Floor Statements

Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it stand adjourned under the previous order following the remarks of Senators Merkley and Sasse.

Madam President, I come to the floor to make amendment No. 2400 pending, but it is my understanding that we are almost at an agreement on the hotline.

This bill has cleared committee by voice vote and by my colleagues on the Republican side by the hotline. However, my minority counterparts have had months to look at this bill, but it has remained held up on the hotline. The bill passed the House with unanimous support and has been included in the House's NDAA bill. I call on my colleagues across the aisle to clear this bill or else I will fight for a vote on it in the NDAA.

My legislation, the Presidential Allowance Modernization Act, would establish a cap on former Presidents' monetary allowances, which are currently unlimited and fund resources like office space, staff salaries, cell phone bills, and more. It would then reduce the allowance, dollar-for-dollar, by each dollar of income a former President earns in excess of $400,000.

The national debt is over $20 trillion. We cannot afford to generously subsidize the perks of former Presidents to the tune of millions of dollars. The reality is that post-Presidential life already provides fruitful opportunities on its own, with former Presidents raking in tens of millions of dollars from book deals, speaking engagements, and more.

Again, I call on my colleagues to support this bipartisan bill, which would save taxpayer dollars that could be used for more worthwhile causes, like our military. I also thank the senior Senator from Missouri for cosponsoring this legislation and making it a bipartisan bill.

I thank the Presiding Officer.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I am here to call up my amendment today so we can save money for our Nation and for our military. Certainly, I am not here to derail the National Defense Authorization Act. I am thankful that again this year we have a great bipartisan bill, and I am hopeful my bipartisan amendment can be made pending today.

Amendment No. 2400 is the Presidential Allowance Modernization Act, and it has cleared committee by voice vote and cleared my colleagues on the Republican side on the hotline. However, my minority counterparts have had months to look at this bill now in amendment form, and it still remains blocked. This bill passed the House with unanimous support and has been included in the House NDAA bill.

This amendment would establish a cap on former Presidents' monetary allowances, which are currently unlimited and fund resources like office space, staff salaries, cell phone bills, and more.

Under this amendment, former Presidents would receive a $200,000 annual pension and an allowance capped at $500,000--a total of $700,000 in annual benefits. It would then reduce the allowance dollar for dollar by each dollar of income a former President earns in excess of $400,000.

The national debt is over $20 trillion. We cannot afford to generously subsidize the perks of former Presidents to the tune of millions of dollars.

With that, Mr. President, I would like to make my amendment pending. I ask unanimous consent that it be in order to call up amendment No. 2400 to amendment No. 2282.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I do think that is a timely request. Thankfully, the farm bill is being marked up tomorrow in the Agriculture Committee, and I do think that is the appropriate venue to discuss the caps on subsidies for crop insurance. I would agree that is probably a wise thing to take a look at.

However, what we are dealing with right now is the fact that we do have former Presidents who are receiving substantial perks from our American taxpayers. So I am disappointed that my colleagues across the aisle continue to block this bipartisan amendment designed to save millions of dollars.

Do my colleagues across the aisle think former Presidents should continue to receive unlimited, taxpayer-funded allowances as they make millions and millions of dollars per year from book deals and speaking engagements? It is not uncommon for a former President to command $400,000 per hour-long speech. The average household income in Iowa is about $55,000. That means that in about 8\1/2\ minutes, that former President is making what an Iowa family makes in a year.

I wish my colleagues across the aisle would reconsider.

I formally object to the modification.

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

Mr. President, today I wish to honor Martin A. Treptow who bravely served as a private in the U.S. Army during the First World War.

Martin enlisted in the Iowa National Guard in 1917 while working as a barber in Cherokee, IA, and was soon stationed in France as part of the 168th Infantry of the 42nd Division, the famed Rainbow Division. During the assault on Hill 212 on La Croix Rouge Farm, Martin courageously volunteered to deliver an important message to another platoon, despite heavy enemy fire. Martin successfully completed his mission but paid the ultimate sacrifice in doing so.

As his belongings were being prepared to send home to his family and friends, Martin's diary was found. His diary included an entry entitled ``My Pledge,'' and Martin had written: ``America must win this war. Therefore, I will work, I will save, I will ensure, I will fight cheerfully and do my utmost, as if the issue of the whole struggle depended on me alone.''

I ask my colleagues to join me as I proudly recognize Martin A. Treptow, whose heroic actions and inspiring words epitomize the duty and sacrifice of all the brave men and women who serve and have served the United States in defense of our freedom.

Mr. President, I very much thank Chairman Isakson for his work on this bill. As a veteran, as the spouse of a veteran, as the mother of a young lady who will enter into the service this summer, and as the grandmother to a young man who will begin his enlistment this fall, I thank him for the work he has done. I appreciate your service as well. Thank you so much.

Mr. President, ``We can and we must do better for our veterans.''

I spoke those words during my first speech given here on the Senate floor just over 3 years ago. I also spoke about the need to fulfill the promises made to our veterans who have sacrificed everything for our country. At that time, the average wait for a mental health appointment at the VA was 36 days. There were, on average, 22 veteran suicides every single day in the United States. It underscored the troubles within the VA and the urgency to act immediately to help our veterans get the quality and the timely care that they have earned and that they deserve.

That is why I introduced on that very day my first bill, the Prioritizing Veterans' Access to Mental Healthcare Act. My bill would have eliminated the distance and the wait time requirements for veterans seeking mental healthcare under the current Choice Program. Every veteran should have the choice to receive care in the community, but they should not be burdened by bureaucratic redtape or strict guidelines that serve as roadblocks to receiving this type of care.

To illustrate how burdensome and sometimes ridiculous these guidelines are, I want to share a letter I received from a veteran in Ames, IA. The veteran wrote:

I am a disabled veteran who currently receives healthcare

at the De Moines VA Hospital. I live 39.7 miles from the De

Moines VA Hospital, which means I do not meet the 40-mile VA

Choice criteria. While I have not had a bad experience at the

De Moines VA, it is burdensome to travel approximately 40

miles when I have had surgeries that require a family member

to transport me. I am unable to utilize a nonVA facility in

my own backyard.

The frustration evident in this veteran's letter has been present in hundreds of letters and stories, and I have received many of those over the years.

I am frustrated too. Those who are willing to lay down their lives for our country shouldn't have to jump through hoops to receive the care they have earned.

I am thrilled that this week the Senate has the opportunity to do better for

our veterans. Just last week, the House passed the VA MISSION Act, which improves how veterans access community care. Under the VA MISSION Act, the VA remains the coordinator of a veteran's care. The VA would still be in charge of scheduling those appointments, ensuring that a veteran is going to followup visits, as well as ensuring that no veteran experiences a delay or a gap in their care.

The VA MISSION Act also makes significant improvements to accessing community care. A veteran will no longer be bound by strict distance and wait time requirements, just as I expressed from that veteran who lives in Ames, IA. Instead, that decision rests with the veteran and their provider. If a veteran and their provider determine that it is in the veteran's best medical interest, the VA will be required to offer access to community care. The VA MISSION Act ensures that veterans have a say and a choice in their care.

This legislation also includes my bipartisan Veterans E-Health and Telemedicine Support Act, also known as the VETS Act, which I introduced with Senator Mazie Hirono of Hawaii. VA providers will now be able to practice across State lines, expanding telehealth services, which can include critical mental healthcare and care desperately needed to veterans in rural and underserved areas.

The VETS act will also expand VA caregiver benefits to pre-9/11 veterans, create a commission to evaluate how to modernize VA facilities, increase resources to hire more providers, which is very important, and ensure prompt payment to community providers.

I am also pleased to report that this bill has bipartisan support and the support of over 30 veteran service organizations.

Funding for the Choice Program is expected to run out at the end of May--in a matter of weeks. The men and women who have put their lives on the line for the freedom of every American deserve better than the status quo. Again, I say that we can and we must do better for our veterans.

The VA MISSION Act is a positive step forward toward getting veterans the care they need. That is why I will be voting in support of it. I urge my colleagues to do the same and cast their vote in favor of the VA MISSION Act.

Thank you.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, today I wish to recognize the city of Altoona, IA, which was founded 150 years ago.

Originally named because of its location as the highest point--or altitude--on the Des Moines Valley Railroad, Altoona has continued to reach for new heights since its plot was recorded in 1868. Altoona has come a long way from its turn of the century, coal-mining identity.

Today Altoona is home to Iowa's premier entertainment destinations, with seemingly unlimited potential ahead. While Altoona's numerous regional attractions may define the landscape of the city, there is no doubt it is the people of Altoona who define its fabric. Over the years, Altoona's leadership has never forgotten its roots, and despite world-class amenities and contiguous proximity to Iowa's capital and largest city, Altoona continues to maintain that small town feeling that Iowans know and love.

There is no better place in America to raise a family than Iowa, and Altoona is a shining example of why. I invite my colleagues in the U.S. Senate to join me in congratulating the city of Altoona on their sesquicentennial, and I wish them another 150 prosperous years.

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

Mr. President, I rise in support of the President's nomination of Director Mike Pompeo to serve as Secretary of State.

Director Pompeo has a very long record of public service which has prepared him for this very important position. Let's start at the beginning.

Director Pompeo was top of his class at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, and he served honorably in the U.S. Army. He is also a graduate of Harvard Law School. In Congress, Director Pompeo was a leader on issues of national security and foreign relations. Finally, and most recently, as Director of the CIA, Director Pompeo has been a successful leader of the world's best intelligence professionals who work to resolve some of our Nation's most sensitive and difficult problems.

I have heard on the floor of the Senate recently a number of my colleagues who have called into question whether he should serve as our Nation's top diplomat. He has served in the military. He has served as Director of the CIA. What I want to do is go back to the time he spent at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point.

I wish to remind the body that in the military, we serve in many missions, but one of them does include diplomacy. As the Presiding Officer understands, as military members--whether a marine or a soldier--oftentimes during conflicts you stand shoulder-to-shoulder with members of other countries. You must have an understanding of the cultural effects and the cultural differences between our nations, and you work to resolve problems. Whether with the indigenous population or whether it is within the military ranks, we serve as diplomats.

At West Point, I know Director Pompeo learned this lesson very well. Many of us--whether you go through a military academy or whether you are going through a Reserve Officer Training Corps Program at a university like I did at Iowa State--you learn about what we call the instruments of national power. Those instruments of national power are called DIME. It is an acronym, D-I-M-E.

D stands for diplomacy. We learn that, again, as members of the military and as officers in our Nation's military--so diplomacy. The I is information. The M, of course, is military and military action. The E stands for economic action, such as sanctions.

Within the realm of diplomacy, we are taught and we work with Ambassadors, and we work through Embassies. We are taught about the realm of negotiations and treaties and various policies that affect different nations around the globe. We are engaging in international forums. Again, working in the defense space, of course, we have many opportunities to engage with leaders from other countries. Diplomacy-- it is the very basis of the instruments of national power that we all learn.

I know Director Pompeo, in his capacity--whether serving at the CIA or going back many years to when he served in the U.S. Army, quite admirably, or back at the Academy when he was first taught those instruments of national power, or DIME, that he is well-versed in working with many nations in very difficult circumstances. Again, Director Pompeo has a very long record of public service.

Director Pompeo also has had very strong relationships, and he values those relationships. His relationship with Secretary of Defense Mattis will prove invaluable as he works to ensure peace through strength. Additionally, I am confident he will inspire and lead the men and women of our State Department to achieve results for our Nation, and those results will be centered around diplomacy.

Director Pompeo understands the threats we face as a nation every day. During a time when the threats against the United States continue to grow around the globe, it is important--important--for President Trump to have his full diplomatic and national security team in place. We must do this. Diplomacy. Diplomacy.

Director Pompeo is also the right person to serve as our top diplomat. He will rise to meet the challenges and foster the relationships we need around the world to keep our Nation free, secure, and prosperous. Again, I go back to the instruments of national power: D-I-M-E. The first is always diplomacy. Director Pompeo understands, and I am glad that we as a body will be taking up his confirmation vote today.

I urge my colleagues to support this eminently qualified man as our next Secretary of State.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I have 4 requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority leaders.

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

Committee on Armed Services

The Committee on Armed Services is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, April 26, 2018, at 9:30 a.m. to conduct a hearing.

Committee on the Judiciary

The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, April 26, 2018, at 10 a.m. to conduct a hearing on S. 2644 and S. 2559 and following nominations: Mark Jeremy Bennett, of Hawaii, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit, Nancy E. Brasel, and Eric C. Tostrud, both to be a United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota, Robert R. Summerhays, to be United States District Judge for the Western District of Louisiana, and Gregory Allyn Forest, to be United States Marshal for the Western District of North Carolina, and Bradley A. Maxwell, to be United States Marshal for the Southern District of Illinois, both of the Department of Justice.

Select Committee on Intelligence

The Select Committee on Intelligence is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, April 26, 2018, at 2 p.m. to conduct a closed hearing.

Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations

The Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, April 26, 2018, at 10 a.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``Oversight of HHS and DHS Effort to Protect Unaccompanied Alien Children from Human Trafficking and Abuse.''

Mr. President, I wish to recognize Anfinson Farm Store, a small business in Cushing, IA, that has been a staple of the community for 100 years.

Like many businesses, Anfinson Farm Store will be receiving significant tax relief from the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, and they are using this as an opportunity to invest in their most important resource: their employees. After the legislation was signed into law, owner John Anfinson, who has owned the business for 46 years, announced that all seven of their full-time employees would receive $1,000 bonuses and 5-percent pay increases. He was also able to purchase nearly $400,000 in new equipment with 1-year expensing.

Small businesses make up 97 percent of employers in Iowa, and prior to the passage of tax reform, they were taxed at marginal rates that often reached as high as 45 percent. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act is a monumental achievement for small businesses, reducing their tax burden so that they can grow and invest in their employees.

As we celebrate National Small Business Week, I would like to recognize Anfinson Farm Store and all of Iowa's small businesses, who are the backbone of our economy. I would also like to express my gratitude to the President

and my colleagues in Congress for helping to reduce the tax burden on our small businesses.

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

Mr. President, I want to take a moment to emphasize why the Secure and Succeed Act is the right bill for the Senate to pass this week. I chose to join my colleagues, who have worked hard on this bill for months, for a few important reasons.

First, this bill provides a way forward for our DACA recipients. I have said time and again that I appreciate the contributions our DACA recipients are making in our communities. They are our friends, our neighbors, and our churchgoers. I support finding them a way forward. Our bill does this. It does it in a fair and humane way. But importantly, it also adds strong eligibility requirements to ensure the safety and security of the program and stops future illegal immigration. For instance, it does not reward the parents who came here illegally by giving them any type of lawful status and sets reasonable time limits and restrictions on who can apply.

Second, it provides immediate and significant investments in our border. We cannot allow this problem to happen again. We have a duty and an obligation to keep our borders secure and our citizens safe. Our bill recognizes that spending money on the border without giving law enforcement strong authorities is like buying a boat without an engine. We need both to keep our borders and our communities secure.

Third, our bill recognizes that you cannot view immigration in a silo--it is a bulky issue that represents many legal, economic, and security concerns. Many of these issues are deeply interconnected. Addressing DACA and addressing the border without addressing some of the other issues plaguing our system is a half solution. We must have the President's four principles to make this work.

Finally, this is the President's plan. The White House has endorsed this proposal. The President's pen is ready to sign it.

I urge my colleagues, let's pass the bill that addresses the right issues in this debate and can actually become law. Let's pass the Secure and Succeed Act.

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

Mr. President, I would like to start by thanking my colleagues and especially my friend from Iowa, our senior Senator, Chuck Grassley, for his tremendous work on this project and all of those who participated in the discussions on the Secure and Succeed Act.

This legislation puts us on the best path forward to provide a permanent solution for our DACA recipients, all while strengthening our borders and entry security. Our legislation addresses the unique challenges faced by the DACA population, many of whom were brought to America by their parents through no fault of their own when they were just children.

In Iowa and across our Nation, DACA recipients are an integral part of our community. They are our neighbors, they are our classmates, and they are our fellow churchgoers.

This last summer, while I was at the Clay County Fair in Iowa, I was approached by a young lady. She came up to me and said: Senator Ernst, I would like to know where you stand on DACA.

So I explained my position to her.

Meanwhile, she is pulling out her billfold. Out of the billfold, she pulled out a small card. She showed it to me, and she said: I am a DACA recipient.

I said: Well, thank you for taking the time to come up to me and sharing your story with me.

She was there with her younger siblings at the county fair, just enjoying the day, and she explained her situation to me. She had been brought into the country by her parents. They came illegally into the country from Mexico. Then she pointed at her younger siblings, and she said: They were born here. They are citizens, but I am not. I am not.

As we were standing there at the Clay County Fair, right by the Iowa Army National Guard recruiting booth--I was a member of the Iowa Army National Guard--she went on to explain to me that a while back she had actually met with one of the recruiters, and they had told her: We can't accept you. We can't accept you because you are a DACA recipient.

She expressed to me how disappointed she was. She wanted to join our military. She wanted to serve this country--the only country she had known to be her home, the country she loved. Her story and her determination and her desire to serve this country and to defend our freedoms were absolutely clear to me. This bill would allow DACA- eligible recipients to defend the only country they have ever known-- the country they love.

That said, I cannot overstate the importance of addressing the legal, economic, and security concerns that are

ever present in this debate. A huge priority of mine has been, and remains, to provide border security. Our homeland and our borders must be secure, period. Tragically, human, drug, and sex trafficking are still viable markets in the darkest corners around this world. Unfortunately, we have those corners of the world right here in our own Nation. Ensuring the integrity of our immigration system is essential in working to prevent these bad actors from infiltrating our very own borders.

This legislation would direct funds toward bolstering our border control and various degrees of security along the border, such as physical and virtual fencing, radar, and other technologies. It also cuts immigration loopholes and ensures that dangerous criminals are denied entry.

This legislation addresses the current debate in a humane and thoughtful manner, and I urge my colleagues in the Senate to support this commonsense pathway forward.

Thank you.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I would like to thank the ranking member of the Agriculture Committee for joining us here on the floor today. I appreciate her great bipartisan work on the Agriculture Committee.

I am pleased to be a member of that committee. It is truly one of those committees where we set aside any political differences. We actually work for the good of our Agricultural Committee, our ranchers, and our farmers, regardless of the State they come from. We truly do work together to feed and fuel a nation.

Thank you very much for joining us today, I say to the ranking member.

I wish to thank my senior Senator from Iowa, as well.

I am rising today to join my colleague Senator Chuck Grassley and others who have joined us on the floor to support the nomination of Bill Northey as Under Secretary for Farm Production and Conservation at the U.S. Department of Agriculture, or the USDA.

I have known Bill Northey for nearly a decade and, to be honest, probably a little more than a decade. He is a great friend. He is a great Iowan. Most importantly, he is a tenacious advocate and a true voice for agriculture and our rural communities. He has worked in agricultural policy at nearly every level of government.

At a time when we need to tackle many critical agricultural priorities, including the farm bill, which the ranking member just mentioned--that farm bill was last authorized 2 years ago, in late 2014--at a time when the President is rightly focusing on economic development and strengthening rural America, and at a time when our government is focused on streamlining and reducing the burdens of environmental regulations, we must have leadership in this position--as I mentioned, the Under Secretary for Farm Production and Conservation at USDA. We must have leadership there that truly gets the real underlying concerns and priorities of America's farmers and ranchers. We need them addressed. Bill Northey is exactly the person to do that.

When I think about the importance of getting someone like Bill Northey in this position, I reflect on the young farmer who is looking to begin a farming operation in rural Iowa to feed his or her family, grow a business, and cultivate a legacy in their own community, all while low commodity prices have pinched margins and extreme weather has decimated our crops. That young farmer needs Washington to get out of the way and give them an opportunity to thrive.

Bill Northey is the right guy to work these issues. He knows his role in Washington will not be to empower a faceless bureaucracy but to make Washington work for its people and give the agriculture industry the tools it needs to prosper. Bill Northey is that average, everyday Iowan who cares about agriculture and its future.

Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Roberts and Ranking Member Stabenow have made it abundantly clear that they have no objection to Mr. Northey, as both indicated in a joint statement that said in part: ``Bill Northey is a qualified and respected public servant who knows agriculture firsthand, and he will serve rural America well at USDA.''

The ranking member joined us earlier, and she went a step further by saying to Bill:

I know that you are a farmer. You understand these

challenges, and know that our farmers need leaders that will

speak up for them when their voices are not being heard.

He was voted out of the Ag Committee unanimously. Let me state that again. He was voted out of the Ag Committee unanimously. If you didn't hear that, let me say it a third time. He was voted out of the Ag Committee unanimously.

Democrats and Republicans believe that Bill Northey is a leader, and he is being held hostage over an unrelated issue. Bill Northey's nomination has become entangled in an unrelated policy dispute. I am very disappointed. Bill Northey is an upstanding man, someone we desperately need to serve in our government. We truly want to drain the swamp. Bill Northey is exactly who we need. He is that everyday American fighting for agriculture. We need him desperately. We may not be able to have him serve in our government because this policy dispute has led to a hold on his nomination.

Bill Northey is extremely qualified. He has the experience and the reputation. Most importantly, he has the voice and the heart for American agriculture. I am asking for a quick vote and confirmation of this well-respected, beloved Iowan so that we can get him in place and work on matters that truly are important not just to Iowans and the Midwest but to all of America.

Let's free Bill. Let's free Bill, folks. Let's confirm Bill Northey.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. President, I rise to urge each of my colleagues to support the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. This critical legislation would prohibit a child from being aborted at 5 months of development.

For those we have watching today, I would like you to focus a little bit on these photos, and I will return to them in a moment.

Again, I am urging my colleagues to support the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. By any measure, at 5 months of development, an unborn child is a child. At 5 months, babies have grown nails on their fingers and on their toes; hair has just begun to grow on their heads; and an ultrasound can tell an expectant mother or father whether their baby is a boy or a girl. These babies can detect light, hear sounds, they can swallow, and even experience taste as their taste buds grow and develop. These unborn babies in all ways are babies.

There is also significant scientific evidence that at 5 months of development these babies can feel pain. By 5 months, babies begin to respond to painful stimulus with distinctive pain response behaviors that are exhibited by older babies. They will scrunch their eyes, they will clench their hands, they pull back their limbs in response to pain, just like any other child experiencing pain.

There is also a great deal of evidence that stress hormone levels rise substantially when babies at this age are exposed to pain. In 2015, a Cambridge University Press medical textbook acknowledged that a ``fetus . . . becomes capable of experiencing pain between 20 and 30 weeks of gestation.'' In fact, fetal surgeons routinely administer pain medications for babies after only 4 months of development. Doctors are giving babies pain medication after 4 months of development.

As modern medicine has recognized, these babies are humans capable of experiencing pain. Yet there is no Federal law protecting these vulnerable humans from abortions. As a result, every year in our country the lives of thousands of babies end painfully through abortion. This is unacceptable. The majority of men and women across the Nation agree with this premise. According to a recent Marist poll, 6 out of 10 Americans surveyed support a law prohibiting abortion after 5 months of pregnancy.

Additionally, multiple States, including my home State of Iowa, have passed legislation that would prohibit abortions after 5 months of development because these babies are babies. There is no way to deny the humanity of these children when you consider stories like that of Micah Pickering.

Micah is from Newton, IA. He is a very young friend of mine. He is 5 years old. Just a few weeks ago on the floor of the Senate I was able to share Micah's story. As you may recall, Micah was born at just 20 weeks postfertilization--the very point at which the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act would begin to protect these young lives. Today, Micah is a very happy, very energetic little 5-year-old. Now, I would like to go back to these pictures.

When I first met Micah, he was about 3 years old. He and his parents visited my office for the annual March for Life. I had this poster made of these pictures, and they were in my office because I was going to speak on the Senate floor in support of March for Life. Micah is pictured on the right side of the poster board. Micah, a happy, energetic little boy saw this poster board in my office, and he ran up to it--imagine, this beautiful 3-year-old boy--and he pointed not at the picture of himself as he was at 3 years old, but he pointed to this picture, and he said: Baby. I said: Yes, Micah, that is a baby.

This is Micah when he was born. Micah at 3 years old understood that this was a baby. He didn't understand that was him when he was born, but he understood that was a baby.

If you look at the picture, you will see Micah is grasping his mama and daddy's hands with five perfectly formed little fingers on each hand. It is a baby, folks. Micah knew that. While he might not have known that was him when he was born, he knew that was a baby--5 months of gestation.

Today, Micah is a happy, extraordinarily healthy young boy. I got to see him again this last year. Again, he was running around my office, just full of energy and life.

Yes, Micah, this is a baby. I agree.

Micah's story is not an isolated incident. Extraordinary stories of babies who are surviving after just 5 months of development can be found all around the world.

A little over a year ago, Dakota Harris was born in Ohio at 19 weeks of development--even younger than Micah. Last May, she left the hospital with her family as a healthy 7-pound baby.

In 2016, baby Aharon was born at 20 weeks of development, becoming the youngest premature baby to survive in Israel. After 5 months of care at a hospital in Tel Aviv, he was able to go home, again, as a healthy baby.

In 2010, Frieda Mangold, who was born in Germany at just under 20 weeks of development, became Europe's youngest premature baby to survive. After receiving intensive care, she too was able to go home with her family as a happy 7-pound baby.

Babies have been on record as surviving birth after just 5 months of development for three decades now--three decades. What greater evidence do you need that at 5 months of development, an unborn child in every way is a child?

Despite the clear evidence of the humanity of these children, the United States is one of only seven countries in the world to allow abortions after 5 months of development. That means that while an overwhelming majority of the world recognizes and protects the humanity of these vulnerable children, the United States keeps the company of countries like China and North Korea. They deny unborn children the most basic of protections. This is not who we are as a nation.

It is time we listen to the scientific evidence, the men and women across America, and a majority of the rest of the world. There should be no disagreement when it comes to protecting the life of an unborn child who can feel pain and, as the inspiring stories of Micah Pickering and others show, survive outside of the womb. It is up to us to ensure these children have the chance to grow up and lead the happy, healthy lives that God has granted them.

As a mother and a grandmother, I am urging my colleagues to support the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, which recognizes these unborn babies as the children they are and provides them the same protection from pain and suffering that all of our children deserve.

For my dear little friend Micah, I would say: Yes, Micah, this is a baby, and we are glad to have you here.

God bless him.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to urge Senate Democratic leadership to end their reckless government shutdown.

It is no secret that over the years I have made clear that I don't like funding our Federal Government from one shortsighted, bandaid bill to another. We must establish a path forward to responsibly fund our government for the long term. It is the responsible and right thing to do for our military, for future generations, for our veterans, and for the American people.

But rather than finding a long-term funding solution to ensure stability in our military, the Senate Democratic leadership has decided to shut down the government. What does that mean for our military? Well, for starters, critical defense projects have come to a halt. We could also see delays in maintenance of our critical aircraft, ships, and weapons systems at a time when our adversaries are becoming more aggressive and more advanced. Our servicemembers, who put their lives on the line every day for our country, don't know when they will receive a paycheck.

I have an adviser right now who is deployed to the Middle East. I received an email from him this morning. He said: It is really hard for all of us here knowing that our government is shut down. But every day it is the same for us here in Afghanistan. We will do what we need to do.

God bless him for that.

Iowa National Guardsmen are deployed overseas right now. One of my former units, the 248th Aviation Support Battalion, is spread out through the Middle East, doing their mission while we struggle to find a way forward for them here in Washington, DC.

Military schools have been canceled. I spoke to an Active-Duty Army officer this morning. She was scheduled for her precommand course this weekend, and her orders were canceled. She told me: I will not be able to go to that precommand course before I deploy. She will head overseas not having had a vital course to instruct her on leadership in the military. The likelihood of her picking up that course again in the future is near zero--near zero.

Additionally, having served as a battalion commander in the Iowa Army National Guard during our last government shutdown, I can tell you that these shutdowns have a significant impact on our National Guardsmen. A shutdown prohibits our citizen soldiers from participating in drill and training exercises essential to our military readiness.

Our public affairs officer sent out this notice this morning from the Iowa National Guard. The headline:

Mr. President, I wish to thank my colleagues from Oklahoma and Missouri, and we will be joined shortly by the Senator from Montana as well.

I am rising today to discuss the importance of protecting and celebrating life.

As I travel across the State of Iowa, I have had the opportunity to hear directly from families whose lives have been changed by the innovative, life-affirming services offered by their local pregnancy resource center. There are so many more stories of vulnerable lives saved all across the country, not just in Iowa but all across the country.

I would like to begin by recognizing the critical, on-the-ground actions of these pregnancy resource centers, maternity homes, and adoption agencies across the country that are changing and saving lives. I want to thank them for all they do.

Since coming to Washington, I have tried to hold Congress accountable to do its part to protect the most vulnerable in our society. The Senator from Missouri has mentioned that we can measure a society, and ours is a great society, but we can do more to protect those who are vulnerable. For example, last January, I introduced legislation to defund Planned Parenthood while protecting women's healthcare centers. As I have stated time and again, taxpayers should not be forced to foot the bill for roughly half a billion dollars annually for an organization like Planned Parenthood that exhibits such disrespect for human life. Despite what they may claim otherwise, Planned Parenthood is not the Nation's preeminent provider of women's healthcare. For example, Planned Parenthood facilities don't even perform in-house mammograms. They don't do that. Community health centers, on the other hand, continue to greatly outnumber Planned Parenthoods. They provide greater preventive primary healthcare services, regardless of a person's ability to pay.

Additionally, last April, President Trump signed my legislation into law 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 Congresswoman Diane Black, a dear friend in the House; my Senate colleagues, who are with me here today; and President Trump to make sure States are not forced to award providers like Planned Parenthood with taxpayer dollars through title X family planning grants.

Another effort my colleagues and I continue to work on is passing Senator Graham's Pain-Capable Unborn Children Protection Act in the Senate. Whenever I discuss this bill, I cannot help but share the remarkable story of a very special family from Newton, IA.

In July 2012, Micah Pickering was born prematurely at just 20 weeks postfertilization--the very age at which this bill would prohibit abortions. When he was born, Micah was only--if you can imagine it-- about the size of a bag of M&Ms, about the size of the palm of my hand. Yet Micah was still a perfectly formed baby with 10 fingers and 10 toes.

When I first met Micah, he was just a few years old, and he came to visit me in my office. We had a photo of Micah when he was just born. Again, folks, he was the size of the palm of my hand, a little bag of M&Ms. I had that photo in my office. Little Micah ran up to that photo, and he pointed at it and said: Baby.

And we said: Yes, Micah, that is a baby. That is a baby.

Just a few months ago, I had the opportunity to visit again with Micah and his parents in my DC office. I can attest that now at 5 years old, Micah remains a happy, healthy, energetic little boy. Stories like Micah's show all of us that at 5 months, an unborn child is a child-- just as Micah would say--a baby.

There is also significant scientific evidence that at 5 months of development, these babies can feel pain. Yet there is no Federal law protecting these vulnerable babies from abortion. As a result, every year in our country, the lives of thousands of babies just like Micah end painfully through abortion. Currently, the United States is 1 of only 7 countries to allow abortions at 5 months of gestation. We are in the company of China and North Korea. Folks, this is unacceptable.

There is much work to be done in the ongoing fight to protect life. We understand that. As folks from across the country travel to Washington to ``March for Life'' this week, I am urging my colleagues to join me in calling for a vote on this critical legislation that recognizes these unborn babies as the children they are and provides them the same protection from pain and suffering that all of our children deserve--again, as Micah Pickering would say, ``a baby.''