Floor Statements

Thank you very much to my colleagues, the Senator from Nebraska, the Senator from Mississippi, as well as our other colleague, the Senator from Missouri. Thank you for joining us on the floor today to express our support for those who march for life. Thank you so much.

As my colleagues can attest, the invaluable message being shared by the pro-life community this week has implications far beyond that of simply the March for Life. As I travel across my home State of Iowa, I see this life-affirming message in our pregnancy resource centers, maternity homes, and adoption agencies. These comprehensive on-the- ground services provide women and families with service options that are changing and saving lives every single day.

These life-affirming services are the foundation of the pro-life movement across our Nation, and I sincerely thank those centers and agencies for their critical work to fight for vulnerable lives throughout the year.

I see the same message in the remarkable stories of individual families, such as the Pickering family from Newton, IA. I have had the opportunity to share the phenomenal story of Micah Pickering on the Senate floor before. As you may recall, Micah was born at just 20 weeks postfertilization. He was only about the size of a bag of M&M's--the size of the palm of my hand. That was Micah. Yet Micah was also a perfect, fully-formed baby boy, with 10 fingers and 10 toes. In fact, no one makes his case more eloquently than Micah himself.

When I first met Micah, I had a picture of him displayed in my office from the day that he was born--again, the size of the palm of my hand. Micah immediately ran up to that picture. He pointed at it, and he said: ``Baby.''

Micah recognized right away that even at just 20 weeks postfertilization, the humanity of the child was undeniable.

Micah's parents and the doctors and nurses at the University of Iowa Hospitals & Clinics recognized this humanity, as well, and were dedicated to his survival. Today Micah is a happy, healthy, and energetic 6-year-old boy.

Stories like Micah's are extraordinary reminders that the life- affirming services, for which the pro-life community marches, have real and significant impacts on the lives of families across America.

Since coming to Congress, I have also tried to do my part to ensure that this message from those in my home State of Iowa and from other communities all across the Nation is taken back and turned into action in Washington. For me, that has meant supporting crucial pro-life initiatives, such as the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, which would prevent abortions after 20 weeks of development--the very same age at which my dear Micah was born.

Another critical piece of legislation, the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, would create concrete enforcement provisions to hold abortionists accountable if they do not provide the same degree of care to a baby who survives an abortion as they would any child born naturally premature at that same age.

Fighting for commonsense legislation that protects innocent life has been a priority of mine in the Senate. But Congress must also do more to ensure that taxpayers are not forced to subsidize abortion or the abortion industry giants, such as Planned Parenthood.

During the 115th Congress, I led the fight in the Senate to pass critical legislation, which was signed into law in 2017, that ensures States are not forced to provide entities like Planned Parenthood, the Nation's single largest provider of abortions, with Federal title X dollars.

I am grateful to have worked with former Congresswoman Diane Black, my Senate colleagues, and President Trump to make sure States are not forced to award providers like Planned Parenthood with taxpayer dollars like title X family planning grants.

As I have stated time and again, taxpayers should not be forced to foot the bill for roughly one-half billion dollars annually for an organization like Planned Parenthood, which exhibits such disrespect for human life. With that in mind, today I reintroduced legislation that would defund Planned Parenthood while still protecting vital funding for women's healthcare services. Contrary to what they claim, Planned Parenthood is not the Nation's preeminent provider of women's healthcare. In fact, Planned Parenthood facilities do not even perform in-house mammograms; something so simple is not performed by Planned Parenthood.

On the other hand, just as my colleague the senior Senator from Nebraska stated, community health centers continue to greatly outnumber Planned Parenthood clinics nationwide and provide more comprehensive preventive and primary health services, including cervical and breast cancer screenings, diagnostic laboratory and radiology services, well childcare, prenatal and postnatal care, immunizations, and so much more. Access to comprehensive health services is absolutely critical to women and families across this Nation, and federally qualified health centers offer such services, regardless of a person's ability to pay.

A recent GAO study that I requested, along with many of my colleagues in both the House and the Senate, showed that over a 3-year period, federally qualified health centers served 25 million individuals compared to only 2.4 million individuals that Planned Parenthood served. That is more than 10 times more people served by those healthcare centers.

Furthermore, a recent Marist poll shows that 54 percent of Americans do not support taxpayer dollars going toward abortions. While there are Federal regulations that prevent Federal dollars from directly covering abortion, these laws are governed by a complicated patchwork of policies and funding riders that must be reapproved during the appropriations process every single year.

Since 1976, the Hyde amendment has been attached to appropriations bills in order to block Federal funds from paying for abortions. However, this policy, which once drew widespread bipartisan support, has recently been under attack. For the first time ever, the Affordable Care Act authorized and appropriated funds that bypassed the Hyde amendment funding restrictions. In 2016, the Democratic Party added the repeal of the Hyde amendment protections to its Presidential platform.

The Hyde amendment is a longstanding and critical provision that protects Federal dollars and ensures that taxpayers are not footing the bill for abortion procedures. That is why I support the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act of 2019, which was recently reintroduced in the Senate. This legislation would permanently codify the Hyde amendment, ensuring that funding restrictions remain in place and are applied to all Federal programs. Furthermore, this bill takes important steps to eliminate certain tax benefits related to abortions and improve disclosure requirements related to insurance coverage of abortion.

Preventing our taxpayer dollars from paying for abortion procedures-- a position that a majority of Americans agree with--should not be a complicated process vulnerable to partisan

attack. Congress must take steps to ensure that permanent protections apply governmentwide.

As such, I urge the Senate to consider the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Disclosure Act on the floor in order to protect not only our taxpayer dollars but the innocent lives of our most vulnerable.

I appreciate all of the marchers who will be coming to Washington, DC, in the following days and spending their time in a most worthy effort, which is our annual March for Life. God bless them all. Of course, God bless my Iowans for that journey.

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much to my colleagues, the Senator from Nebraska, the Senator from Mississippi, as well as our other colleague, the Senator from Missouri. Thank you for joining us on the floor today to express our support for those who march for life. Thank you so much.

As my colleagues can attest, the invaluable message being shared by the pro-life community this week has implications far beyond that of simply the March for Life. As I travel across my home State of Iowa, I see this life-affirming message in our pregnancy resource centers, maternity homes, and adoption agencies. These comprehensive on-the- ground services provide women and families with service options that are changing and saving lives every single day.

These life-affirming services are the foundation of the pro-life movement across our Nation, and I sincerely thank those centers and agencies for their critical work to fight for vulnerable lives throughout the year.

I see the same message in the remarkable stories of individual families, such as the Pickering family from Newton, IA. I have had the opportunity to share the phenomenal story of Micah Pickering on the Senate floor before. As you may recall, Micah was born at just 20 weeks postfertilization. He was only about the size of a bag of M&M's--the size of the palm of my hand. That was Micah. Yet Micah was also a perfect, fully-formed baby boy, with 10 fingers and 10 toes. In fact, no one makes his case more eloquently than Micah himself.

When I first met Micah, I had a picture of him displayed in my office from the day that he was born--again, the size of the palm of my hand. Micah immediately ran up to that picture. He pointed at it, and he said: ``Baby.''

Micah recognized right away that even at just 20 weeks postfertilization, the humanity of the child was undeniable.

Micah's parents and the doctors and nurses at the University of Iowa Hospitals & Clinics recognized this humanity, as well, and were dedicated to his survival. Today Micah is a happy, healthy, and energetic 6-year-old boy.

Stories like Micah's are extraordinary reminders that the life- affirming services, for which the pro-life community marches, have real and significant impacts on the lives of families across America.

Since coming to Congress, I have also tried to do my part to ensure that this message from those in my home State of Iowa and from other communities all across the Nation is taken back and turned into action in Washington. For me, that has meant supporting crucial pro-life initiatives, such as the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, which would prevent abortions after 20 weeks of development--the very same age at which my dear Micah was born.

Another critical piece of legislation, the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, would create concrete enforcement provisions to hold abortionists accountable if they do not provide the same degree of care to a baby who survives an abortion as they would any child born naturally premature at that same age.

Fighting for commonsense legislation that protects innocent life has been a priority of mine in the Senate. But Congress must also do more to ensure that taxpayers are not forced to subsidize abortion or the abortion industry giants, such as Planned Parenthood.

During the 115th Congress, I led the fight in the Senate to pass critical legislation, which was signed into law in 2017, that ensures States are not forced to provide entities like Planned Parenthood, the Nation's single largest provider of abortions, with Federal title X dollars.

I am grateful to have worked with former Congresswoman Diane Black, my Senate colleagues, and President Trump to make sure States are not forced to award providers like Planned Parenthood with taxpayer dollars like title X family planning grants.

As I have stated time and again, taxpayers should not be forced to foot the bill for roughly one-half billion dollars annually for an organization like Planned Parenthood, which exhibits such disrespect for human life. With that in mind, today I reintroduced legislation that would defund Planned Parenthood while still protecting vital funding for women's healthcare services. Contrary to what they claim, Planned Parenthood is not the Nation's preeminent provider of women's healthcare. In fact, Planned Parenthood facilities do not even perform in-house mammograms; something so simple is not performed by Planned Parenthood.

On the other hand, just as my colleague the senior Senator from Nebraska stated, community health centers continue to greatly outnumber Planned Parenthood clinics nationwide and provide more comprehensive preventive and primary health services, including cervical and breast cancer screenings, diagnostic laboratory and radiology services, well childcare, prenatal and postnatal care, immunizations, and so much more. Access to comprehensive health services is absolutely critical to women and families across this Nation, and federally qualified health centers offer such services, regardless of a person's ability to pay.

A recent GAO study that I requested, along with many of my colleagues in both the House and the Senate, showed that over a 3-year period, federally qualified health centers served 25 million individuals compared to only 2.4 million individuals that Planned Parenthood served. That is more than 10 times more people served by those healthcare centers.

Furthermore, a recent Marist poll shows that 54 percent of Americans do not support taxpayer dollars going toward abortions. While there are Federal regulations that prevent Federal dollars from directly covering abortion, these laws are governed by a complicated patchwork of policies and funding riders that must be reapproved during the appropriations process every single year.

Since 1976, the Hyde amendment has been attached to appropriations bills in order to block Federal funds from paying for abortions. However, this policy, which once drew widespread bipartisan support, has recently been under attack. For the first time ever, the Affordable Care Act authorized and appropriated funds that bypassed the Hyde amendment funding restrictions. In 2016, the Democratic Party added the repeal of the Hyde amendment protections to its Presidential platform.

The Hyde amendment is a longstanding and critical provision that protects Federal dollars and ensures that taxpayers are not footing the bill for abortion procedures. That is why I support the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act of 2019, which was recently reintroduced in the Senate. This legislation would permanently codify the Hyde amendment, ensuring that funding restrictions remain in place and are applied to all Federal programs. Furthermore, this bill takes important steps to eliminate certain tax benefits related to abortions and improve disclosure requirements related to insurance coverage of abortion.

Preventing our taxpayer dollars from paying for abortion procedures-- a position that a majority of Americans agree with--should not be a complicated process vulnerable to partisan

attack. Congress must take steps to ensure that permanent protections apply governmentwide.

As such, I urge the Senate to consider the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Disclosure Act on the floor in order to protect not only our taxpayer dollars but the innocent lives of our most vulnerable.

I appreciate all of the marchers who will be coming to Washington, DC, in the following days and spending their time in a most worthy effort, which is our annual March for Life. God bless them all. Of course, God bless my Iowans for that journey.

Thank you very much.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that privileges of the floor be granted to the following member of my staff: Heidi Steele, a fellow in my office, during the pendency of the 116th Congress.

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

Mr. President, I rise to speak on U.S. national defense.

In the last couple of years, we have made tremendous progress in strengthening our military and have effectively realigned our global posture and strategy.

Under the new national defense strategy, the United States has rightfully recognized the return to great power competition, where our priorities have shifted from low-intensity conflict to posturing against peer and near-peer adversaries.

Over the last 17 years of combat in the Middle East, U.S. dominance and deterrence against great power competitors have diminished. Meanwhile, nations like China and Russia have undertaken extraordinary military modernization efforts while engaging in unprecedented and destabilizing aggression.

We have seen Russian intrusions in cyberspace, the illegal annexation of Crimea, information attacks on Western democratic institutions, and the spread of lies, half-truths, and slander in order to sow division and chaos between the United States and other partners.

These gray-zone activities, which are actions below the level that would provoke an armed conflict, have gone mainly unchecked by the United States, which has set a troubling precedent and only serve to encourage further provocation.

From China, we see these gray-zone techniques manifested in their land reclamation in the South China Sea, the construction of their first foreign military installations in Djibouti, and the continuing theft of intellectual property and trade secrets in critical security areas.

They have also greatly undermined our supply chain through the Made in China 2025 initiative, which seeks to ensure that the United States and others remain reliant on the Chinese industrial base.

Above all, the United States is threatened by Russia's and China's advances in emerging technology. This includes hypersonic weapons, artificial intelligence, space capabilities, quantum computing, and directed energy.

Without significant resources and focus, we will lose our technological superiority in these very areas, and both U.S. national security and the global order will be in serious jeopardy.

Building off of our successes from the last 2 years, Congress and the executive branch must remain committed to investing in research, development, rapid acquisition, and the deployment of capabilities that provide for deterrence in line with the threats of the 21st century.

Just as we rose to the challenge in the two World Wars, the Cold War, and following the attacks on September 11, 2001, we must, once again, evaluate our current posture and chart a course that best protects our national security and our interests.

While the national defense strategy correctly prioritizes a return to great power competition, we still have great national security threats in the low-intensity domain, particularly in the Middle East and in North Africa.

The success of our missions in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, and Africa are important. They can be seen in our ability to prevent extremist groups from projecting attacks into the U.S. homeland.

Through the heroic and dedicated service of our men and women in uniform, we have put unyielding pressure on foreign terrorists and, in turn, we have prevented another massive attack like we saw on 9/11.

While we have seen tremendous battlefield success against groups like the Islamic State, counterterrorism and stability operations require a sustained commitment of presence and resources in order to consolidate gains and promote good governance and the rule of law. In the absence of the latter, ungoverned spaces quickly transform into breeding grounds for terror groups, and that is why we are in Iraq. That is why we are in Afghanistan, and that is why we should remain in Syria. We must do that until our objectives are met.

Balancing our approach toward both low- and high-intensity threats will require us to rely on our allies and our partners more than we have had to rely on them in the past decades, as we have a limited supply of resources for our national defense. However, if we are able to leverage the resources of our friends, we will assume less risk as we move to more resources toward countering great power threats. Likewise, as we seek to bolster our defense posture toward peer competitors, we will greatly benefit from increased contributions and commitments from our allies and our partners. That means insisting that our treaty allies contribute their fair share to the international security burden and also ensuring that our allies and partners are investing in weapons systems and military platforms that interoperate with ours while effectively deterring our common adversaries.

We cannot and should not abandon those who share our values of democracy and freedom but, rather, work with them to increase defense contributions and build necessary capabilities and capacities. Unlike Russia and China, our network of allies and friends, who have stood shoulder to shoulder with us in the defense of freedom and democratic values, are a source of great strength, as well as an integral part of promoting global security.

I would be remiss if I did not take this opportunity to once again acknowledge the most detrimental adversary of our national defense; that is, poor fiscal policy. As then-Secretary Mattis stated when he announced the National Defense Strategy, continuing resolutions and sequestration have hindered our security more than any foe. These wasteful applications of taxpayer dollars prevent long-term planning, stymie research and development, delay critical procurement, and prevent necessary training and readiness investments.

What we do in this Chamber has consequences that reverberate far beyond Washington. When we fail to do our job, we put our warfighters at higher risk and cripple our strategic posture, ultimately endangering our national security. That is why I have come to the floor today to urge bipartisanship and collaboration amongst both Houses of Congress on defense spending policy. The political climate of today will assuredly prevent progress in some areas of Congress's work, but I encourage my colleagues to set those differences aside when we consider policies and appropriations for our national defense.

We have a lot of work ahead in order to protect our security and interests, but I am confident we can come together to solve these issues of critical importance.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Con. Res. 49, submitted earlier today.

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

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

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I rise today disappointed and frustrated.

Once again, we passed an ill-advised continuing resolution to fund much of our government. Once again, folks, we have passed the buck. Once again, we have failed to do our job.

One of Congress's most essential roles is to fund a responsible government that runs efficiently and effectively. We have a duty to taxpayers to not just simply give a thumbs-up on spending their money but to debate and consider whether programs are working to serve their needs. Unfortunately, we have been negligent in this solemn duty. Like myself, Americans are tired of this shortsighted habit of kicking the can down the road.

How did we get to this point, you might be asking yourself. After all, we worked across the aisle in an open and collaborative way and found a path forward to fund our national defense and the vital Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education. We recently passed a similar bill related to Energy and Water, Legislative Branch, Military Construction, and Veterans Affairs.

As we have seen, a continuing resolution was attached to this legislation for the rest of the government, including our vital Department of Homeland Security. Worse, this continuing resolution doesn't fund the government fully until the end of the fiscal year. No, it simply punts the ball to December 7. That is it. We will be back here before Christmas, and if experience is any sort of guide, multiple times after that before we can get the government fully funded.

I ultimately chose to vote yes on this continuing resolution because of what it means for our national security and our servicemembers who risk their lives every day for our security. Also, the continuing resolution included the Violence Against Women Act, a bill I could not allow to lapse given that this bill provides services for our most vulnerable. VAWA addresses the scourge of domestic violence that is so prevalent in our communities--crimes that often hurt women and children the most, often requiring them to be displaced from the only homes they know.

I believe we can strengthen this act in several ways by addressing changing circumstances since its last reauthorization 5 years ago by tailoring its language to better fit the needs of our communities. There are provisions we need to change and to work on, but we are not afforded that opportunity.

Tying our Nation's security and the Violence Against Women Act to the CR made it both the carrot and the stick. We are leaving services and programs that the American people rely upon open to partisan delay and political gerrymandering.

The people of Iowa elected me to come to Washington to be their voice and to instill much needed fiscal responsibility. Rather than pushing, procrastinating, and postponing for another 3 months, we should buckle down and build upon the great progress we have made this year by getting the remaining appropriations bills across the finish line.

We should debate the Violence Against Women Act in regular order so we can strengthen it and provide protections for those who need it the most. There are items I support in this continuing resolution, but we need to do our job. We need to fund the government. If we don't take action now, we will be back here month after month, year after year, doing the exact same thing.

Thank you.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, today I rise to honor a dear friend of the Senate and a dear friend to me. This weekend many of us had the honor of joining the family of John Sidney McCain III as we walked through his life and shared memories of such a wonderful man, a true patriot, an American hero, a wonderful Senator, a father, and a wonderful friend.

The first time I met Senator McCain was in 2014, and he was larger than life. I was engaged in my primary for the Senate, and I had the opportunity to visit Washington, DC, and sit down with Senator McCain in his office and visited and talked with him about what it was like to be a U.S. Senator.

Immediately, I felt that bond with John McCain as a fellow veteran. It was one thing that he was truly interested in. He had been through the political stuff with a lot of other folks running for the Senate-- what it is like to engage in a campaign. That is all good and fine, but what he really took an interest in was my experience in the war in Iraq. He asked me about my service. I talked to him about the National Guard--all of those things he truly understood and connected with. He really enjoyed that aspect of our discussion.

It was that first meeting--again, meeting with somebody that to me was larger than life, someone who truly had served his country--and we felt that connection.

The months progressed, and I got through the primary campaign and moved on into the general election cycle. During that time, a number of Senators came to Iowa. They would hop on my bus, which we fondly called the ``squeal mobile,'' and we would travel around the State of Iowa.

John McCain is so well known for his codels, or his congressional delegation visits to other countries. I have heard many of my colleagues refer to those codels as the ``McCain death marches'' because he is going from sunup to sundown--no resting, no stopping. He was visiting with world leaders all over, furthering our American interests.

My bus tour was a lot like that in the fall of 2014. John graciously agreed to come out and spend a day on the road with me in the ``squeal mobile.'' That day we were doing eight different events in eight different counties in Iowa. We were going from sunup, literally, to sundown, and we were traveling in this big RV.

I remember having a conversation with him. We were sitting at a little table. I was facing the rear of the bus. He was facing the front. It was late at night. It was dark. The sun had already gone down. We were approaching Bloomfield, IA, which was the last stop for the day. All of a sudden and out of nowhere, as we were having this conversation, boom, and we hit something. The bus did. John McCain, in true John McCainism, said: What the ``fill in the blank'' was that?

I didn't even have to turn around. I knew immediately. Again, it is Iowa. It is the fall. It is after dark. I said: John, we hit a deer.

That deer took out the front end of the bus. The bus was going no further. Immediately, John was up. He was at the front of the bus, ready to get out the door, and he said: I have to see this.

There was the enthusiasm and the energy that man had. It was a unique experience for him to be in the ``squeal mobile,'' and it was the eighth stop of the night. John was used to the ``go, go, go,'' not just in campaign cycles but in anything he did. He was committed to finishing out that last stop of the night. We got out of the bus, which was incapacitated from that deer, and we hopped in a car that had been following us from one event to the next and went on to Bloomfield, to the diner, where he talked about service and commitment to country.

We did a lot of veterans stops that day. I will always fondly remember that and how many Iowans' lives he had touched, sharing his stories and his thoughts about how we should do better for American service men and women.

After that incident, I made sure anytime somebody supplied me with deer jerky from Iowa that John got a little of it, and he always loved that.

When I was elected and I entered the Senate at the end of 2015, one of the very first things Senator McCain did for me and for several others who were freshmen was to make sure we secured seats on the Senate Armed Services Committee. This is one of the most important committees, in my estimation, of the U.S. Senate. Again, because I am a veteran and because I grew up as a soldier, it is very important to me. He took the time to make sure that Senator Tom Cotton, Senator Dan Sullivan, and I each had a seat on that committee.

He thought of us as the new era veterans--those that could really bring real world experience to the table from our time in Iraq and for Tom and Dan, their time in Afghanistan. Again, this was under the mentorship of a wonderful American, a patriot, and a true warrior--John McCain. He valued our input. He valued our time, and he encouraged us to get involved and stay involved, and I loved that.

Going back to the McCain death marches and the congressional delegations that John would plan for those of us who served on the Armed Services Committee, there was a trip I took in 2015 that was very important to me, and that was a trip I did with Senator McCain and Senator Dan Sullivan to Vietnam. Senator McCain took many Senators to Vietnam.

To me, it was such an incredible trip and probably one of the most treasured times I had with John McCain in the Senate. During that trip to Vietnam, of course, one of the usual stops for him was a trip to Hanoi, where he took us to the Hanoi Hilton, where he had been imprisoned so many years ago by the North Vietnamese. I found this time very sad, thinking about the pain and the agony Senator McCain had gone through at the hands of his North Vietnamese captors. At the same time, what I experienced from John was something that I will never forget; that is, a sense of forgiveness. Having endured so many years of torture and hardship in Vietnam, what I found truly remarkable about Senator McCain was the fact that so many years later he had spearheaded the efforts to normalize relations between the United States and Vietnam. He forgave. He forgave.

There we were in Hanoi, walking through the very place I estimated had been so evil to him, and yet in those moments, he found his sense of humor. If anybody spent time around Senator John McCain, they know of his sharp wit and his humor. As we walked through the museum portion of the Hanoi Hilton, he would stop in front of a picture. He would look at it, and we would all look at it. Dan and I would look at it with John, and there would be a picture of American servicemen standing around a Christmas tree with smiles on their faces. He would look at it. He would look it up and down, and he would say: Bull ``bleep''-- fill in the bleep. Then, he would laugh, and he would move to the next picture. In the next picture, there were American servicemen playing sand volleyball, having a great time at the Hanoi Hilton. He would look at it, and he would shake his head and would say: Bull ``fill in the blank.''

Then, we would move to the end of the room, and in this glass case with a plaque, there was a naval flight suit and flight helmet. On the plaque it said: John McCain's flight suit and helmet. He looked it up and looked it down, and he said again: Bull ``fill in the blank.'' He said: That is not my flight suit. That is not my helmet.

This grand display at the Hanoi Hilton was to show what a wonderful experience it was for our service men and women, and we know that it wasn't. But through all of that, John McCain forgave. He forgave, and he helped bring our countries closer together.

We still have a long journey ahead to totally repair relations between Vietnam and the United States, but because John McCain found it within himself to dig deep and forgive, we are on that path. We are on that path.

Later that evening, after having been to the infamous Hilton, John took us all to supper, and we were able to share traditional Vietnamese dishes. He shared a lot of stories with those of us who were on that delegation trip--stories that you will not find written in books, but things that were very personal and intimate to him and his experience.

He knew that Dan Sullivan and I, also being veterans, would understand the thoughts and the experiences that he had had in Vietnam. I will treasure that time with John McCain forever.

A little over a year ago, John was diagnosed with brain cancer, and I know, for me personally, that was very hard, and I think a lot of other folks were shocked, again, because John's persona was so big, larger than life. He had lived through so much in his lifetime, only to be diagnosed with something that we knew would be very difficult to overcome.

John stayed the course, though, working very hard here in the U.S. Senate, and I do remember there were times he would take votes that I totally disagreed with, and we got into a heated argument over one of those votes. As many of us have experienced with John and his temper, man, he got after me. I took a vote that he didn't agree with. He yelled at me. He was all over me, and I wouldn't let it go. He knew my personality. I wasn't going to let it go. So after he had gotten on me, I would try to explain my position to him, and he would just walk away. For days after that incident, he would avoid me. I would be tracking him down, and he would avoid me. He would go down a hallway or try to get away from me. I finally caught up with him, and I said: John, I love you. We need to talk about this. And he said: Oh, Joni, I can't stay mad at you. Then life went on as normal.

He was just a great man--a great man--and we knew that we could disagree, but we would get beyond it. We would get beyond it.

In the Senate Armed Services Committee, we always teased each other. He would call me colonel, and I would call him admiral. The funny thing is, he served in the Navy and retired as a captain. He did not achieve the rank of admiral. I served in the Iowa Army National Guard. I retired as a lieutenant colonel; I did not achieve the rank of colonel. But we would tease each other. He would call me Colonel Ernst, and I would call him Admiral McCain, and we would have a good chuckle over it.

He loved his time as a naval aviator. It was very significant to him--a very important part of his life. I had the wonderful experience in November of 2017, having gone to Oceana, down to Norfolk, and I was able to go through swimming physiology and then take my first flight ever in an F-18 with a naval aviator, and I was able to ``bag some traps'' out on the Abraham Lincoln.

After that weekend, I had a number of photos from that time. It was a great experience. I had been working on some issues with physiological episodes with some of our naval aviators, and I came back and was in votes that next week. I sat down with John here on the floor, and I pulled out those pictures, and he ate them up. He just continued flipping through those pictures, flipping through them, and I could just see the light in his eyes. I could tell that John was reliving some of the memories that he had in the cockpit--the times that he had, the times that he loved, the times that he enjoyed doing what he did as a naval aviator, fighting for the United States of America, doing what he believed to be true

and worthy. That was a precious time to share my tiny, tiny experience in the air with Senator John McCain.

So, again, I just wanted to share with everyone, with my colleagues, with my constituents the fact that I value the time that I spent in the U.S. Senate with Senator McCain. He taught us all a lot about love of country, duty, honor, commitment, service, leadership, patriotism, forgiveness, and how to love your brother and your sister, regardless of who you are and where you come from. I will treasure that time; I will treasure the man.

To his family--they have my deepest sympathies in the loss of their husband, their father, their brother, their son, their uncle. I think we will all feel the hurt of the loss for a long time. His spirit will live on with us in this Chamber.

Every time I walk into an Armed Services Committee meeting, I will always think of John McCain and how he strove to be a great leader for all of us, the mentorship that he provided.

John, I know you are with us, and it is my turn to say thank you for everything that you have done for your great State of Arizona, for all of us who have served in the U.S. Senate, and of course for these great United States of America. We honor you, John; we thank you. God bless you. Thanks so much, John.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise today to voice my support for the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court of the United States.

As the final arbiter of the Constitution, the Supreme Court has a sacred duty of ensuring equal justice under the law to the American people. The Supreme Court wields the immense power of judicial review. Alexis de Tocqueville described this power of the Supreme Court when he called it ``a more imposing judicial power than was ever constituted by any other people.''

As Members of the Senate, it is not often that we get the opportunity to

give our advice and consent on the confirmation of Supreme Court Justices. It is even rarer that we get the opportunity to confirm someone as highly qualified and well-respected as Brett Kavanaugh.

I am especially impressed by Judge Kavanaugh's interpretation of the Constitution as it applies to the ever-encroaching power of Federal agencies. Even before the people of Iowa sent me to Washington, I was horrified by the impact increasingly burdensome regulations imposed on hard-working men, women, and businesses. This was imposed by unleashed Federal bureaucrats.

An excellent example of this is the infamous waters of the United States rule promulgated by the Obama EPA. The Obama administration's bloated definition of the waters of the United States would have put 97 percent--97 percent--of Iowa under EPA jurisdiction. Even a tire track filled with water on an Iowa farm would have been subject to Federal regulation.

Federal agencies have been allowed to implement such destructive regulations in part due to the Supreme Court giving them deference. While a certain degree of deference is needed, I am concerned that a too-broad deferential standard separates the people of the United States from Washington bureaucrats. It fails to place an adequate check on executive and administrative power.

Throughout his career as both a highly respected legal scholar and a judge on the esteemed DC Circuit Court of Appeals, Judge Kavanaugh has written critically of widening the scope of this already far-reaching deferential standard. He wrote in part that this deference ``encourages the Executive Branch to be extremely aggressive in seeking to squeeze its policy goals into ill-fitting statutory authorizations and restraints.'' This could not have been what the Founders intended when they developed our Constitution and our government. I could not agree more with Judge Kavanaugh's concerns. I look forward to the Judge's levelheaded leadership and thinking on the Supreme Court.

In addition, I was proud to hear that Judge Kavanaugh has had the chance to work with Iowans. State Representative Mary Ann Hanusa, who represents the city of Council Bluffs, had the opportunity to work with Judge Kavanaugh when he served as Staff Secretary in the White House. Representative Hanusa describes Judge Kavanaugh as hard-working, dedicated, and impartial in his duties--all traits that I require in a Supreme Court Justice.

Under Chairman Grassley's leadership, I believe that we will have a thorough, timely, and successful confirmation process, just as we did with Neil Gorsuch. I urge my colleagues to put aside partisan gimmicks and games and support the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I rise to voice my support for the brave men and women of America's Immigration and Customs Enforcement, also known as ICE. Unfortunately, a resolution that would have shown this body's unanimous support for these courageous individuals was blocked.

While the Border Patrol has the important mission of maintaining security at our borders, ICE agents have the critical mission of enforcing immigration laws inside the United States. These two work hand in hand. Our Nation cannot have border security without enforcing our laws inside communities, and we cannot have secure communities without enforcing our laws at our borders.

The critical mission of ICE goes far beyond just immigration enforcement. These folks are on the frontlines of our homeland security.

Here is just a short list of the types of activities ICE is involved in: one, investigating and combating drug smuggling, pretty important; stopping human trafficking; preventing gang-related crimes; and working with other law enforcement entities to stop criminal and terrorist networks from operating.

Iowa, along with the rest of the country, has been gripped by an opioid crisis that puts our people and our safety at risk. Additionally, we continue to have a very grave methamphetamine issue that threatens the core of many of our already struggling rural communities.

We need ICE to help stop the flow of these drugs into Iowa's communities, our schools, our workplaces, and to our children and our families. In 2017 alone, ICE enforcement and removal operations seized nearly 1 million pounds of narcotics--1 million pounds of narcotics seized by ICE. Abolishing ICE would turn the flow of illegal drugs across the border from a stream into a monsoon.

I also implore anyone challenging the need for ICE to look at the horrendous toll of human trafficking: young and innocent women and men, boys and girls used as human pawns, smuggled across the border with hopes of a better life, forced into prostitution or worse--raped, beaten, subjected to sexual diseases and stripped of all innocence and dignity.

Sadly, human trafficking is a major issue in Iowa. In 2016, for instance, Des Moines was identified as one of the country's top 100 human trafficking locations. That information came to us from our good friends at Polaris, which is an anti-trafficking organization.

Human traffickers often exploit our immigration laws to transport their victims, and our ICE agents are the ones who help to stop them and to stop their illicit activities.

Every day, 24/7, 365 days a year, ICE agents are on the frontlines. They are working to dismantle human trafficking networks and protect our most vulnerable.

I urge my colleagues to reconsider their objections and to support not only the resolution but to support those officers and personnel who carry out the vital mission of Immigration and Customs Enforcement in order to ensure the safety and security of all Americans.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, I rise today on behalf of Iowa's farmers and ranchers in support of the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 or what we refer to as the farm bill. I thank Chairman Roberts and Ranking Member Stabenow for bringing this critical piece of bipartisan legislation to the floor for consideration.

Farmers, ranchers, and rural communities are resilient--some of the toughest in the face of adversity. But low commodity prices, trade tensions, and unpredictable weather have taken a toll on many of our folks back home. These are the people Americans rely on day in and day out to put food on our tables, clothes on our backs, and fuel in our cars.

In trying times, it is essential that we provide farmers and ranchers with the certainty and the predictability they need and they deserve. These folks helped guide my priorities for this bipartisan farm bill, which maintains a robust crop insurance, makes improvements to commodity programs, and promotes soil health and water quality.

I am thankful that several of my provisions and amendments can be found within this bill. Long overdue reforms to the Conservation Reserve Program will refocus the program's intent on highly erodible and environmentally sensitive land and provide opportunities for the next generation of American farmers to access land to build economically viable farm operations.

This bill also strengthens the ARC-County Program, limiting payment discrepancies and ensuring that farmers receive the necessary support they deserve. It also puts farmers first by providing critical support and mental health resources to those in need or those facing tough times.

I do want to note one area of the bill where I think we need to do more, and that is on the issue of SNAP reform. Most notably, the bill misses an opportunity to help able-bodied SNAP recipients rise up out of poverty. SNAP is a program that is relied on by children, in addition to elderly Americans, people with disabilities, and many working families who are struggling to make ends meet. No American should go hungry, and SNAP provides critical assistance to our most vulnerable citizens.

We also have an obligation to ensure that this safety net does not perpetuate a cycle of poverty and is not abused by those who should not be taking this benefit. Unfortunately, we have seen some shocking stories that show how SNAP has, at times, been misused. For example, I am reminded of the 28-year-old, lobster-eating, Cadillac-Escalade- driving surfer from San Diego, CA, who had not worked in over a year and was receiving food stamps. He was unabashedly abusing the system and taking benefits away from those who need those benefits the most. Surfing is a pretty physically active sport--I think we can all agree to that--and it was safe to presume that this young man was able- bodied. We should not allow this type of behavior to continue, and we should not allow more examples of people taking advantage of a safety net that is set up to help those who need it the most.

While this example is an exception rather than the rule, I am concerned that the ability to abuse the system could increase the number of folks who simply choose to sit back and decide they will also ride the free waves, rather than get in the game and return to employment.

We need to encourage those who can to start working again. Getting people back to work is the most effective way to prevent poverty, both in the near term and for people's long-term stability. Programs like SNAP should encourage able-bodied adults to participate in the labor force. According to the Census Bureau, 30.5 percent of adults who did not work lived in poverty in 2016. However, on the flip side,

just 2.2 percent of full-time workers and 14.7 percent of part-time or part-year workers lived below the poverty line.

Folks who are employed are not only better off financially, they also benefit from the sense of purpose and confidence that comes from a job. As I always say, there is dignity in a job. Take, for example, April, a Missouri woman who was on government assistance from the age of 16 to the age of 30, receiving food stamps and housing assistance. When she was caught shoplifting, she was forced to do community service. She volunteered at Watered Gardens, a rescue mission in Joplin, where folks living in poverty get the help they need while they are also working at the gardens. April was so inspired by her time there that she started a women's discipleship center in her community and is now living a fulfilling life.

SNAP currently requires able-bodied adults without dependents to work, participate in training, or volunteer for at least 20 hours a week to receive assistance. That is the current requirement, but unfortunately 35 percent of Americans live in an area where work requirements for able-bodied adults without dependents have been waived. They have been waived. Of the 1,200 areas where this has been waived, over half have unemployment rates below 5 percent, and over 500 of those areas are at full employment. These waivers were intended for States and communities that are experiencing economic downturns, not States like California, which has a statewide waiver, despite a record low 4.2-percent unemployment.

Our economy is booming right now. We have a 3.8-percent unemployment rate. For the first time on record, the number of job openings exceeds the number of Americans looking for work.

This is the best possible time for us to encourage work among able- bodied SNAP recipients. That is why I introduced an amendment which would strengthen the waiver process to ensure that areas with low levels of unemployment are not exempt from SNAP's requirement for able- bodied adults without dependents to work, train, or volunteer.

I planned to offer this amendment today. I am not going to because I want to keep the farm bill moving for the sake of our farmers, but I do want to see this done at conference. Despite its imperfections, we have a bill before us that will feed hungry Americans, protect natural resources, mitigate risk, and support rural jobs.

With heavy rainfall this past week across Northern Iowa, some hard- working men and women are now facing even greater challenges. Flooded fields have producers worrying about crop damage. This all underscores the need for a strong and reliable safety net and timely passage of the farm bill.

The goal and absolute requirement is to provide farmers and ranchers across our Nation the certainty and predictability they deserve during difficult times. I look forward to working alongside my colleagues to meet this goal by passing this farm bill, and I encourage support.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I wish to honor Pastor Arthur Arnett as he retires from Aurora Avenue Bible Church after decades of faithful service to his congregation and community.

Pastor Arnett spent many of the early years of his life in Des Moines, IA, where his father served as the pastor of Bethel Bible Church, later to be renamed Aurora Avenue Bible Church. Even at a young age, Pastor Arnett demonstrated his passion for service by volunteering for any needed tasks around the church. After graduating from high school, Pastor Arnett studied at the Prairie Bible Institute and worked in a variety of jobs, including truckdriving, mechanical contracting, and cooking. While holding these positions, Pastor Arnett's love of ministry shone through as he discussed and shared his knowledge of the Bible with many. In 1968, Pastor Arnett was called to military service and trained in aviation. Shortly before leaving for a year of service in Vietnam, Pastor Arnett married his wife, Connie Ray, in Tipton, IA. After returning from Vietnam, Pastor Arnett once again devoted his life to ministry and served congregations in Colorado and Kansas. In 1976, Pastor Arnett joined the Seaman's International Christian Association, where he was able to minister to thousands of seamen from all over the world over the course of 12 years.

Pastor Arnett was then called back to his home church in Des Moines, IA, where he began ministering on July 8, 1988. And on July 8, 2018-- exactly 30 years later--Pastor Arnett will retire from the pastorate at Aurora Avenue Bible Church. After three decades as a pastor and many more years as a volunteer, Pastor Arnett has been able to deliver thousands of messages and touch countless lives through his faithful service to his community and congregation.

I ask my colleagues to join me as I proudly recognize Pastor Arthur Arnett, an Iowan whose lifelong devotion to service epitomizes the great American ideals of hard work, duty, and dedication.

Mr. President, the 2019 National Defense Authorization Act on the floor today is a bipartisan bill that is focused on ensuring our warfighters are prepared to operate across the full spectrum of conflict and to support the objectives laid out in the 2018 national defense strategy.

I am disappointed that we were not able to come together and work through a robust, bipartisan amendment process this year on the floor. We had a great markup, and I am thankful that my colleagues across the aisle were so willing to work together in a bipartisan manner on this piece of legislation.

As the chair of the Emerging Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee, I worked hard with my ranking member, Senator Heinrich of New Mexico, to ensure the NDAA invests additional funding in innovative technologies so that we can maintain U.S. technological superiority over near-peer adversaries, particularly in the areas of hypersonics, unmanned systems, directed energy, and artificial intelligence.

The NDAA provides much needed funding to our Special Operations forces, which are playing a key role in combating terrorist networks and countering growing aggression by adversaries like Russia, China, and Iran. It also fully funds SOCOM's request for the Preservation of the Force and Families Initiative and expands key authorities to provide enhanced support to the families of our special operators.

By supporting a total of $716 billion for our Nation's defense, the NDAA provides the flexibility that is needed for our military to make targeted investments for the future. It also addresses issues that deeply impact our servicemembers.

I especially thank Senator Warren, of Massachusetts, for her work with me in addressing research and treatment options for traumatic brain injuries. This is an issue that is especially important to me as a veteran, for I have known and worked with individuals who have experienced blasts and rollovers in military vehicles, and we know the implications that come from those who suffer from traumatic brain injury.

I urge my colleagues to support the NDAA. This bill is absolutely vital to restoring the health of our military and supporting our national security objectives. Again, I urge my colleagues to support this bill. It is vital we complete our NDAA.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9:30 a.m., Thursday, June 14; further, that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and morning business be closed. Finally, I ask that following leader remarks, the Senate resume consideration of H.R. 5515, with the time until the cloture vote equally divided between the two managers or their designees.