggest that those 3 million Americans who have received bonuses and higher wages and more generous benefits--once again, in just 47 days-- would not agree with the experts. In those 47 short days, over 330 companies have passed along their tax savings to their employees.

I am from Louisiana. One of my State's largest employers, JPMorgan Chase, has increased its minimum wage and expanded benefits for its hourly workers--real money in higher take-home pay. JPMorgan Chase has also planned a $20 billion 5-year domestic investment that will benefit those Americans who own homes, who own small businesses, or those who would like to someday as part of the American dream.

Honeywell, another well recognized corporation, happens to have a manufacturing plant in Geismar, LA. Honeywell was quick to increase its 401(k) match for its employees, which helps to ensure certainty for people in their retirements. BancorpSouth, another company that does business in Louisiana, gave raises to 70 percent of its employees right off the bat--within the first 47 days. AT&T has 4,600 employees in Louisiana. Those employees are going to see $1,000 in bonuses and many other benefits of a $1 billion increase in investment by the company-- all as a result of the passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.

There are other businesses with footprints in Louisiana--businesses like Home Depot, Cabot Oil & Gas Corporation, Starbucks, Visa, American Airlines, Capital One, Southwest Airlines, Bank of America, Apple, Fidelity, Humana, Nationwide, Regions, Verizon, and FedEx, just to name a few. They also made the list of companies that are passing along their savings to the American worker.

Furthermore, in my home State of Louisiana, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act is allowing small businesses to grow and reinvest in their employees and in their communities. Thanks to the TCJA, or the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act--I hate acronyms, as does the Presiding Officer--the Gulf Coast Bank & Trust Company, which is a bank in Louisiana--actually, in the New Orleans metropolitan area--was able to raise its minimum wage to $12 an hour, nearly doubling the federally mandated minimum wage. The Gulf Coast Bank & Trust Company was also able to increase its charitable contributions by $75,000. Maybe, to some, that $75,000 is mere crumbs, but to the people of Louisiana, that is a lot of money.

Blessey Marine Services, in Harahan, LA, immediately took $1 million of its tax savings and increased its employees' benefits.

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act also allowed for a small brewery in Hammond, LA, to expand. I live about 30 miles away from it. The brewery is called Gnarly Barley. I love that name, ``Gnarly Barley.'' Gnarly Barley is going to expand, hire more workers, and provide more benefits to its existing workers. It is not as big as AT&T, but Gnarly Barley and the people who work for it are just as important to my State and to the country.

I would also point out that another Louisiana bank, IBERIABANK Corporation, is giving 80 percent of its employees $1,000 bonuses. You can call that a crumb if you want to, but in Louisiana, $1,000 is a lot of money, and I think it is a lot of money to most Americans.

I could keep going, but I think you get the point. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act has promised just about every American family and just about every American worker and nearly every American business, large and small, a tax break, and they are already starting to see the effects.

I have said this before, but it bears saying one more time that you cannot be for jobs if you are against business. You will never hear a politician say he is against jobs or she is against jobs. Every politician is for jobs, but you cannot be for jobs if you are against business.

In order for businessmen and businesswomen to succeed, they need four things. They need reasonable regulations, they need a well-trained workforce, they need decent infrastructure, and they need low taxes. That is what government is supposed to provide. Then government needs to get out of the way and let the free enterprise system work. Our Tax Cuts and Jobs Act has provided those low taxes, and I am very proud of the bill.

Last September, I stood here and talked about the importance of tax relief for American families, businesses, and industries and for the overall health of our economy. I didn't know if I would see the day, but, finally, we are on track to see better than average economic growth. I am talking about 3-plus percent. We talk about 3 percent growth as if it is the Holy Grail, but it is just average for the American economy. Our burdensome Tax Code--it is clear now--was hamstringing our job creators, limiting productivity, and keeping wages about as low as they were, adjusted for inflation, in 1999.

The American economy needed a shot in the arm, and that shot in the arm came 47 days ago. I think the outlook for our economy is better now than, certainly, it has been in 10 years. I guarantee you that 47 days from now, it will look even better because the Congress had the courage to legislate what the American people already knew, and that is that people can spend the money they earn better than the government can.

I thank the Presiding Officer.

I yield to the Senator from Montana.