Floor Statements

Mr. President, thank you and Senator Cassidy. We just came back, as we all know, from the Memorial Day recess. I wanted today not to only reflect on that but also to reflect on our anniversary of D-day and the day that our Allies invaded France in 1944. In doing so today, I would like to speak and pay tribute to all of those-- including, but not limited to, Americans, but especially Americans--who risked their lives to defend our freedoms.

In particular, I come today to recognize a special group of dedicated soldiers. You probably have not heard of them, but they are referred to as the Ghost Army--the Ghost Army. This is a unit that served in World War II. It was comprised of the 23rd Headquarters Special Troops and the 3133rd Signal Service Company. The personnel of this U.S. Army unit were handpicked. They were handpicked for their artistic and creative characteristics, and you will see why in just a moment.

They handled top secret information, and they were among some of America's most promising artists, engineers, and signals professionals. The mission of the Ghost Army was very simple: Fool Adolph Hitler--fool Adolph Hitler by using what was called tactical deception. The Ghost Army's deceptive creation of fake battles, inflatable tanks, theatrical props, and other inventive equipment falsified troop movements, and had our enemies chasing ghosts--hence the name the Ghost Army.

Beginning in Normandy 2 weeks after D-day and ending in the Rhine River Valley, the Ghost Army staged over 20 fake battles--fake battlefield deceptions. The German Army did not know whether they were coming or going, thanks to the Ghost Army. These performances, of course, were illusions. They were called illusions by the soldiers. They occurred in the most dangerous spot in the war, on the frontline of battle.

Now, without the Ghost Army's dedication and fearless perseverance, Allied successes at the Battle of the Bulge and the final battles in Po Valley, Italy, would not have been possible. The 23rd unit was composed of only 1,184 men--1,200 men. They put themselves at risk every day at the forefront of danger, and they fought tirelessly. They used ingenious, innovative methods to mislead the enemy, ultimately leading the Allies to many victories in Europe. Because of their bravery, because of the bravery of the 1,200 men in the Ghost Army, up to 30,000 American soldiers and 10,000 German soldiers were able to return home alive.

So why are we waiting until today to honor these 1,184 brave Americans? Because until recently the Ghost Army's mission was classified. It was top secret. Nobody except the members of the Ghost Army knew anything about it. This has finally changed. That is one of the reasons I am here today. I am proud to be a cosponsor of the Ghost Army soldier bill, a bipartisan effort led by Senators Markey, Collins, and King. This long overdue legislation will award a Congressional Gold Medal to the 23rd Headquarters Special Troops and the 3133rd Signal Service Company.

It is a privilege to share that, in my home State of Louisiana, the Ghost Army is being recognized at the New Orleans Museum of Art. Soldier's art is on display depicting many watercolor portraits, as well as graphite portraits, of civilians, soldiers, and refugees during World War II. It is a legacy that our great State now gets to honor.

Specifically, I want to recognize six brave men from Louisiana, my State, who were members of the Ghost Army. Hilton Howell Railey of New Orleans is a prominent journalist and the author of ``Touch'd with Madness.'' He recruited several of the handpicked 23rd. Mr. Railey trained and deployed the 3133rd Signal Service Company, which served in Italy.

There is Jim Stegg of New Orleans, a longtime faculty member at Tulane. He was an artist; in fact, there is a retrospective of his work at the New Orleans Museum of Art's Ghost Army exhibit.

Also, there is Mr. Murphy P. Martin, of St. Martinville, LA; Mr. Thomas L. Raggio, of Lake Charles, LA; Mr. Roy L. Ravia, of Calcasieu Parish, in my State; Mr. Alvin J. Picard, of Vermilion Parish; and last but certainly not least, Mr. Anderson B. Wilson, of Slidell, LA.

Unfortunately, Mr. Wilson is the only Ghost Army solder still alive in Louisiana. I had the rare privilege and the rare honor of speaking with Mr. Wilson this morning. In December of 1943, President Roosevelt authorized the Ghost Army unit. Only 2 weeks later, in January 1944, Mr. Wilson was on his way to Camp Mack Morris, TN, to join the Ghost Army. Who says the Federal Government can't move quickly when it wants to?

Mr. Wilson trained there until May, when his unit was shipped out of New York to Liverpool, England. It was the largest convoy that at the time had ever crossed the Atlantic Ocean. From there, Mr. Wilson and his team traveled more than any other unit. From England they went to France. They went to Belgium. They went to Holland. They went to Luxembourg, and they went to Germany.

Mr. Wilson and his comrades fought fearlessly through the war's end as members of the Ghost Army. In July 1945, Mr. Wilson finally came home. However, while he came home safely, he could not even disclose, he couldn't even talk about--even to his own family--the honorable service unit he was a part of. Now, it is humbling to me to hear a man's sacrifice, to go through what he went through and not even be able to talk about it with his family, but he kept his word out of honor to his country.

The willingness of Mr. Wilson and his fellow soldiers to risk their own lives to defend the freedom we have today--well, it, too, is humbling.

Mr. Wilson returned home in 1945. And I hope he is listening right now. He has been a little under the weather. He was in the hospital when I spoke to him today. It wasn't until the 1990s, when Mr. Wilson was married with two grown children, that he could ever talk about his service to this great country, share his stories, share his experiences, share his fight to keep the freedoms all of us take for granted every day.

Mr. Wilson's story only gives a snapshot of the sacrifices and honorable work these men of the Ghost Army gave to the Allied forces victory. And I, for one--and I know all Americans join me--thank them for their service and for the freedoms they protected.

I am proud of this Ghost Army legislation, and I hope to see it move forward and pass so that these fine Americans can receive the recognition they have long deserved.

God bless the members of the Ghost Army. And if you are listening, Mr. Wilson, God bless you.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate recess until 2:15 p.m.

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 Armed Services

The Committee on Armed Services is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, June 6, 2017, at 9:30 a.m., in open session, to receive testimony on the posture of the Department of the Air Force in review of the defense authorization request for fiscal year 2018 and the future years defense program.

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 Tuesday, June 6, 2017, at 10 a.m. to conduct a hearing to consider the following nominations: Mr. Kevin Allen Hassett, to be Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers; and the Honorable Pamela Hughes Patenaude, to be Deputy Secretary of Housing and Urban Development.

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

The Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate in order to hold a Business Meeting on Tuesday, June 6, 2017, beginning at 9:30 a.m. in Room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC.

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

The Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, June 6, 2017, at 10 a.m. in order to conduct a hearing.

Select Committee on Intelligence

The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence is authorized to meet during the session of the 115th Congress of the U.S. Senate on Tuesday, June 6, 2017, at 3 p.m., in room SH-219 of the Senate Hart Office Building.

Subcommittee on Seapower

The Subcommittee on Seapower of the Committee on Armed Services is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, June 6, 2017, at 2:30 p.m.

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

Mr. President, if I came to you today and told you we had received a job application from somebody to work for the government, and you and I looked at her job application and we saw she had graduated from Harvard Law School, if we looked at her job application and we saw she had worked for a Presidential campaign, if we saw she had practiced law in the private sector, if we noticed from her resume that she had actually worked as a counsel, as a lawyer, in the White House, if we saw she had clerked for a Supreme Court Justice, Justice Anthony Kennedy--each Justice of the United States, I think, has four law clerks every year. I don't know how many tens of thousands of lawyers and law students apply, but to be chosen is one of the highest honors you can receive as a young lawyer. If I told you this person who applied for a job in government used to work at the Department of Justice as Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Office of Legal Policy, if I told you she had also worked for one of the most prestigious law firms in the country, Wilmer, Cutler, Pickering, Hale & Dorr--I remember them as Wilmer, Cutler, but they have changed their name since then. They have been around forever. If I told you all of those things, I think any reasonable person would say: Wow, let's hire her here immediately. Let's do it before she finds another position. Well, that person has applied for a job in government. Her name is Rachel Brand. She has been nominated by President Trump to be Associate Attorney General.

That is a position that is vitally important within the Department of Justice. It is responsible for the oversight of the Civil Division, the Civil Rights Division, the Office on Violence Against Women, and many other important components of the Department of Justice. I think no matter what political party you happen to be in or whatever your political persuasion, we can all agree that right now it is particularly important not only to have a Department of Justice that is fully staffed but to have it fully staffed with extraordinarily qualified people whom every American can look at and go: Wow, is she qualified. I am so pleased she is working for the Federal Government and my tax dollars are being well spent.

Ms. Brand has broad experience, as I indicated, both within the Department of Justice and in the private sector. As I indicated--I am going to say it again--she worked for Justice Anthony Kennedy of the U.S. Supreme Court. Wow, what an honor. She has served as Assistant Attorney General under President George Bush. She has been in private practice, as I indicated. She has been chief counsel for Regulatory Litigation in the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and I could go on and on and on.

I fully support Ms. Brand's nomination. I sit on the Judiciary Committee, the committee of the Senate that vetted her. She is highly respected, she is whip smart, she is well qualified, and she is fully prepared to hit the ground running. That is exactly what we need.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I would like to talk today about the need for a work requirement in our Medicaid Program. In 1969, President Lyndon Johnson addressed the American people, and he talked about breaking the cycle of poverty. This is what President Johnson said:

I believe . . . that the key to success in this effort is

jobs. It is work for people who want to work.

President Johnson, as we know, was a Democrat. He fervently believed that the people of Louisiana didn't want handouts. Most people want a chance to support themselves. President Johnson also believed that Medicaid, as originally envisioned, would be a safety net for the disabled, the elderly, and people with small children. Medicaid is not exactly that; it is dramatically different.

Whether you agree or disagree with what has happened to Medicaid, the fact is that it has turned into a health insurance program for about 20 percent of all Americans. Think about that. We have roughly 320 million people in our country, and fully 25 percent are on Medicaid. It gets bigger and bigger every year, and it gets more expensive every year. You can see that the numbers speak for themselves. You can see the trend. You can certainly see that we started in 1966, and you can particularly see the trend beginning in 1996 and its trajectory.

It also became more expensive. The cost of our Medicaid Program in 1966 was $1 billion. That is a lot of money. This is the cost of last year: $576 billion and climbing.

Let me talk about our State alone. In Louisiana, the cost of Medicaid has increased from $5.9 billion in 2008 to $10.7 billion today, and 65 percent of all of the babies born in Louisiana every year now are born on Medicaid. Think about that.

We know that Medicaid is a Federal-State program. The Federal Government puts up some of the money; the State puts up some of the money, as well. In Louisiana, we put up about one-third of the money. In Louisiana dollars, in 2008, we were putting up $1.7 billion in State money. It is called the match for the Medicaid Program. Today, the State of Louisiana is paying $3.3 billion. You can do the math. That is about a 10 percent increase every year.

If we are spending $3.3 billion of State money, that means every year, just like clockwork, we have to come up with an extra $330 million. I can tell you where that money comes from. It comes out of public schools, it comes out of universities, it comes out of our budget for roads, and it comes out of our budget for public safety.

We have a choice in America. Either Medicaid is going to be, as we originally envisioned it, a safety net for the old, the disabled, and mothers with babies or it is going to be a health insurance program for the masses.

If the American people and Congress decide that Medicaid is going to be a health insurance program for the general population, then it needs to operate as health insurance does in the private sector. In other words, able-bodied adult enrollees in Medicaid should be required to work in order to receive their benefits, if they are able.

I am filing a bill that is going to be entitled the ``Medicaid Reform and Personal Responsibility Act of 2017.'' It is going to create a work requirement for Medicaid. My reason is simple. I want Americans to prosper. I don't want our people to remain mired in poverty. I want to break poverty's back by creating a system that doesn't force the American people to subsist on handouts from government, and the best way to do that is to provide an incentive for able-bodied Americans to know the dignity of work because a person without a job is neither happy, nor is he free.

I think my bill is a commonsense approach to reducing America's reliance on entitlement programs. The work requirement will be very simple. It will be similar to the program that we have in place--the work requirement we have in place right now for food stamps.

This is what my bill would require: If you are on Medicaid or want to receive Medicaid, and you are an adult between the ages of 18 and 55, and you are able-bodied, you are not disabled, and you don't have any dependents, you don't have any children--so if you are 18 to 55, you are not disabled, and you don't have any children, then in order to receive Medicaid or to continue to receive Medicaid, you have to either work 20 hours a week--not 40 hours a week but 20 hours a week--you have to look for a job or you have to go back to school if you don't want to work. Or if you don't want to go back to school or you don't want to look for a job or you don't want to get a job, you have to perform community service for 20 hours a week. My goal is to get people off Medicaid and into the workforce, so they can support themselves and not need Medicaid.

I don't want to take Medicaid away from people in need. I do want fewer people to need Medicaid. So if you are disabled, if you are pregnant, if you are elderly, if you are caring for a child, my bill doesn't apply to you. I am not talking about telling a mother with a baby in her arms that she has to go find a job, and I am not going to ask an elderly person in a nursing home to leave the nursing home and go get a job in order to receive Medicaid. All my bill says is that if you are young by today's standards, between 18 and 55, you are able- bodied and you have no children or dependents, then you have to go get a job or you have to go to school or you have to perform community service.

I want to be very clear about something else. In my State, we have a lot of flood victims. We had terrible flooding last year. In my State, Louisiana, we have a depression in the oil and gas industry; indeed, we do throughout America, and I know we do in the great State of Alaska as well. I am not looking to add to their hurt. I am working very hard, as are you, Mr. President, to put our oilfield workers back to work and to get our flood victims the assistance they need to recover from the tragedy that has befallen them. This bill is not about them. This bill is about able-bodied adults between the ages of 18 and 55 who have no dependents and who have been unemployed for years, in many cases, by their own choosing.

Our country has grown a lot and evolved a lot since Medicaid was introduced in 1965. We now face new challenges, both at home and abroad. We know that. Medicaid has grown, as well, but it hasn't evolved in a positive way, in my opinion. Just 3 years after Medicaid was founded, we knew we were going to have a problem finding the money, given the exponential growth in the program, and more than 50 years later, it is way past time to do something about it.

We have to break the back of poverty. This is not about throwing people out into the cold. This is about helping them to know that they can get work because the best program--the best social program in the entire world is a job. By implementing a work requirement for able- bodied adults, Medicaid will evolve to the next logical step. Our goal ought to be to ensure, of course, that people are healthy. That is what Medicaid exists for, but if you are healthy, then the next step is to help you join the workforce.

The simple fact is, this is nothing new or extraordinary. We already have work requirements--required by acts of this Congress--for unemployment assistance, for welfare benefits, for subsidized housing, and for food stamps. Now, these requirements have been a success. We all know that, not just for stemming the costs of those programs but also for helping people--helping Americans build careers.

Yet we do not have a requirement--a work requirement--for Medicaid. If my bill passes, we will. Work requirements exist because these programs are supposed to be safety nets. That is what a social program is, a safety net. They are not supposed to exist to permanently support you if you can support yourself.

Our social programs in America are meant to be bridges. In way too many respects, they have become parking lots. Medicaid costs are not just a national problem. The program's expansion is clipping the wings of States like Louisiana and like Alaska because, as I pointed out, the States have to put up a substantial amount of the money.

We are becoming a country in which people subsist instead of thrive because they don't know the rewards of work. We have become a country in which poverty is a way of life for way too many people. That is just sad. More than 50 years after Medicaid began, it is time to break the back of poverty once and for all. We can start with a work requirement for Medicaid.

Thank you.

Mr. President, I would like to talk today about the need for a work requirement in our Medicaid Program. In 1969, President Lyndon Johnson addressed the American people, and he talked about breaking the cycle of poverty. This is what President Johnson said:

I believe . . . that the key to success in this effort is

jobs. It is work for people who want to work.

President Johnson, as we know, was a Democrat. He fervently believed that the people of Louisiana didn't want handouts. Most people want a chance to support themselves. President Johnson also believed that Medicaid, as originally envisioned, would be a safety net for the disabled, the elderly, and people with small children. Medicaid is not exactly that; it is dramatically different.

Whether you agree or disagree with what has happened to Medicaid, the fact is that it has turned into a health insurance program for about 20 percent of all Americans. Think about that. We have roughly 320 million people in our country, and fully 25 percent are on Medicaid. It gets bigger and bigger every year, and it gets more expensive every year. You can see that the numbers speak for themselves. You can see the trend. You can certainly see that we started in 1966, and you can particularly see the trend beginning in 1996 and its trajectory.

It also became more expensive. The cost of our Medicaid Program in 1966 was $1 billion. That is a lot of money. This is the cost of last year: $576 billion and climbing.

Let me talk about our State alone. In Louisiana, the cost of Medicaid has increased from $5.9 billion in 2008 to $10.7 billion today, and 65 percent of all of the babies born in Louisiana every year now are born on Medicaid. Think about that.

We know that Medicaid is a Federal-State program. The Federal Government puts up some of the money; the State puts up some of the money, as well. In Louisiana, we put up about one-third of the money. In Louisiana dollars, in 2008, we were putting up $1.7 billion in State money. It is called the match for the Medicaid Program. Today, the State of Louisiana is paying $3.3 billion. You can do the math. That is about a 10 percent increase every year.

If we are spending $3.3 billion of State money, that means every year, just like clockwork, we have to come up with an extra $330 million. I can tell you where that money comes from. It comes out of public schools, it comes out of universities, it comes out of our budget for roads, and it comes out of our budget for public safety.

We have a choice in America. Either Medicaid is going to be, as we originally envisioned it, a safety net for the old, the disabled, and mothers with babies or it is going to be a health insurance program for the masses.

If the American people and Congress decide that Medicaid is going to be a health insurance program for the general population, then it needs to operate as health insurance does in the private sector. In other words, able-bodied adult enrollees in Medicaid should be required to work in order to receive their benefits, if they are able.

I am filing a bill that is going to be entitled the ``Medicaid Reform and Personal Responsibility Act of 2017.'' It is going to create a work requirement for Medicaid. My reason is simple. I want Americans to prosper. I don't want our people to remain mired in poverty. I want to break poverty's back by creating a system that doesn't force the American people to subsist on handouts from government, and the best way to do that is to provide an incentive for able-bodied Americans to know the dignity of work because a person without a job is neither happy, nor is he free.

I think my bill is a commonsense approach to reducing America's reliance on entitlement programs. The work requirement will be very simple. It will be similar to the program that we have in place--the work requirement we have in place right now for food stamps.

This is what my bill would require: If you are on Medicaid or want to receive Medicaid, and you are an adult between the ages of 18 and 55, and you are able-bodied, you are not disabled, and you don't have any dependents, you don't have any children--so if you are 18 to 55, you are not disabled, and you don't have any children, then in order to receive Medicaid or to continue to receive Medicaid, you have to either work 20 hours a week--not 40 hours a week but 20 hours a week--you have to look for a job or you have to go back to school if you don't want to work. Or if you don't want to go back to school or you don't want to look for a job or you don't want to get a job, you have to perform community service for 20 hours a week. My goal is to get people off Medicaid and into the workforce, so they can support themselves and not need Medicaid.

I don't want to take Medicaid away from people in need. I do want fewer people to need Medicaid. So if you are disabled, if you are pregnant, if you are elderly, if you are caring for a child, my bill doesn't apply to you. I am not talking about telling a mother with a baby in her arms that she has to go find a job, and I am not going to ask an elderly person in a nursing home to leave the nursing home and go get a job in order to receive Medicaid. All my bill says is that if you are young by today's standards, between 18 and 55, you are able- bodied and you have no children or dependents, then you have to go get a job or you have to go to school or you have to perform community service.

I want to be very clear about something else. In my State, we have a lot of flood victims. We had terrible flooding last year. In my State, Louisiana, we have a depression in the oil and gas industry; indeed, we do throughout America, and I know we do in the great State of Alaska as well. I am not looking to add to their hurt. I am working very hard, as are you, Mr. President, to put our oilfield workers back to work and to get our flood victims the assistance they need to recover from the tragedy that has befallen them. This bill is not about them. This bill is about able-bodied adults between the ages of 18 and 55 who have no dependents and who have been unemployed for years, in many cases, by their own choosing.

Our country has grown a lot and evolved a lot since Medicaid was introduced in 1965. We now face new challenges, both at home and abroad. We know that. Medicaid has grown, as well, but it hasn't evolved in a positive way, in my opinion. Just 3 years after Medicaid was founded, we knew we were going to have a problem finding the money, given the exponential growth in the program, and more than 50 years later, it is way past time to do something about it.

We have to break the back of poverty. This is not about throwing people out into the cold. This is about helping them to know that they can get work because the best program--the best social program in the entire world is a job. By implementing a work requirement for able- bodied adults, Medicaid will evolve to the next logical step. Our goal ought to be to ensure, of course, that people are healthy. That is what Medicaid exists for, but if you are healthy, then the next step is to help you join the workforce.

The simple fact is, this is nothing new or extraordinary. We already have work requirements--required by acts of this Congress--for unemployment assistance, for welfare benefits, for subsidized housing, and for food stamps. Now, these requirements have been a success. We all know that, not just for stemming the costs of those programs but also for helping people--helping Americans build careers.

Yet we do not have a requirement--a work requirement--for Medicaid. If my bill passes, we will. Work requirements exist because these programs are supposed to be safety nets. That is what a social program is, a safety net. They are not supposed to exist to permanently support you if you can support yourself.

Our social programs in America are meant to be bridges. In way too many respects, they have become parking lots. Medicaid costs are not just a national problem. The program's expansion is clipping the wings of States like Louisiana and like Alaska because, as I pointed out, the States have to put up a substantial amount of the money.

We are becoming a country in which people subsist instead of thrive because they don't know the rewards of work. We have become a country in which poverty is a way of life for way too many people. That is just sad. More than 50 years after Medicaid began, it is time to break the back of poverty once and for all. We can start with a work requirement for Medicaid.

Thank you.

Mr. President, I have 10 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 aging

The Special Committee on Aging is authorized to meet during the session

of the Senate on Wednesday, May 17, 2017, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Aging With Community: Building Connections that Last a Lifetime.''

committee on commerce, science, and transportation

The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation is authorized to hold a meeting during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, May 17, 2017, at 10 a.m. in Room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

committee on environment and public works

The Committee on Environment and Public Works is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, May 17, 2017, at 10 a.m. in Room 406 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Improving America's Transportation Infrastructure: The Road Forward.''

committee on foreign relations

The Committee on Foreign Relations is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, May 17, 2017, at 2 p.m., to hold a hearing entitled ``Nominations.''

committee on homeland security

The Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, May 17, 2017, at 10 a.m. for a business meeting.

committee on indian affairs

The Committee on Indian Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, May 17, 2017, in Room 628 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a business meeting.

The Committee on Indian Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, May 17, 2017, in Room 628 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct an oversight hearing on ``High Risk, No Reward: GAO's High Risk List for Indian Programs.''

committee on Veterans' Affairs

The Committee on Veterans' Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, May 17, 2017, at 2:30 p.m. in SR- 418, to conduct a hearing on pending legislation.

subcommittee on Airland

The Subcommittee on Airland of the Committee on Armed Services is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, May 17, 2017, at 3:30 p.m., in open session, to receive testimony on United States Military Small Arms Requirements.

subcommittee on strategic forces

The Subcommittee on Strategic Forces of the Committee on Armed Services is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, May 17, 2017, at 2 p.m., in open session, to receive testimony on Military Space Organization, Policy, and Programs.

Mr. President, as a member of the Small Business Committee, it is my pleasure to recognize Red River Brewing Company from Shreveport, LA, as the Small Business of the Day for National Small Business Week. Small businesses like Red River Brewing Company are the backbone of this country. According to the U.S. Small Business Administration, U.S. small businesses employed 56.8 million people--or 48 percent of the private workforce in 2013. Louisiana small businesses employed 903,281 people, which made up 53.5 percent of the private workforce.

Red River Brewing Company, founded by entrepreneurs Jared Beville, Robert McGuire, and Beau Raines, began like many great small businesses do: as a hobby in Jared's garage. The group decided to turn their home brewing hobby into a business in the fall of 2013, becoming the first brewery in Shreveport since Prohibition. Red River is now a thriving small business that employs more than a dozen employees and offers locally brewed craft beer to the people of Shreveport, LA, and beyond. What makes their beer unique is the Louisiana twist they put on their products. The beer is designed to be indicative of the culture and climate of Louisiana. In addition, Red River often names their beers after the cultural and historic aspects of Louisiana. Session 18 IPA, for example, got its name from Louisiana being the 18th State in the United States.

The fruition of hard work and passion has been the catalyst for many small businesses around the country, including Red River Brewing Company. Those who are able to create successful small businesses create economic stability for their families and their communities, and in doing so, they are carrying out the American dream. I would like to extend my sincerest congratulations to Red River Brewing Company on being recognized during the 2017 National Small Business Week. You make our great State proud, and I look forward to seeing your future success.

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

Mr. President, I rise to discuss an issue of extraordinary importance to the people of Louisiana and to many Americans. Yet again, Americans are witnessing a dramatic, rumor-filled guessing game. I am not talking about the latest new release from Netflix, I am talking about the reauthorization of the extremely important National Flood Insurance Program--we call it the NFIP, which I can assure you has played more like an episode of ``Veep'' than ``House of Cards'' for the audience that watches it unfold every few years.

I am sorry to say, Congress has repeatedly and consistently mangled the reauthorization of this essential Federal program. In 2010, the NFIP expired four times--not once, not twice but four times, for a total of 53 days, which injected uncertainty throughout a fragile housing market that had just been devastated 2 years previously.

That was inexcusable. Local economies felt the sting of 1,400 home closing delays or cancellations per day that the program was expired. Now, along with many of the program's stakeholders and participants, I believe it is crucial that we avoid this type of congressionally imposed delay.

Congress should extend the program. Let me say that again. Congress should extend the National Flood Insurance Program for a multiyear reauthorization before the September 30 deadline of this year. Our economy demands it. Many Americans may remember when the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act was signed into law in 2012. I was not in the Senate then. I was State Treasurer in Louisiana, but I certainly remember it.

In an effort to bring the program closer to solvency after Superstorm Sandy, policyholders, as a result of Biggert-Waters, saw their premiums quickly rise to ``actuarial levels.'' For policyholders in my home State of Louisiana, this meant unaffordable levels. It doesn't do any good to offer

Americans insurance they cannot afford. That is what Biggert-Waters did, just like the Affordable Care Act.

FEMA's mishandling of Biggert-Waters implementation resulted in truly inaccurate rate hikes that placed the viability of the entire National Flood Insurance Program at risk. I even remember the local news stations in Louisiana, like WWL and WBRZ, broadcasting horror stories of exponential rate hikes as a result of Biggert-Waters, hitting hardest in South Louisiana's middle-class neighborhoods.

Residents of St. Charles Parish and Lafourche Parish--in my State we call our counties parishes. We are the only one in America, only State in America, Louisiana, that does it. We do it right. Everybody else does it wrong. I remember residents of St. Charles Parish and Lafourche Parish sending in copies of their house keys to congressional representatives to give to FEMA because they could not afford the flood insurance.

They were required to carry it. Therefore, they were just going to turn their home over. This was a sign that the government might as well take their homes because the insurance rates were so unaffordable.

In this way, Biggert-Waters also made their homes unsalable. Going forward with the extension of the National Flood Insurance Program, we have to find a way to deal with the solvency of the NFIP that is responsible. At the same time, we cannot move the program from red to black entirely on the backs of policyholders. It just will not work.

What do we need to do? We need to examine how FEMA spends every single dollar of premiums paid by policyholders into the system--every single dollar. We need to find solutions to improve the functionality and efficiency of the National Flood Insurance Program and to ensure that those who are mandated to carry flood insurance actually purchase flood insurance.

It is clear to the policyholders in Louisiana that the NFIP has to do a better job also in one other respect. That is by giving our local officials a seat at the table. It is not written in the Constitution that flood policy and flood mapping has to originate and end with the Federal bureaucracy in Washington, DC.

In fact, flood mapping and flood policy will benefit from having our local officials participate with a seat at the table. Our local levee boards and levee districts in Louisiana, along with the families who have lived on the land being insured for generations, know every single ditch, every single drainage canal from St. Tammany Parish to Terrebonne Parish. The NFIP bureaucrats ought to be asking them for guidance when rewriting flood maps and flood policy, not the other way around.

Instead, our folks only get invited to the dance after all the decisions have been made in Washington, when the cow is already out of the barn. I believe this is a commonsense principle that ought to be included in legislation to ultimately extend and reform the program: give our local officials who know the land best a seat at the table, not perfunctory, a real seat at the table, to contribute to flood mapping and flood policy. The NFIP will be better for it.

FEMA's mission, as we all know, is to lead America, to prepare for, prevent, respond to, and recover from disaster. That is why FEMA exists. The flood program is an extension of that mission. That is why, when consultants who work for FEMA--I am talking about contractors, I am talking about engineers, I am talking about lawyers, consultants who spend taxpayer money and are paid with taxpayer money working for FEMA, both contractors and subcontractors, if you wish to call them that, with the National Flood Insurance Program's Write Your Own Program, lose focus sometimes in helping flood victims.

Let me say that again. We spend millions of taxpayer dollars through the National Flood Insurance Program paying consultants, contractors, lawyers, engineers to help administer the program and adjust claims. When it works, it is a beautiful thing. When it doesn't work, it is an unmitigated disaster and is unfair to every taxpayer who put up his or her hard-earned money and every policyholder of the National Flood Insurance Program. On occasions it has not worked.

The vast majority of consultants do a fine job, but some don't. Those who have abused the program should be fired. That is why I am introducing a bill. It is called the National Flood Insurance Program Consultant Accountability Act. It is real simple. It will give the FEMA Administrator the authority to fire any consultant, contractor, lawyer, engineer, whomever, who engage in conduct detrimental to the mission of the National Flood Insurance Program.

The bill will be fair. It will have an appeals process to ensure that good consultants are not penalized for being falsely accused, but this is a simple, commonsense reform that frankly should have been put in place years ago. If a consultant commits activity that in the opinion of the FEMA Administrator is detrimental to a program--for example, if he falsifies an engineering report that shows flooding caused the insured's damage, if he falsifies a report to say it didn't cause damage--then that consultant should be fired. This bill is going to give the FEMA Administrator the authority to do it.

I believe the proper tools are not in place to hold government accountants accountable and to throw out bad actors. They are just not. During the Sandy recovery, major media reports claimed several firms actually altered engineering reports tied to flood insurance claims. The altered reports--engineering reports that originally said a flood caused the insured's damage and therefore the insured should be paid, those engineering reports were altered to say flooding did not contribute to the damage.

These altered reports--intentionally altered--cost families the insurance payments they deserved and delayed their recovery. These were Americans who did the right thing. They bought flood insurance, and because of some consultants working for the NFIP, they were not allowed, at least initially, to recover. Only one engineering company was actually convicted of wrongdoing, but a number participated. Many of those who participated in this tomfoolery are still participating in the program and are still receiving taxpayer funding to contract with

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss my bill, the Reforming Finance for Local Economies Act, which I introduced earlier this week. This bill is very simple and straightforward. It would exempt community banks and credit unions with assets of less than $10 billion from complying with the loan-killing, anti-jobs disaster that we commonly refer to as Dodd-Frank. Every reasonable person with a passing knowledge of our banking system knows the destabilizing effect that Dodd-Frank has had on local economies, community banks, and the Nation's credit unions.

Just last week, President Trump turned to the problems wrought by Dodd-Frank by signing two Presidential memorandums to take a look at the Orderly Liquidation Authority and the systemic risk designation process at the Financial Stability Oversight Council. I applaud the President's efforts in that regard. I believe they are desperately needed. Reforming this flawed law is crucial to the future success of the American economy.

Some of my colleagues were here when Dodd-Frank was passed in 2010. As we all know, it was intended to prevent another 2008-like banking crisis by strengthening Federal Government regulation of financial services. But in the process, as so often happens, Congress actually crippled America's small community banks and credit unions that played absolutely no role--none, zero, nada--in instigating the 2008 meltdown. And that is not just my opinion. Our Federal Reserve Chair, Dr. Janet Yellen, appeared before the Senate Banking Committee earlier this year--actually, February 14. When it was my turn to ask her questions, I asked her the following simple question: ``What did community banks do wrong in 2008?''

This was the Chairwoman's answer: ``Well, community banks were not the reason for the financial crisis. It was larger institutions that took risks and risks that developed outside the banking system.''

Let me read that first sentence again. Chair Yellen: ``Well, community banks were not the reason for the financial crisis.''

I believe she is right. The fact is that our smaller banks and our credit unions are smothering under the weight of Dodd-Frank. I will give you an example of what I am talking about. The Truth in Lending Act passed by Congress is actually 22 pages long. The Federal Reserve Act, setting up our Federal Reserve System, is 32 pages long. Glass- Steagall, about which we heard a great deal, was 37 pages long. Dodd- Frank is a breathtaking 2,300 pages with 22,000 pages of regulations. You can stand on the thing and paint the ceiling.

That is why so many community banks no longer exist. Those that have managed to survive have seen their costs go up, their profits go down, and their ability to make small business and consumer loans curtailed-- all as a result of the unnecessary, heavy hand of government. In fact, since Dodd-Frank was passed in 2010, this country has lost 1,700 small institutions. The reason is very simple. Dodd-Frank has forced community banks and credit unions to merge, consolidate, or to go out of business because of the heavy hand of regulation and because they can't make the loans that they normally would be able to make.

Nationwide, we have been losing an average of one community bank or credit union a day--every single day--since Dodd-Frank was passed because of its costs, which have driven our banks to sell or merge with larger banks. It is so ironic that this forced consolidation--forcing our smaller banks and credit unions to either merge with or be bought out by larger institutions--has caused even greater concentration of assets on the books of even larger and, in some cases, too-big-to-fail banks that Dodd-Frank was supposed to do something about.

My legislation will help 5,785 American credit unions. It will help 5,461 community banks in our country survive. Specifically, financial institutions with assets of less than $10 billion--if you are a financial institution and you have less than $10 billion in assets, you will be exempt completely from Dodd-Frank, its 2,300 pages and its 22,000 pages of regulations. We are talking about a lot of banks.

Banks with less than $10 billion in assets make up 92 percent of our Nation's banks, according to the FDIC. Banks with less than $10 billion in assets provide 48 percent of all small business loans, 16 percent of residential mortgages, 44 percent of lending to purchase farmland, 43 percent of lending for farm operations, and 35 percent of commercial real estate loans. If my bill passes, these institutions will no longer have to reduce their products and service offerings in order to divert resources to compliance, to interpretation, and to execution.

The expertise of our smaller banks and credit unions in America in evaluating risk will no longer be reduced to some algorithm--some mathematical exercise. Instead, our institutions will be able to deliver the desperately needed capital to the customers they know so well because that is what community banks and credit unions do. They take in local deposits, and they make loans to local borrowers whom they know and whose creditworthiness they can closely monitor because community bankers, as we all know, are relationship bankers. They don't participate in widespread subprime lending. They don't use derivatives to speculate, and they never did. Most of them have fewer than 100 employees.

The type of regulation they need--and I am not suggesting they don't need regulation. What I am suggesting is the type of regulation they need--because of the risks our small institutions take--is much different than the

regulation needed by a $700 billion or a trillion-dollar bank.

I am certain that the proponents of Dodd-Frank were well-intentioned when they wrote and passed it. But 150 years ago, doctors used to bleed their patients with the best of intentions. They stopped doing that because their patients died. That is why I suggest today that we eliminate Dodd-Frank for our smaller institutions. Making Dodd-Frank applicable to community banks and credit unions is a lot like using a sledgehammer to go after a gnat. It is way over the top.

Now, certainly our smaller institutions need regulation. Certainly, they need regulation to ensure that they are stable and secure. Our small institutions know that. They know they need it. They want it. They welcome it. But even after my bill becomes law, community banks are still going to be subject to a strict regulatory scheme established by dozens of applicable Federal statutes. I am talking about the Banking Secrecy Act, the Electronic Fund Transfer Act, the Truth in Lending Act, and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, and I could go on and on.

All of these statutes will still apply to our smaller banks and credit unions. Our smaller banks and credit unions--now exempt, if my bill passes, from Dodd-Frank--will still be under the supervision of the Federal Reserve. They will still be under the supervision of the Comptroller of the Currency. They will still be regulated by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the National Credit Union Administration, and even the Department of Justice.

America's smaller lending institutions need some relief. What they need is relief from the destabilizing consequences of Dodd-Frank. The Reforming Finance for Local Economies Act, in my estimation, is a step in that direction. I would also like to say, in closing, that I am pleased that both President Trump and Senate Republicans are committed, as we are, to paving the way for new businesses and the jobs they create through regulatory reform as our actions have already proven this year.

However, I would also like to stress that helping our community banks and credit unions is a bipartisan issue and one that I hope will garner support from many of my colleagues, not only just on the Republican side of my aisle but by friends on the Democratic side of the aisle.

I welcome their support. I look forward to working with my fellow Senators on the Banking Committee to find some commonsense solutions that will help grow our local economies.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, there are, of course, two issues before the Senate with respect to Judge Neil Gorsuch. The first issue is simply, should or should not Neil Gorsuch be confirmed as an Associate Justice to the U.S. Supreme Court? There is also a second issue, and the second issue is, Should the Senate even be allowed to vote?

Those two questions are both important and interrelated. I want to talk about the first one first.

I sit on the Judiciary Committee. We heard last week--2 weeks ago-- about 20 hours of testimony from Judge Gorsuch. I think he answered about 200 questions in writing. One of the objections offered by our friends on the other side of the aisle, the Democratic Party, was that Judge Gorsuch refused to answer some of the questions. Now that is just not accurate.

Many of the questions that were asked of the judge by both Republicans and Democrats were fair questions--some of them, not so much.

Judge Gorsuch was asked, in effect: What is your position on abortion? How will you vote?

He was asked: How will you vote on gun control?

He was asked: How would you vote on cruel and unusual punishment, the Eighth Amendment?

He was asked how he would vote on questions dealing with the Tenth Amendment. He didn't answer those questions, and then he was criticized for not answering those questions. He didn't answer those questions because he couldn't. He is a sitting judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. Let me read to you canon 3(a)(6) of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges. It states: ``A judge should not make public comment on the merits of a matter pending or impending in any court.''

Let me read you rule 2.10(B) of the American Bar Association Model Code of Judicial Conduct. It provides, and I quote: ``A judge shall not, in connection with cases, controversies, or issues that are likely to come before the court, make pledges, promises, or commitments that are inconsistent with the impartial performance of the adjudicative duties of the judicial office.''

Now, say what you want about Mr. Gorsuch, but don't criticize him for not violating the oath of his office and not making promises, pledges, or commitments, like a politician, on how he would vote on the U.S. Supreme Court, because Justices are supposed to decide the case on the merits.

As I mentioned, I watched Judge Gorsuch answer questions personally for over 20 hours. He was asked some other questions other than the ones I have referenced, and I was intrigued by some of the questions that Judge Gorsuch was asked. My friends in the Democratic Party kept trying to draw distinctions with Judge Gorsuch between the parties in cases that he had decided. My friends kept talking about the ``big guy,'' the ``little guy,'' the corporation, the consumer, the employer, the employee. The suggestion was made that Judge Gorsuch didn't vote enough for the little guy or little gal, for whatever that means. What struck me when he answered those questions was that we were supposed to be talking about the faithful application of justice. Now, I was taught in law school that Lady Justice is supposed to be blind, that neither the wealth nor the power nor the status of the parties should matter. That is why, in the picture that we see so often of Lady Justice, she is blindfolded. She isn't looking at the parties at all to see whether they are wealthy or not so wealthy. She isn't looking at the parties to see whether they are a corporation or a consumer or what race they are or what gender they are or what part of the country they are from. Lady Justice is supposed to be blind because we are a nation of laws, not men.

Of all the places in our country, an American court of law--and I am very proud of this--is supposed to be the place of last resort, where you can come and get a fair shake. That is how good judges operate. They give everybody a fair shake. A good judge is supposed to make his or her decisions based on the law, not the parties. Good judges are supposed to be impartial--to call it like they see it, to call the balls and strikes--and that is exactly what Neil Gorsuch has done throughout his entire career.

I can promise that, as I sit on the Judiciary Committee, if any President, whether he is a Republican or Democrat, ever brings a nomination before the Judiciary Committee when I am on that committee and that nominee starts talking about the wealth or the status or the power of the parties and how it will influence or not influence his decision, suggesting that will make a difference, I will vote against that nominee--I don't care who nominates him--every single time, because that is not American justice.

We talked about two cases in particular, and the Presiding Officer has probably heard them talked about here on the floor. On the surface they don't seem to be related. Judge Gorsuch ruled in both of these cases, but I think they interact in a very important way. They tell us that he doesn't play politics and he doesn't rule for the big guy just because he is a big guy or the little guy just because he is a little guy.

The first case we heard a lot about was a decision by Judge Gorsuch called TransAm Trucking. You are going to hear a lot about that case. In that case, Judge Gorsuch made a decision that was unfavorable to a trucker, and he ruled in favor of the trucking company--little guy versus big guy. Judge Gorsuch ruled for the big guy, and it is important to know why and to look at the reasoning in that case and not just the result.

During the discussion on the case, Judge Gorsuch made it very clear that he only made that decision because he believed that was what the statute controlling the facts of the case required--a statute that was passed by a legislative body duly authorized by the people that make the law. Unlike our courts, which are supposed to interpret the law, Judge Gorsuch did not decide the case the way he did because he didn't sympathize with the trucker. He decided that case the way he did because he was doing his best to accurately apply the law, as best he understood it, to the facts before him. Once again, that is what is called justice--blind to the parties.

Actually, Judge Gorsuch has explained himself and what he thinks about decisions such as this. He did it in another case that I will talk about in a moment. Judge Gorsuch said:

Often enough the law can be ``a[n] ass--a[n] idiot''--

Quoting, of course, Charles Dickens--

and there is little we judges can do about it, for it is (or

should be) emphatically our job to apply, not rewrite, the

law enacted by the people's representatives. Indeed, every

judge who likes every result he reaches is very likely a bad

judge, reaching for results he prefers rather than those the

law compels.

Now, that statement came from the second case I referenced. It was a case called A.M. Holmes. In A.M. Holmes, a 13-year-old seventh grader was arrested for fake burping repeatedly in class. The majority said it was OK for him to be arrested and that, when his family sued the police officer, the police officer enjoyed qualified immunity.

Judge Gorsuch dissented. This time he ruled for the little guy, literally and figuratively. Judge Gorsuch said: ``In my opinion, reading the statute passed by the legislature, this young man's family can file this lawsuit because disciplining a 13-year-old 7th grader for fake burping in class by arresting him instead of disciplining him is a bridge too far.''

Now, once again, we had a little guy versus the big guy. This time Judge Gorsuch ruled for the little guy. But again, we have to look beyond the result. Even though he ruled for someone we can all sympathize with, Judge Gorsuch didn't base his decision on that. He based his decision on a good-faith application of the statutes of the facts controlling the case. He applied the law as written by the legislature. That is what legislatures do, and that is what Congresses do. They make the law and judges interpret the law. To be blunt, that is what we want in a judge.

I want a judge. I don't want an ideologue. I am not interested in a judge who will use the judiciary to advance his own personal policy goals. I want a judge who will apply the law as written by the legislature or, in the case of the Constitution, as written by the Framers of the Constitution, as best that judge understands the law, not to try to reshape the law as he wishes it to be.

To just comment about the last question that I raised earlier, again, one

issue is whether or not we should confirm Judge Gorsuch to the Supreme Court, but the second issue is whether the Senate should even be allowed to vote at all. That is what this is all about when you distill it down to its basic essence.

We are going to hear a lot about cloture, and we are going to hear a lot about the nuclear option. But this is what it boils down to: Should we or should we not even be able to be allowed to vote?

Now I understand that reasonable people can disagree. I also understand that unreasonable people can disagree, and everybody in this body has a vote, and we all represent States. There are two Senators from every State--big States and little States--and everybody is entitled to be able to vote his or her conscience. But it is very, very important not only for the American judicial system but for American democracy that the Senate be allowed to vote on Judge Gorsuch.

So to my friends on the other side of the aisle, I would say: Please allow us to vote. You can vote for or against Judge Gorsuch. I will not second-guess your judgment if you act sincerely, and I believe many of my colleagues are sincere. They are wrong, but they are sincere. But please allow the Senate to vote on this nomination. That is why I was sent to Washington.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, Senator Graham, my fellow Senators, our constituents in the Gallery, a lot of what has gone on today may seem very complicated. We have heard a lot of terms being thrown around: cloture, the nuclear option. Yet, really, the question that we were faced with today in the Senate was very simple, and it continues to be pretty simple and straightforward, in my judgment: Should we have an up-or-down vote on the nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch to be an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court?

Earlier today, the Senate voted to do that. I think it is very important for the American judicial system and for the American system of democracy that the U.S. Senate be allowed to vote on Judge Gorsuch's nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court. It was not enough to only vote on a motion to end debate; we also needed to be allowed to vote on the actual nomination with ``yes'' or ``no.''

Unfortunately, our friends on the Democratic side of the aisle decided to filibuster in order to make it impossible for us to vote on this crucial nominee without modifying the rules of the U.S. Senate. That is what we did earlier today. I do not know that anybody did it happily, but certainly a majority of the Senate believed that the American people deserved an up-or-down vote, yea or nay. Stand up and be counted in front of God and country. Do you want Judge Neil Gorsuch to be on the Supreme Court, or do you not? That vote is going to take place tomorrow afternoon.

The Constitution reads that the President of the United States of America ``shall nominate and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate shall appoint . . . judges of the Supreme Court.'' I do not need to tell you that this is an extremely important part of our separation of powers. It is vital to our protecting the integrity of the Supreme Court, the work that all of us do--not just members of the Judiciary Committee but every Member of the Senate--in vetting our nominees and making sure they are qualified and independent, as is Neil Gorsuch. He is enormously important for the protection of liberty itself.

Let's not ever forget what we are protecting. We are protecting justice, and we are protecting liberty. We are not supposed to be protecting a certain point of view. We are not supposed to be protecting a certain policy preference. We are not supposed to be protecting a certain political party.

I hope tomorrow, when we finally get the opportunity to vote up or down on Neil Gorsuch for his membership on the greatest tribunal in the history of civilization, in my judgment, the U.S. Supreme Court, that we will consider his nomination in light of how it will affect our country, not our party. When we look at his nomination from that perspective and leave the politics of the last few years in the rearview mirror, I think we can analyze his nomination with a lot more clarity.

Alexander Hamilton, whom I think most Americans admire, said in Federalist No. 78 that the Court has ``neither force nor will but merely judgment.'' I think that is what we are all looking for--or should be--in a nominee to any court but especially to the

U.S. Supreme Court. We are not looking for somebody with a certain policy preference. We are not looking for people with ideas of how the law can be improved because the role of a judge is not to make law, it is to interpret the law as made by the legislative body as best that judge can understand it. That is why we need someone like Neil Gorsuch, in my estimation, who has good judgment.

I sit on the Judiciary Committee. I have spent 20 to 40 hours with Neil Gorsuch or with people who know him well, in hearing their testimony. I have read his opinions. As far as I am concerned, he is as good as it gets. I cannot imagine that President Trump could have picked better.

He is a thoroughbred. He is a legal rock star. If you read his opinions, you will see that he is painstaking in his application of the law to the facts before him. He writes beautifully. His communication skills are absolutely amazing. His analysis and analytical rigor are clear and concise. His decisions are wise and disciplined, and he is faithful to the law. He is an intellectual, not an ideologue. He is a judge, not a politician. He is whip-smart, has clear writing, is a strict constitutionalist, likes snow skiing, fly fishing, and is a fourth-generation Coloradan. I think he will serve every person in our country well as a member of the Supreme Court. That is why I am supporting him.

Let me say one final thing. I do not think there is any vote that will be more important than the vote we will take tomorrow on a President's nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court, so I want to choose my words carefully. Not a single, solitary vote is more important than that vote we will take tomorrow. That is not to say that there are not other important issues before this body. That is why I think it was so important today that we decided to vote up or down on Judge Gorsuch so that we can move on to those other important issues--jobs, jobs, jobs; designing a healthcare delivery system that looks like somebody designed it on purpose, which our Acting President has worked so hard on; infrastructure; elementary and secondary education; a skilled workforce. I could go on.

There is an enormous amount of pain in America today. There are too many Americans who are not participating in the great wealth of America--not economically, not socially, not culturally, and not spiritually. We have been elected in the Congress to do something about that.

I talk to people in my State every day, and I know the Presiding Officer does too. The people of Louisiana are fun-loving, God-fearing, and plain-talking, and this is what they tell me: Kennedy, this country was founded by geniuses, but sometimes I think it is being run by idiots.

They say: Kennedy, we look around our country today, and here is what we see. We see too many undeserving people at the top--I want to emphasize ``undeserving'' because I don't want to paint with too broad a brush--who are getting bailouts, and we see too many undeserving people at the bottom who are getting handouts. We are in the middle, and we get stuck with the bill. We cannot pay it anymore, Kennedy, because our health insurance has gone up, our kids' tuitions have gone up, and our taxes have gone up. I will tell you what has not gone up-- our income.

These are real people with real problems, and they sent all of us here because they are real mad and they expect us to do something about it.

The sad truth is that our children's generation is at risk of becoming the first in America, unless this body does something, to be worse off than their parents' generation because in our country today, for too many Americans, it is harder than ever to get ahead. That is why so many Americans feel stuck. They feel like the hope and change they were promised has become decline and uncertainty, and they are looking to us to do something about it.

So let's vote. Let's vote tomorrow. I understand reasonable people disagree. I understand unreasonable people can disagree too. But I am going to vote for Neil Gorsuch to be an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Then I am going to ask this body to move on to other important issues that are keeping moms and dads awake at night when they lie down and try to go to sleep.

Thank you, Mr. President.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, if I make it to Heaven--and I hope I do-- the first question I am going to ask God is why bad things happen to good people. We have had some bad things happen in Louisiana to some really good people, as my colleague from Louisiana just referred to.

This past weekend, while most of us slept, Louisiana lost yet another officer in the line of duty. East Baton Rouge Parish Sheriff's Office Sergeant Shawn Anderson--as shown in this photograph here--was a law enforcement veteran. He was a military veteran, and he was a father. He served high-risk warrants. He had been recognized for doing his job without having resorted to firing his weapon. In short, he was an American hero, and he was a Louisiana hero.

On Saturday night, Sergeant Anderson was just doing his job. He went into a barbershop in search of a suspected rapist. Sergeant Anderson lost his life. A line of law enforcement vehicles escorted his body from the scene, and their flashing blue lights lit up the dark night.

It has been a tough few months for our law enforcement families in Louisiana. We have buried six officers who were shot and killed simply because they were wearing a badge.

In January, Westwego Police Officer Michael Louviere stopped to help at a traffic accident, and he was shot in the back of the head. Michael was not even on duty. He was driving home and saw an accident and immediately stopped his car to help. That is the kind of person he was.

The Presiding Officer and all of those listening to me today, no doubt, saw the news footage as to what unfolded along a busy Baton Rouge highway last summer. July will no longer be just about hot dogs and fireworks for us in Louisiana. The shootings that took the lives of three law enforcement officers shattered our summer and broke our hearts.

Just a month earlier, Jefferson Parish Sheriff's Deputy David Michel was shot three times in the back--not once, not twice, but three times--and he died in Harvey. His killer, apparently, shot him because the killer did not want to return to jail.

I would ask all of those who wish to, to join me in saying a prayer for these law enforcement officers and their families. They were sons and they were fathers and they are going to miss out on holidays and birthdays and graduations. They were men who sacrificed their lives so we could sleep a little bit better at night.

Let us also, while we are praying for these brave men--and, yes, women too--pray for an end to the violence. We have had enough flashing blue lights light up the dark nights in Louisiana.

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

Mr. President, I rise to support the nomination of Jeff Sessions to be the next Attorney General of the United States of America, and I would like to explain why.

It seems to me that most Americans don't care about the politics on Capitol Hill. They don't particularly care about the politics in the Senate, and they don't especially care about the politics in Washington, DC. Most Americans are too busy earning a living. These are the Americans who get up every day, they go to work, they work hard, they obey the law, they try to do the right thing by their kids, and they try to save a little money for retirement.

Most Americans I think are fairminded, and most Americans are commonsensical. They understand that when they elect a President, the President can't do the job alone. He gets help, and he starts with appointing members of his Cabinet. Of course, the Senate has to provide advice and consent and confirm those appointees.

Most Americans understand that a President--whoever the President--is not going to pick his enemies to do that. He is not going to pick somebody he doesn't trust. He is not going to pick someone to advise him if he is not qualified. He is going to pick someone he is on friendly terms with. He is going to pick somebody who is competent. He is going to pick somebody who is experienced. That is what President Trump has done. That is what President Obama did. That is what Secretary Hillary Clinton would have done, had she been elected President.

Now, President Trump has nominated Senator Jeff Sessions. I recognize that not all Americans and not all Members of the Senate agree with his political positions. Some folks don't agree with his political party. Some folks don't like him because they don't like the person who appointed him. I

get that. Some folks may not even like the part of the country he is from. That is OK. This is America. In America, you can believe anything you want to believe, and as long as you don't hurt anybody, you can say it.

But it seems to me that no reasonable person, if they look at Senator Jeff Sessions' record, can argue that he is not qualified, if by qualified you mean that he has any potential to be a great Attorney General.

This is a man who has served as a State attorney general. This is a man who was a U.S. attorney not for 1 year or 5 years or 6 years. For 12 years he served as a U.S. attorney. This is a gentleman who has been a U.S. Senator for 20 years, three terms, and three times the good people of Alabama have sent Jeff Sessions to this body.

Most people here know him. They have had lunch with him. They have met his family. They have worked with him on bills. They have worked against him on bills. They know him, and they know he is qualified.

There has been a lot of discussion about whether Senator Sessions will respect the rule of law. He will. He understands the difference between making policy, as Congress does, and executing policy. I have no doubt whatsoever that Senator Sessions, as the next Attorney General, will be more than willing to enforce laws that he might not necessarily agree with.

There has been some discussion about Senator Sessions and the Bill of Rights. Senator Sessions understands the importance of personal liberty. I listened very attentively in the Judiciary Committee. He was asked a lot of questions about our Constitution. It is clear to me that Senator Sessions understands that the Bill of Rights is not for the high school quarterback. The Bill of Rights is not for the prom queen. The Bill of Rights is there to protect the unprotected, the man or woman in America who might want to do things a little differently. He understands that very, very clearly.

At some point, we all have to stop regretting yesterday, and we have to start creating tomorrow, and that is the point we are at.

I unconditionally support Senator Jeff Sessions to be the next Attorney General of the United States of America.

I yield the floor.