Floor Statements

Madam President, I call up my amendment numbered 821 and ask that it be reported by number.

Madam President, the right to live by faith--any faith of our choosing or no faith at all, if we choose--is part of what defines us and allows us to live out our lives in dignity and respect. It is also what makes for a well-ordered society. It provides relief for those who are suffering.

Members of our communities, citizens of our country, were able to live out their lives with religious freedom prior to the pandemic. With the pandemic and the corresponding growth of government, we have seen some of those rights threatened and infringed.

I introduce this amendment for the simple purpose of making sure that we, as the Senate, have the ability to protect the religious freedom of all Americans, even when--especially when--government is growing as a result of a crisis.

I urge each of my colleagues to support this and, with it, freedom of religion.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent for 15 seconds to respond.

Madam President, there is absolutely nothing in this amendment and absolutely nothing about the suggestion that we ought to respect religious freedom that suggests what my friend and colleague from Illinois has just suggested.

It is offensive to the cause of religious freedom. It is contrary to the Supreme Court's ruling in Employment Division v. Smith and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. It is contrary to the Constitution for people to sue religious orders, forcing nuns to purchase contraceptive coverage.

I ask for the yeas and nays and demand a vote on religious freedom.

I call up my amendment No. 770 and ask that it be reported by number.

Mr. President, the Biden administration has taken early and sweeping steps to halt oil and gas leasing on Federal public lands. This, in addition to being dangerous to our Nation's energy security, also presents a very significant economic threat to the stability of communities, especially in public-land States like mine, where most of our energy is found, where their economies are going to be shut down.

This amendment would allow the budget numbers to reflect ongoing lease revenues that would go to the States and to the Federal Government. We need this, and I encourage my colleagues to support it.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 253 and ask that it be reported by number.

Mr. President, health savings accounts are good for the American people. They increase the availability that families have--the access that families have to healthcare. They make it more affordable, and they also bring about competition in healthcare, which tends to bring up quality and also bring down cost. That is good for everyone.

Now, the expansion of the use of health savings accounts could be encouraged by allowing any health insurance plan to be considered HSA eligible, by increasing the maximum HSA contributions, and by allowing for more preventive and health maintenance expenses to be covered, including the use of dietary supplements and nutritional supplements. This would not directly affect ObamaCare, and expanding HSAs would simply give Americans more opportunities and would bring down cost while increasing the quality of the healthcare they receive.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

I call for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, the whole point of American foreign aid is to assist countries in times of need and in support of a common interest between us and them. Yet, for many years, our foreign aid dollars have been used to impose violent, cultural imperialism by promoting and providing for the practice of abortion.

Tragically, instead of helping to preserve, strengthen, and sustain the lives of women and children abroad, our taxpayer dollars have been used to harm women's lives and to end the lives of their unborn children, especially baby girls.

In some of these countries, girls are disproportionately aborted, precisely because they are female. U.S. aid is used not to affirm the equal dignity of girls and women but to violently deny it. And in some of these countries, abortion has been forced on women who don't even want abortions--women in countries like Vietnam or Peru, for instance, who were forced to endure the coercive abortion and sterilization campaigns of the 1990s, just to name a few examples.

What kind of aid does violence to women and girls? What kind of help is it to impose U.S. abortion extremism on countries that culturally and democratically reject it or contribute to international organizations that allow regimes to use abortion as a tool of oppression? And what kind of progress is it to encourage sex-selective abortion and the denigration of human dignity for both the baby and the mother?

This cultural imperialism is not pro-woman. It is not pro-child. And it is not pro-healthcare. It is pro-sexism and pro-violence, and we must end it.

According to the latest Marist poll, the American people overwhelmingly agree. Nearly 60 percent of Americans oppose using tax dollars to pay for abortions, and more than 75 percent of Americans oppose using tax dollars to support abortions in other countries--75 percent.

Now, thankfully, President Ronald Reagan first took steps to reverse this kind of support in 1984, instituting what became known as the Mexico City policy to prohibit foreign aid from going to organizations that provide for or promote abortions or that advocate to change abortion laws within a foreign country.

Since then, the policy has, unfortunately, been rescinded and reinstated again and again between changing administrations. Between Republicans and Democrats, it has been moved as a sort of political football.

But the lives of babies and the dignity of women--these are not political footballs. Women and children everywhere have immeasurable, innate, inherent dignity and worth, regardless of where they are from, and they ought to be entitled to the right to life and protection from harm, regardless of who happens to be in office at any given moment.

The Protecting Life in Foreign Assistance Act affirms this very truth. This bill would permanently stop the use of our foreign aid money from funding or promoting abortions overseas.

I also defend the women and babies everywhere and value the women and babies everywhere by supporting two other measures introduced by my friends Senator Inhofe and Senator Blackburn. Senator Inhofe's bill, the Protecting Individuals with Down Syndrome Act, would affirm that disability does not determine or demean the dignity and worth of a human life. And Senator Blackburn's bill would ensure that taxpayer funds under the Title X Family Planning Program do not go to any facility that performs or provides referrals for abortions.

In our laws and throughout our lives, we ought to uphold the dignity of each and every human person, regardless of the race, sex, appearance, abilities, or age of the person in question. The measures before us today do just that, and we should support them.

And now I would like to yield time to my friend and distinguished colleague, the Senator from Montana.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be discharged from further consideration of S. 137 and that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration. I further ask that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Madam President, 75 percent of Americans, regardless of how they feel on other issues--I understand my colleagues take different positions on issues related to the sanctity of human life. I understand that. As much as I disagree with them, I respect that it is their right to hold that opinion.

This bill is about something much narrower, something upon which Americans--75 percent of them--overwhelmingly agree, and that is that we shouldn't be using U.S. foreign aid money to fund or promote abortions overseas.

If we can't accept that, it is terribly disappointing and would be news to most Americans.

Thank you, Madam President.

Madam President, I rise today to honor and thank the men and women of the Utah National Guard for their dedication and selfless service in protecting the U.S. Capitol. Each and every one of these guardsmen played an important role in our Nation's Capital these last weeks. I truly respect and admire their commitment to serve not just the people of Utah but wherever they are stationed.

2LT Hyrum Ahlman, CPL Halley Anderson, CPL Joseph Arvig,

SGT Ismael Baires, SPC Andrew Bass, PFC Marc Brandt, SSG

Trevor Brasfield, SFC Joshua Brewer, SSG David Brizzi, SFC

Michael Broadhead, SPC Jose Cabero, SFC Cole Carpenter, SGT

Sebastian Castillo, SPC Gregory Caton, MSG Steven Cave, SPC

Anthony Cox, SPC Casey Cox, SGT Milo Cox, SPC Joshua Curtis,

SGT Douglas Davis, SPC Palesala Faleseu, SGT Marc Flores, SPC

Nathanial Forbush, SGT Jose Garita, SSG Jason Gerfen, SPC

Austin Hafen, SGT Jesse Hall, 1LT Jordan Hatch, PFC Jaxson

Hess, SGT Kasey Hope, SGT James Huntsman, SPC Lance Irons,

SPC Matthew Jackson, SSG Jose Jimenez, SGT

Tyler Julander, SGT Jacob Kauffman, MAJ Taylor Knight, SPC

Ruben Loya, PFC Bryton Lunceford, 1LT Austin Maddox, SPC

James Mangrum, PFC Tyler Marshall, CPT Markus Martin, SPC

Chance McPhie, SPC Logan Mecham, SPC Craig Meservy, PFC Omar

Morales, SPC Caleb Mulder, SGT Tyson Nelson, SPC Kipp

Nielson, SSG Brett Nigbur, 2LT Matthew Ouderkirk, SPC Joseph

Overson, 1LT Stewart Oviedo, 1LT Henry Palma, SPC Kevin

Pareja, SPC Angel Penagamez, SPC Jaden Peterson, 2LT Misty

Peterson, lSG Shawn Peterson, SPC Levi Phippen, SPC Andres

Pintor, SPC Moses Purcell, SFC Jim Rasmussen, CPT Kyle

Rawlinson, SGT Kolby Rohwer, SGT Eric Saunders, SGT Shane

Scrivner, SPC Tyler Smith, CPT Leah Son, SGT Miguel Sosa, SPC

Skyler Staheli, SSG Dustin Steed, SPC Toriano Taulogo, SPC

Toren Terry, SPC Christian Trevino, SPC Brady Tullis, SPC

Ethan Walker, SGT Bo Welcker, SPC Thomas Wells, SPC Ashton

Wenkel, SPC Brandon Willden, WO1 Scott Wilson, LTC Cody

Workman, SGT Jorge Zavala, SSG Stephen Zitting, PFC Chaz

Alba, SGT Ben Alder, PFC Taylor Alger, PFC Skyler Allred, SSG

R Amidan, SFC Clinton Andersen, SGT Ethan Andersen.

SPC Anthony Anderson, LTC Clayton Anderson, SPC McClain

Anderson, SGM Rawlin Anderson, PFC Joey Angell, SPC Tyler

Ashman, CPT Cory Ashworth, SPC Maxwell Ayeliya, SGT Andrew

Baird, SGT Wesley Baker, SSG Matthew Barnes, SGT Trevor

Barney, SSG Michael Barrett, SFC Jay Bartholomew, SPC Justin

Barton, SPC Jayden Batt, PFC Zakary Baumgartner, CPT Jeffrey

Belnap, 2LT Dalan Bennett, SPC Alexander Beraja, SPC Justin

Best, SPC Megyn Bettridge, SGT Braxton Bird, SGT Andrew

Bissell, SGT Byron Bizardi, SPC Matthew Blair, CPT Benjamin

Bowler, SGT Brady Bradford, SSG Michael Bradford, SPC David

Bravo, SPC Benjamin Brinkerhoff, SPC Nathaniel Broadhead, SGT

Chasen Brown, SPC Jarren Brown, MAJ Michael Burgin, SSG

Brandon Burton, SPC Wendell Campbell, 1SG Kevin Chamberlain,

PFC Mario Chavez, SSG Brett Cheney, SSG Brett Christensen,

SPC Cody Christensen, SSG Jacob Christensen, SFC Jason

Christensen, SPC Konnor Christensen, SSG Jeffery Clement, SFC

Joshua Cluff, SGT Charles Coleman, SSG Ron Condie, SPC

Nicholas Contrys, SPC Clint Coombs, SSG David Covington, SSG

Jeffrey Cox, SPC Chad Crosby, 1LT Bryant Curtis, SPC Austin

Dalley, PFC Luke Dalling, SGT Jacen Daly, CW2 Jason Davis,

PFC Joshua Davis, SSG Randy Davis, SPC Tanner Davis, SGT

Esteban Dean, CPT David DeFriez, CPL Michael Deihl, SSG Orlas

DeMasters, SPC Ivan Draskovich, SSG Derek Drechsler, SPC Kyle

Dudley, SSG Stan Dutton, SGT Jordan Dye, SPC Joseph

Eckersley, SGT William Emmett, SSG Steven Esplin, SPC Boe

Evans, PV1 Savanna Evans, SPC Tamati Faoasau, SGT Brandon

Farr, SPC Kyle Fenn, SSG Jessica Ferre, PFC Manuel Figueroa

Ornelas, SPC Robert Fillmore, 2LT Samuel Findley, 1SG David

Foisy, SSG Jeremy Foisy, CPL Joshua Folston, PFC Joshua Ford,

SPC Cory Freeman.

PFC Shaiden Fullerton, SGT Thomas Fullmer, SGT Stetson

Gates, SPC Peter George, SPC Alice Giatras, SPC Preston

Godfrey, SPC Bret Goodwin, SPC Kimberly Gowans, SGT Elly

Granados, 2LT Samuel Grow, PFC Addison Grundy, MSG Charles

Gubler, SPC Gabriela Gustafson, SGT Jordan Hack, SPC Tyler

Haley, SPC Christopher Hall, PFC Reed Halliday, PFC Ammon

Halpin, SGT Dustin Hansen, SPC Jefferey Hanson, SGT Cody

Hare, SGT Nathan Harris, SGT Vincent Harris, SGT Derick

Hatch, 1LT Eric Heaps, SPC Jaden Heaton, SPC Jeremy Heino,

SGT Harvene Hernandez, SGT Justin Hickman, SGT Katie Hinds,

SFC David Hinton, SPC Joseph Hollinger, PFC Bronco Hollowell,

SPC Alexander Hooper, PFC Kareem Hopkins, SPC Garrett Hough,

SFC Whitney Houston, SPC Isaac Howard, SGT Zachry Hunt, SPC

Zachary Hutchings, SGT Austin Hutchins, SFC Michael Irons,

SSG Matthew Isom, SPC Alan Iverson, SPC Jared Iverson, SPC

Garrett Jackson, PFC Sean Jacobsen, 1LT Ethan Janson, SPC

Zachary Jarnagin, SGT Samuel Jefferson, 2LT Cabe Jensen, CW3

Lance Jensen, SGT Zachary Joens, SPC Dakota Johnson, SPC

Pauline Johnson, SPC Stephen Johnson, SPC Trevor Johnson, SGM

Garrad Johnston, SFC Bevin Jones, SSG Jeremy Jones, PFC Jared

Jorgensen, SFC Richard Jorgensen, SSG Matthew Kaldor, SGT

Ryan Kern, SGT Franklin Kimball, SSG Tyler Kinross, SGT Tyler

Knuckles, SPC Landon Koch, SPC Michael Krashowetz, SPC

Christian Kunz, SPC Devin Laird, SPC Jeremy Lambson, PFC

Colten Lang, SGT Jared Lanier, 1SG David Larsen, SPC Austin

Lauritzen, SPC Garrett Leo, SGT Kelby Lihme, SGT Alexander

Lilley, PFC Hayden Lloyd, 2LT Alfredo Lopezaquino, SPC Dalton

Lowry, SPC Hunter Lunt, SPC Miracle Maae, SPC Vincent

MacGuire, SSG Lance Mackelprang, SSG Scott Mackelprang, SPC

Ethen Malcolm, PFC Kevin Malles, MAJ William Mangum, SGT

Chandler Martineau, SGT Cory Maxfield, SPC Kelly Maynes, SPC

Rosten McArthur, 1LT Sky McMahon, 1SG Jason Mellor, SGT

Adriana Mendoza, SPC Wesley Mercier, SGT Carter Mitchell, SSG

Kaden Mitchell, PFC Tanner Morley, CPT Jedediah Morris, SSG

Addison Mull, PFC Migueal Munford, SPC Scott Munford, MAJ

Rylee Munns, CPT Kami Muramoto.

SPC Andrew Nelson, SPC Cobe Nelson, SPC Samuel Nettleton,

SSG Taylor Newman, SPC Nash Nicholson, SPC Dustin Nielson,

SPC Joseph Nordin, SGT Nevada Ocull, SPC Riley Ogden, CPL

Brandon Orr, PFC Cameron Orr, SGT Quentin Owen, SPC Riley

Owens, PFC Oscar Padilla Gonzalez, SPC Mailelaulii Pai, PFC

Gino Perez, SPC Noah Peterson, SPC Travis Peterson, SPC

Thomas Phillips, SPC John Pitcher, 1LT Nicholas Pope, PFC

Braden Poulsen, SGT Hayden Prisbrey, SFC Jimbob Quarnberg,

SGT Austin Reber, SGT John Reeder, SPC Antonio Reynolds, MAJ

Michael Rhinehart, SPC Chance Richwine, SFC Jan Rigby, SPC

Tanner Roberts, SPC Pierce Robertson, SPC Blake Robinson, SGT

Christopher Robinson, SPC Jayden Roden, SSG Dustin Rosenberg,

PFC Tyson Roundy, SGT Nicholas Rowley, SGT James Ruelle, SFC

Zackarie Sampson, PFC Dylan Sawyer, SGT Anna Sewell, PFC

Isaiah Sheeran, CSM Michael Sherratt, SSG Curtis Shumway, SFC

Dennis Shumway, SGT Drakkar Shumway, SPC Marshall Shumway,

SGT Logan Shurtz, SSG Charles Sims, SPC William Smedley, CPT

Brian Sorensen, SPC Jorge Soto, SPC Kyle Stewart, SGT Joshua

Stocks, SPC Payton Stott, SPC Parke Swapp, SPC Wesley Syrett,

SPC Brandon Taylor, SGT Tyler Terry, SPC Bryce Thamert, SSG

Anton Thomas, SPC Jeffrey Thomas, CPT Patrick Thompson, SGT

Sean Till, SPC Dalton Tippets, CPL Dylan Tisdale, SPC Ethan

Torok, PFC Miguel Toscano, SPC Alexandria Trevino, 1LT

Kimberlee Trower, PFC Joshua Turner, SPC Daniel Tuttle, SGT

David Underwood, SPC Jesus Valdiviezobalderrama, 1LT James

Vanotti, PV2 Thomas Veltkamp, SPC Caden Vermillion, SSG

Benjamin Virostko, PFC Anthony Visser, SSG Mitchell Vreeland,

PFC Briston Walker, SPC Eric Walker, SSG Stephen Wallingford,

SGT Jacob Warren, SPC Joseph Washington Florez, SPC Taylor

Watts, SPC Curtis Weatherwalk, SPC Nicholas Webster, CSM

Garrett Whatcott, CPT Bryan Whitaker, SGT Matthew Whitby, SGT

Taylor Whiting, SPC Benjamin Wilcox, SPC Jace Wilcox, SPC

Christian Williams, SPC Wyett Williams, SPC Tyler Wilson, SPC

Jaxson Womack, SPC Andrew Wood, 1LT Andrew Wood, SGT Haden

Wright, SGT Jacob Wright, SSG Zachary Wright, SPC Jared

Yamashita, SPC Ty Yardley, PCF Aspen Young-Labella.

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

Mr. President, some of our Nation's finest answered the call of duty here in our Nation's Capitol over the last 2 weeks to assist with the peaceful transition of power and make sure that it was in fact peaceful. These dedicated men and women in the National Guard have taken an oath to protect that bedrock document, the Constitution of the United States, and, indeed, they have fulfilled that duty.

Some of our very finest in the National Guard came here to serve from my home State of Utah; 321 troops that have discharged their duties with distinction and honor came from the Utah National Guard.

The majority of Task Force Utah consisted of soldiers from the 2nd Battalion, 222nd Field Artillery, 65th Fires Brigade, also known as Triple Deuce. Additional soldiers came from 204th Maneuver Enhancement Brigade and the 19th Special Forces Group (Airborne).

I rise today to honor and thank these really selfless women and men. These past weeks, the Utah guardsmen were stationed at the Madison Building of the Library of Congress, just across the street from the Capitol. For many of these soldiers, it was their first time ever visiting Washington, D.C.

Major Brent Mangum of the Utah National Guard remarked that as the soldiers were stationed at buildings, they saw these quotes on the walls--quotes from our Founding Fathers--and as they were working in these buildings, you could see them pausing during the day, reading the quotes, and then stopping to reflect on them.

I, myself, had the great privilege, in a couple of different groups, to give some of these men and women a tour of the Capitol Building before they left to go back to Utah. It was a great honor to meet and get to know these dedicated guardsmen and to learn from their stories and to see firsthand their caliber as people and, most importantly perhaps, their visible commitment to the United States of America.

This idea, this principle, in this great land of ours--the greatest civilization human history has ever known--was something that they are independently committed to defending and protecting, even at the sacrifice of their own security and their own ease, which they would have otherwise enjoyed over the last couple of weeks.

One of the most remarkable things about these citizen soldiers is the way in which they tirelessly serve their communities, and I say that meaning both inside and outside of their Guard duty.

My Salt Lake City office was lucky enough to have one of these fine young soldiers, Alfredo Lopez, as an intern a few years ago.

Alfredo immigrated with his family from Peru at the age of 10, and they began to build a life here in the United States. In addition to serving the people of Utah in my State office, he also was on Active Duty with the Marine Corps before he joined the National Guard. Alfredo, in all of his endeavors in our country, has sought only to give back. He is grateful for this country and wants to make sure it is a strong, safe, and secure place in which to live.

Another guardsman who was here, Jay Bartholomew, is a prison guard at the Gunnison prison in Sanpete County, UT. He is the son of my friend Scott Bartholomew, a county commissioner in Sanpete County. Jay has followed in his family's footsteps to serve his local community.

Other guardsmen in Utah are engaged in their communities in all sorts of ways. Some are teachers, some are firefighters, some are policemen, and some are medical professionals. You name it; they have done it.

Many have now answered the call of duty on the frontlines of another crisis as our Nation faces the current pandemic. These guardsmen have played a significant role in providing testing, moving and storing personal protective equipment, and other support missions to assist Utah's Department of Health COVID-19 response.

Now, Utah Governor Spencer Cox has entrusted them with another critical mission. The Guard will be on the frontlines to help ramp up the delivery of vaccines to our State. The Guard has put together teams that can mobilize throughout Utah to deliver vaccinations and antibody infusions within a matter of hours and save a whole lot of lives and prevent a whole lot of suffering in the process.

I have no doubt that they will continue to administer this duty with dedication and with excellence, just as they do with every other assignment with which they are tasked. In everything they do, members of the Utah National Guard seek to serve and strengthen our communities, our country, and our State, and we are all better off for it.

It has been such an honor to have these selfless men and women in our Nation's Capitol. I have enjoyed getting to know them and look forward to visiting again with them soon, and I thank them for their service

Now, Mr. President, I would like to discuss another important matter. This past week, we marked the anniversary of a deadly day in American history. It has resulted in the loss of millions of innocent American lives. That is the anniversary of Roe v. Wade.

Since January 22, 1973, more than 60 million unborn children have been lost to the scourge of abortion. This week, we honor and remember those lives, as well as those who have been hurt by the pains of abortion.

In a normal year, tens of thousands of Americans would be marching down Constitution Avenue this Friday to do so. This year, as with so many other things, the March for Life will instead be virtual. But, nonetheless, Americans will continue to march, whether virtually or in person where they can.

The theme of this year's march is ``Together Strong: Life Unites!''-- a fitting theme following a year ripe with division, violence, and loss. Now, more than ever, we must unite as a nation, turning with hope toward the future--hope that our Nation will heal, hope that justice will prevail, and hope that the grievous act of abortion will be forsaken. Given our country's history, in which we have stubbornly made mistakes but, thankfully, have come around in the end, there is much reason for hope. But we cannot heal and we cannot unite if we don't honor and respect all of the American people, born and unborn.

So many of the deepest injustices in our country's history stem from one dark dangerous thing; that is, when we have rejected the dignity of the human person, when we have denied the humanity of our brothers and sisters, when we have discriminated against others based on the way they look, think, love, or worship, and when, because of that, we have looked at them not as people but as things and as mere objects to be acted upon.

As abolitionist William Lord Garrison put it, the worst kind of oppression to be regarded with the greatest degree of indignation and abhorrence is ``that which turns a man into a thing.''

Now, we have discriminated against a whole class of people not based on the color of their skin but on their age and development.

But it doesn't change the truth. The truth is that a baby inside the womb can respond to human touch by the age of 8 weeks and feel pain by the age of 20 weeks--who can recognize her mother's voice even before she is born; who has a perfect little nose, fingernails, and a beating, fully functioning heart, her own distinct unique DNA, and her own unique unrepeatable soul.

Science and medicine are only confirming what we know deep down, that unborn human beings are in fact little

persons. The evidence is only getting plainer by the day.

When we deny the humanity of our brothers and sisters, as we have seen throughout our history and over the past year, the inevitable and tragic result is violence. Abortion does undeniable violence to the baby and undeniable violence to the mother. Thankfully, looking back at the past decade, we have made significant strides toward building a culture that respects, values, and even protects all human life, even in its simplest, earliest stages of development.

Many States have ensured that public funds are directed toward pregnancy health centers, rather than abortion facilities, providing life-affirming alternatives to families in need. And in just the last decade alone, States have passed more than 400 pro-life laws--more than one-third of all pro-life laws that States have passed since Roe v. Wade was decided. This is indeed reason for hope.

Through our laws and with our lives, we ought to affirm the truth that the lives of both the mother and the baby matter and that healthcare should heal, protect, and preserve both of those lives.

I have introduced legislation to help our laws affirm that very truth. Through my bill, the Abortion Is Not Healthcare Act, we have a chance to stop the tax deductibility of abortions, which are currently categorized as ``medical care'' by the IRS, because we must be serious: Whatever else it may be, of course, elective abortion is not healthcare. That is why physicians literally take an oath to do no harm. The government should not offer tax benefits for a procedure that kills hundreds of thousands of unborn children each and every year.

We also have the chance to prematurely stop the use of American foreign aid--the opportunity permanently to stop the use of American foreign aid--from funding or promoting abortions overseas and perpetuating violence against women and of children abroad, especially baby girls.

The Protecting Life in Foreign Assistance Act will save countless lives across the globe, and it affirms the truth that the lives of all unborn children, regardless of where they are from, have dignity and worth.

As the lyrics of a children's song in my church--a song that I sang in Sunday school as a child--say about each one of us, I am a child of God. We are all one human family, all children of God--these littlest among us, too, who cannot yet sing for themselves, but they will soon. They will soon.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. Vice President, from the time I prepared my remarks for today, it seems like a lifetime ago. A lot has changed in the last few hours. So I am going to deliver some of the same remarks, but it has a little bit of a different feel than it would have just a few hours ago.

My thoughts and prayers go out to the family members of those who have been injured or killed today. My heartfelt gratitude goes out to the Capitol Hill Police who valiantly defended our building and our lives.

While it is true that legitimate concerns have been raised with regard to how some of the key battleground States conducted their Presidential elections, this is not the end of the story. We each have to remember that we swore an oath to uphold, protect, and defend this document, written nearly two and a half centuries ago by wise men raised up by God for that very purpose. That document makes clear what our role is and what it isn't. It makes clear who does what when it comes to deciding Presidential elections.

You see, because in our system of government, Presidents are not directly elected. They are chosen by Presidential electors, and the Constitution makes very clear, under article II, section 1, that the States shall appoint Presidential electors according to procedures that their legislatures develop. Then comes the 12th Amendment. It explains what we are doing here today in the Capitol. It explains that the President of the Senate--the Vice President of the United States--shall open the ballots, ``and the votes shall then be counted.'' It is those words that confine, define, and constrain every scrap of authority that we have in this process.

Our job is to open and then count. Open, then count--that is it. That is all there is.

There are, of course, rare instances--instances in which multiple slates of electors can be submitted by the same State. That doesn't happen very often. It happened in 1960. It happened in 1876. Let's hope it doesn't ever happen again. In those rare moments, Congress has to make a choice. It has to decide which of the electoral votes will be counted and which will not. That did not happen here--thank heavens-- and let's hope that it never does.

Many of my colleagues have raised objections or had previously stated their intent to raise objections with regard to these. I have spent an enormous time on this issue over the last few weeks. I have met with lawyers on both sides of the issue, and I have met with lawyers representing the Trump campaign, reading everything I can find about the constitutional provisions in question, and I have spent a lot of time on the phone with legislators and other leaders from the contested States. I didn't initially declare my position because I didn't yet have one.

I wanted to get the facts first, and I wanted to understand what was happening. I wanted to give the people serving in government in the contested States the opportunity to do whatever they felt they needed to do to make sure that their election was properly reflected. I spent an enormous amount of time reaching out to State government officials in those States, but in none of the contested States--no, not even one--did I discover any indication that there was any chance that any State legislature or secretary of state or Governor or Lieutenant Governor had any intention to alter the slate of electors. That being the case, our job is a very simple one.

This simply isn't how our Federal system is supposed to work. That is to say, if you have concerns with the way that an election in the Presidential race was handled in your State, the appropriate response is to approach your State legislatures, first and foremost.

These protests--hearing from those who have raised concerns--should have been focused on their State capitols, not the Nation's Capitol, because our role is narrow, our role is defined, our role is limited.

Yes, we are the election judges when it comes to Members elected to our own body. And, yes, the House of Representatives are the judges of their own races there.

We also have the authority to prescribe, as a Congress, rules governing the time, place, and manner of elections for Senators and Representatives. There is no corresponding authority with respect to Presidential elections--none whatsoever. It doesn't exist. Our job is to convene, to open the ballots, and to count them. That is it.

Thank you.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act, an important and bipartisan piece of legislation on which I have been a proud sponsor and on which I have been proud to work with Senator Harris to bring this bill to fruition.

It has been many years in the making, and I am pleased to stand behind this legislation and to push it forward. There is no question that immigration is one of the most important and also politically fraught and politically charged issues in front of Congress right now. More often than not, we can't even seem to agree on what the problems in our immigration system are, let alone come to an agreement about how best to solve them.

That makes it all the more important for us at least to come together to get something done in those areas where we can find common ground and do so across party lines on issues that are neither Republican or Democratic, neither liberal or conservative, but that are simply American issues that are central to who we are.

We are great as a country not because of who we are but because of what we do, because of the fact that we choose freedom, we choose to be welcoming, and we choose to be that shining city on the hill, where anyone can come into this country, be born or immigrate into this country as a poor person, and hope and have the reasonable expectation that one day, if they work hard and play by the rules, they might have the opportunity to retire comfortably, in some cases wealthy.

We have to find common ground in these areas. The Fairness for High- Skilled Immigrants Act is an important point of common ground.

Employment-based immigration visas--the one significant area of our immigration system based on skills and based on merit--are currently issued in accordance with rigid, arbitrary, antiquated, and outdated per-country quotas. This means that in a given year, immigrants from any one given country cannot, in most cases, be given more than 7 percent of the total number of visas allocated. As a result of this, immigrants from nations with large populations have significantly longer wait times to get a green card than do immigrants from smaller countries. In some cases, they could be stuck in a backlog of green card petitions for decades.

This makes no sense. This is arbitrary. It is capricious. It is unfair. It is un-American. It is not what we do. This is one of the many features of our Buddy Holly/Elvis Presley-era immigration code that are outdated and that need to be cast into the dustbin of history. These per-country visa caps cause serious problems for good people, for American businesses and American workers alike, and they cause unfair, undue, and immense hardship for the immigrants who happen to be unfortunate enough to be stuck in that very backlog.

While employment-based green cards are supposed to go to immigrants with high skills who will help grow the American economy, the per- country caps distort this system by causing some immigrants to wait years before receiving a green card for a reason that may be totally unrelated and generally is completely detached from their qualifications. This undermines our ability to bring the best and the brightest individuals to our country. It is to our harm, and it is to our own shame.

Further, the per-country caps force the immigrants that are stuck in this backlog--95 percent of whom are already inside the United States-- to make the difficult choice between, on the one hand, staying in America and waiting decades for a green card, or on the other hand, leaving and taking their talents to a country that provides a fairer process for allocating legal immigrant status as a worker.

Worse still, because individuals in the green card backlog can only sponsor temporary visas for their children while these children are younger than 21, the per-country caps force families to choose between separating and sending their children back to their country of origin as they age out of their visas while their parents keep waiting in the United States for their own opportunity to receive a green card or giving up entirely on their dreams of becoming lawful permanent residents within the United States of America. In many cases, these are children who legally immigrated with their parents and did so at an early age and who have come to call America their home, adopting our customs, our language, our ways of life, having been educated here and socialized here.

Because immigrants in the backlog are also severely limited in their ability to change jobs, the per-country caps often force them to work under conditions that other employees would justifiably and understandably find completely unacceptable. This exposes these immigrants to harassment, exploitation, and abuse, without any option of switching employers. What is more, because these employees can't switch jobs, they have less power to negotiate fair salaries, which depresses wages not only for these immigrant workers themselves but also for their colleagues, whether or not they are American citizens.

Fortunately, the solution to these problems is not only straightforward but agreed upon by a broad, bipartisan coalition of lawmakers. We must eliminate the per-country caps to ensure a fair and reasonable allocation of employment-based green cards. That is exactly what the Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act would accomplish, and that is exactly what this bill is all about.

Without the per-country caps, our skills-based green card system would operate on a first-come, first-serve basis, ensuring that immigrants are admitted into the United States purely based on merit rather than on the arbitrary, outdated, unreasonable basis of their country of origin. This, after all, is what the American dream has often been about. It is about who we are as a people rather than where our parents came from, who they were, what they looked like, and what language they might have spoken.

This reform would also ensure that the hardships caused by decades- long wait times would be eliminated.

Importantly, the Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act also contains critical safeguards to ensure that the transition from the per-country cap system to a first-come, first-served system would occur smoothly and without unduly disrupting existing immigration flows. Specifically, this bill includes a 3-year set-aside of green cards for immigrants who are not in the backlog to ensure that they can continue to enter the country as we process backlog petitions.

In addition, the bill contains an important ``do no harm'' provision to make certain that green card applicants who are at the front of the line now will stay at the front of the line and not be faced with new delays as we work through the backlog during this transition process. These provisions will ensure that we are truly treating all immigrants in the employment-based system fairly.

For many years, this critical legislation was stalled because of the concerns of some Members that any reform to the employment-based visa system should be accompanied by new protections against fraud and abuse in the H-1B program. To address those concerns this Congress, I negotiated an amendment to the Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act with Senator Grassley to include new protections for American workers in how we process applications for H-1B visas.

This amendment negotiated with Senator Grassley does three things: First, the Grassley amendment would strengthen the Department of Labor's ability to investigate and enforce labor condition application requirements. In addition, it would reform the labor condition application process to ensure complete and adequate disclosure of information regarding the employer's H-1B hiring practices. Finally, it would close loopholes by which employers could otherwise circumvent the annual cap on H-1B workers.

Importantly, the Grassley amendment--like the underlying bill itself--consists of provisions that have long enjoyed support from Members of this body on both sides of the aisle and from every point along the ideological spectrum. They are drawn from an H-1B reform bill that has been championed both by Senator Grassley and by Senator Durbin.

I am grateful that Senator Grassley was willing to come to the table and work in good faith on achieving a reasonable compromise on this bill. I believe the deal we have struck is a fair and evenhanded way to address longstanding concerns about our H-1B system while eliminating country-of-origin discrimination in how we allocate skills-based green cards.

The reason the Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act enjoys such broad, solemn, deep, and unwavering bipartisan support is because it does not include any of the typical partisan poison pills and other controversial provisions that so often undermine and in many cases doom other immigration reform efforts. This is a narrow, surgical reform-- one that is necessary, one that is palatable, and one that is long overdue.

I would like to conclude by thanking Senator Harris, who has been an indefatigable partner with me on this bill. I have been proud to work side by side with her to eliminate the country-of-origin discrimination and bring about a system of fairness in how we allocate employment- based green cards.

This is an important and, indeed, essential reform to our immigration laws and one that has been a long time coming.

Mr. President, I therefore ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of S. 386 and that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration. I ask unanimous consent that the Grassley amendment at the desk be agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I approach with great sadness and disappointment the response just brought about by my distinguished colleague, my friend, the junior Senator from Kentucky. I have a great deal of respect for him. The fact that he and I have worked on so many issues side by side together in order to improve government makes this not easier but makes it more difficult.

The reforms to which my distinguished colleague, the junior Senator from Kentucky, refers are themselves born of a genuine desire to improve our immigration system. But, alas, the reforms he has proposed are not, in my view, compatible with the scope of this bill, nor are they compatible with something that can reasonably pass through this body. That is one of the reasons I have introduced the legislation as I have.

I worked on this nearly the entirety of the 8\1/2\ half years I have had the opportunity and great privilege to serve the people of Utah in the Senate. This is by far the closest we have ever come to having a deal, and we achieved that deal by keeping this bill focused on the very things this legislation deals with.

The suggestions that Senator Paul has made, while born of great concern for our country and a noble degree of commitment to serving the people of his State, are not themselves compatible with the scope of this legislation, nor are they compatible with what would likely be passed by this body.

We have an opportunity right now to pass this. This could pass this body right now. I find it greatly disappointing that my colleague and my friend has chosen not to allow this to pass this body today. This is something that could and should and otherwise would pass this body today without that objection.

I would respectfully but with all the urgency I am capable of communicating implore my colleague, the distinguished Senator from Kentucky, to reconsider his objection and allow this to pass.

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, it is one of Congress's main duties-- arguably, its single most important duty--to provide for the common defense of our great country. That sometimes means and necessarily entails providing additional funds for unforeseen costs and emergencies in times of war. Troops might run out of equipment or munitions or might need to be transported through war zones, and it is of the utmost importance that they have what they need and that they can get where they need to go to fight for our country and to protect us against our most pressing and dangerous threats.

In the past, Congress provided emergency supplemental funding to take care of precisely these costs. If it didn't appropriate enough to begin with or if some of these unforeseen costs arose, perhaps in excess of what Congress had already planned for, Congress would fill the gap and would make adjustments to the following year's base budget to account for them. In other words, Congress was doing its job, and it was doing its job in a thoughtful manner--one that was fiscally responsible and one that acknowledged Congress's constitutional role as a lawmaking body and the body responsible for funding war operations and declaring war.

But after the September 11 attacks, something seemed to change. In 2001, the Bush administration created a fund called the Global War on Terrorism account, sometimes known operatively as GWOT, separate from the base budget. From then on, what was once emergency spending for warfighting gaps became a general fund that Congress has used for military spending and primarily for operations in the Middle East. Year after year, Congress has anticipated this very type of spending, and year after year it has failed to integrate that anticipated spending into the baseline budget.

When the Obama administration took over, it changed the name from GWOT to Overseas Contingency Operations, or OCO. This is an account that was newly created in that administration, but the Obama administration left the fundamental practice of GWOT in place. This was GWOT by a different name.

When the Budget Control Act was passed in 2011, President Obama requested OCO to be exempted from its defense spending limits. That practice has continued to this day, such that these funds are still exempt from those limits.

What has been the result of this trajectory? Well, OCO has morphed into an unaccountable slush fund for the Pentagon, insulated from scrutiny and certainly unchecked by budget spending caps. It is no longer funds that are provided for unforeseen expenses, and no one here really pretends otherwise.

Instead, administrations from both parties have continued to ask for billions of these dollars each year, completely outside the budget process, for what really are predictable, ongoing activities in the Middle East and elsewhere. And Congress has continually enabled them, perpetuating this broken, unaccountable system of budgeting and spending.

Since 2001, Congress has appropriated about $2 trillion in total for these funds, accounting for 17 percent of defense spending during that time period, with each dollar adding to our rising and, indeed, staggering debt of $22 trillion. This is not responsible budgeting, oversight, or governance, and it must not continue.

In addition to mending this broken, irresponsible method of financing, it is far past time that we reassess the operations toward which this money is going.

We have now been in Afghanistan for 18 years, and we have now been in Iraq for 16 years. We have deposed Saddam Hussein, and we have killed Osama bin Laden. We have accomplished much of what we set out to do, but we have also been pulled into nation building in countries thousands of miles away, causing serious harm to those countries and our own credibility in the process. Yet these wars drag on and on, with no end in sight.

Unfortunately, the bill before us, the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2020, maintains the broken status quo for OCO, authorizing yet another $75 billion--a $7 billion increase from last year. It perpetuates the misguided strategy we have been undertaking in the Middle East since the beginning of the wars in Afghanistan and in Iraq.

It continues funding--in dollars and weapons and with people-- missions that have no clear end goal for problems that were never ours in the first place. For example, it authorizes almost $5 billion for the Afghanistan Security Forces Fund, and it calls for a stabilization strategy in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Somalia, Yemen, and Libya. But in addition to these dubious nation-building investments that lack an overall strategy--at least an overall strategy communicated to the American people that tells them how these operations will make them safer--there is still a deeper problem. Congress never authorized military engagement in four out of six of these countries to begin with.

Article I, section 8 of the Constitution unequivocally states that Congress shall have the power to declare war--Congress, not the President, not the Pentagon, and not someone else in the executive branch, but Congress. Regardless of whether engagement in a particular country may or may not be a worthy foreign policy goal, we cannot escape this point.

The Founders could not have been clearer. The executive branch must have authorization from Congress to go to war. This was understood at the time of the founding. It was written into Federalist 69, in which Alexander Hamilton explained that this is one of the distinguishing characteristics between our system and the system from which we broke away--from London-based national government headed by a King, a King who had the authority to start a war on his own without consulting his Parliament. Our system was to be different, so they put the power to declare war in Congress.

Why? Well, because it is the branch of government most accountable to the people at the most regular intervals through elections. They did it this way and designed it this way precisely because they understood what is at stake when we go to war. It is not only our precious financial resources on the line but our most precious human resources-- the brave men and women who are willing to lay down their lives when we go to war.

So they intended these decisions to be debated and discussed and considered with utmost deliberation and consideration in front of the American people by their elected, accountable representatives.

For these same reasons, it is as much Congress's duty to take an active role

in prudently overseeing the operations that it has authorized and denying funds to those it has not. Unfortunately, this National Defense Authorization Act largely falls short here too. First, instead of perpetuating these seemingly indefinite wars, it ought to actively prepare a strategy to phase out our engagement in the Middle East, particularly for authorizations of force that have lasted for almost 20 years. Second, for any remaining authorizations, it ought to aim for using our resources and our personnel in a way that is far more efficient than the status quo.

Meanwhile, the world has not been static since we began the war on terror. Our country is facing new threats. The national defense strategy laid out by President Trump and the administration does refocus our efforts on stemming the threats posed by Russia and China, and this NDAA does reflect some of that strategy by addressing some of our most immediate needs to counter them.

For instance, it reaffirms defense commitments in the Indo-Pacific and in the Baltic States, as well as information gathering on technical and nuclear capabilities that can be found in both countries. It also prioritizes the Arctic region, which both Russia and China are seeking to leverage.

But there are other threats this NDAA fails to address; namely, our threats in the Western Hemisphere. In fact, it lacks a comprehensive defense strategy or plan for the Western Hemisphere entirely. It is by no means prudent to ignore our neighbors to the south, especially given the rampant instability throughout the region, including that caused by the Maduro regime in Venezuela. Indeed, if we fail to secure our borders from the immediate threats we face in the Western Hemisphere, it could become impossible to truly provide for our Nation's common defense.

We ought to reject the status quo and reject the failures evident in this bill and the process that brings it to us. What we should be doing is drawing down our OCO account and integrating this spending into the $642.5 billion baseline defense budget. We should be having a real debate on whether we should continue to be entrenched in the Middle East, and we should be adjusting our defense strategy and the dollars behind that defense strategy to address the most pressing threats we face today.

These matters are some of the most important decisions we will ever be called upon to make in this body as Senators, as officers within the legislative branch of government who are sworn to uphold, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. We should take the time to get these things right. They merit debate over the course of months, not simply days or weeks, and they merit not just the participation of the Armed Services Committee members but the active participation and the utmost care and diligence of all 535 Members of Congress, who themselves have taken an oath to uphold, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.

It is about time that Congress exercise its most solemn duty of prudently budgeting and strategizing to protect the American people. Providing for the common defense requires nothing less.

I yield the floor.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, President Trump was famous for many things even before he was elected. One of those things was the catch-phrase ``You're fired,'' which he popularized on his reality TV show ``The Apprentice.''

This is a relatively commonplace phrase. It is something that most persons are familiar with, but it is not surprising that the phrase would have so much appeal for a television audience. I think the reason has something to do with the fact that it carries a certain power and resonance with it because the person who has the authority to use it within any organization is, generally speaking, a person who gets to call the shots. It is emblematic of executive control and, therefore, the ability to get things done within an organization.

That is not to say that good leaders get their way solely or even primarily by threatening to fire people who work for them. Effective leadership, more often than not, requires what are sometimes called soft leadership skills.

But the fact, nonetheless, remains that the head of an organization must always have hanging in reserve, sort of like an employer Damoclean sword--the absolute right to terminate a subordinate.

It is the ultimate and essential backstop that enforces and reifies an executive's power to make decisions. This is true for pretty much any leader, whether that leader happens to be the CEO of a corporation, the coach of a sports team, or a general out on the field of battle.

Yet, remarkably, under our laws, the President of the United States lacks authority over many high-ranking officers within the executive branch. Despite its elemental association with Executive power, Congress and the courts have time and again deprived the President of the ability to remove his subordinates at will.

These restrictions often take the form of statutory for-cause removal

protections, such as the provision of the Federal Trade Commission Act that provides that Commissioners may be removed only ``for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.''

In enacting laws like this, Congress has cast aside the original meaning of the Constitution and thereby eroded a critical safeguard of American freedom. As anyone who has studied the Constitution or constitutional law, for that matter, can guess, my reference to the FTC's for-cause protection is not accidental.

That statute formed the basis of the lawsuit that culminated in the 1935 decision by the Supreme Court in a case called Humphrey's Executor, in which the Supreme Court held for the first time that Congress may impose restrictions on the President's removal power.

In so holding, the Supreme Court overruled its earlier precedent in Myers v. United States, which had held that Congress may not limit the President's ability to remove principal officers within the Federal Government, but Humphrey's Executor didn't simply overrule Myers. Rather, as Justice Scalia later wrote, ``it gutt[ed], in six quick pages devoid of textual or historical precedent. . . . a carefully researched and reasoned 70-page opinion.'' That juxtaposition alone tells you what you need to know about these decisions. One had constitutional text and original understanding and historical precedent behind it. The other was constitutional law by judicial fiat.

Article II of the Constitution unquestionably establishes a unitary executive. The vesting clause provides that ``the executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.''

As Alexander Hamilton explained it in Federalist No. 70, placing the totality of the Executive power in a single individual was no happenstance. It was no mistake. It wasn't just sort of some fluke. The delegates to the Constitutional Convention recognized that a unified executive was essential to ensure energy and accountability in the execution of the laws, and the Constitution was drafted accordingly, consistent with this understanding.

Without the authority to supervise and direct, and, yes, ultimately fire his subordinates, it is impossible for the President to fulfill his duty imposed by article II to ``take care that the laws be faithfully executed.''

The Founders also understood that the President's removal power was the bedrock of his authority to oversee the executive branch. In a famous debate during the First Congress, James Madison argued that ``if any power whatsoever is in its nature Executive, it is the power of appointing, overseeing, and controlling those who execute the laws.''

He went on to note that ``if the President should possess alone the power of removal from office, those who are employed in the execution of the law will be in their proper situation, and the chain of dependence be preserved; [they] will depend, as they ought, on the President, and the President on the community.''

Madison's argument prevailed, and the First Congress declined, on constitutional grounds, for the reasons articulated by James Madison himself, to create for-cause removal protections for the heads of the newly established executive branch departments. They considered it; Madison raised, very persuasively, this constitutional argument against it; and then they voted it down. That was the original understanding of the removal power, and it predominated for nearly 150 years after the Founding.

Since Humphrey's Executor and its radical departure from the original understanding in 1935, for-cause removal protections, both statutory and otherwise, have, sadly, proliferated, giving rise to a vast, headless, out-of-control branch of government, a fourth branch of government, if you will, that exists beyond the control of the President and is therefore unaccountable to the people.

In fact, by some estimations, there are over 80 so-called independent agencies within the executive branch. These executive branch agencies that we refer to somehow as independent are entrusted with regulating immense swaths of American life--from competition policy and workplace safety regulations to labor relations and even securities laws. They make rules; they adjudicate rights; and they enforce laws. The potential for abuse is tremendous; the inconsistency with the republican principles this country was founded on, obvious.

Now, there are a lot of people here who like the sound of the term ``independent agency,'' and they might suppose, incorrectly, that an agency that is independent, that is beyond the control of the President of the United States to oversee, that that is somehow a good thing.

On closer inspection, we discover that quite the opposite is true. When we insulate someone from Presidential oversight, what we are doing is taking the American people out of the picture. There is a reason why we have elections every 4 years, and those elections focus on the election of a President. It is so there is some chain of accountability between the people and the executive branch of government.

That has become more important, not less, over the last few decades as we have created more and more executive branch agencies and we have entrusted those agencies with more and more power. It has never been more important than it is today to make sure the people are connected. If you disconnect the American people by insulating them from the political process, then you have a whole group of people who these days are charged not just with administrating the laws but, in some cases, with effectively making it and interpreting it, and you are taking them beyond the supervision that would otherwise be appropriate by the President of the United States within the executive branch of government.

In their fight against British tyranny, the Patriots of the American Revolution rallied behind the principle of ``no taxation without representation.'' Today we are faced with a somewhat different threat to freedom, as Chief Justice Roberts wrote in a case just a few years ago. ``The growth of the Executive Branch, which now wields vast power and touches almost every aspect of daily life, heightens the concern that it may slip from the Executive's control, and thus from that of the people.''

In other words, as Chief Justice Roberts explained, when you take this power away from the President, you are taking it away from the people. The people lose their input on and their control over these very important functions of what is appropriately described as the people's government.

The concern is further compounded by the existence of independent agencies that are, by law, divorced from any Presidential control. As a result, in this new fight against tyranny, our watchword perhaps must be ``no regulation without representation.'' That is why I have spearheaded the Article I Project and why I supported legislation such as the REINS Act and the Separation of Powers Restoration Act that would bring the Federal regulatory apparatus, as we know it, to heel.

Of course, more is needed. We need to not only reform Congress's relationship with the administrative state but the President's as well. To that end, I am introducing new legislation called the Take Care Act. The bill would restore the unitary executive envisioned by the Founders and, in fact, required by the Constitution by stripping away all existing for-cause removal protections from the so-called independent agencies. It would also limit Congress's ability to create for-cause protections by implication in the future and take other critical steps to fortify the President's directive authority.

Simply put, the Take Care Act would eliminate the headless fourth branch of government, empower the President to ensure faithful execution of the law, and make the bureaucracy accountable to the people again. Importantly, the Take Care Act would not cause the work of administrative agencies to become subject to the unmitigated whims and caprices of a President. There is still very real, very meaningful political constraints, including the Senate's advise and consent role, that would ensure, as they do now, in areas outside of these so-called independent agencies, that the executive officers can fulfill their congressionally assigned duties without undue interference.

In other words, although there are some so-called independent agencies as to which the President has no removal

power, there are a whole lot that are not. The President's Cabinet and many other positions within the Federal Government involve people who are appointed by the President, confirmed by the Senate, and who serve at the pleasure of the President who can be fired at any moment for any reason the President might deem appropriate.

Nevertheless, that does not mean that Presidents go around just firing people arbitrarily because Presidents understand that there is a political cost to doing that. We have seen in recent years, and we have seen earlier in American history, how Presidents, even when they have disagreements with members of their Cabinet or other people who serve at the pleasure of the President--Presidents are still reluctant to fire people because there are political costs attached to that, and especially where Congress perceives there might be a partisan political motive in mind, Congress may well take action.

In the case of the Senate, it almost inevitably will at least threaten, if not carry out the threat, to hold up future confirmations of Presidential appointees if Presidents abuse this power.

So it simply isn't true to say that this would open the floodgates and cause all Presidents to just fire people arbitrarily without hesitation in the future. What it would mean is that our elected President would have the power to represent the people and to oversee the executive branch of the Federal Government just as article II already requires.

So all this bill would do would be to rescind and limit unconstitutional restrictions on the President's removal power, and while it may be more convenient to limit this power by statute, convenience and efficiency are not the primary objectives or the hallmarks of a democratic government, as the Supreme Court has repeatedly reminded us.

Another famous catchphrase popularized by an American President is ``the buck stops here,'' which President Truman, of course, displayed on a placard on his desk in the Oval Office at the White House during his Presidency. What it means is, the President is the final decision maker within the executive branch, and, therefore, bears the sole and ultimate responsibility for executing the laws.

In order to fulfill that very special, sacred, important responsibility, the President must have plenary power to direct the President's subordinates in how they carry out their assigned tasks and, if necessary, fire them. That is what the Constitution and, indeed, common sense require. By restoring the original understanding and restoring the removal power to the Presidency, the Take Care Act would give the President this authority.

By taking this step, we would reempower the American people with that which is rightfully theirs to begin with.

Mr. President, President Trump was famous for many things even before he was elected. One of those things was the catch-phrase ``You're fired,'' which he popularized on his reality TV show ``The Apprentice.''

This is a relatively commonplace phrase. It is something that most persons are familiar with, but it is not surprising that the phrase would have so much appeal for a television audience. I think the reason has something to do with the fact that it carries a certain power and resonance with it because the person who has the authority to use it within any organization is, generally speaking, a person who gets to call the shots. It is emblematic of executive control and, therefore, the ability to get things done within an organization.

That is not to say that good leaders get their way solely or even primarily by threatening to fire people who work for them. Effective leadership, more often than not, requires what are sometimes called soft leadership skills.

But the fact, nonetheless, remains that the head of an organization must always have hanging in reserve, sort of like an employer Damoclean sword--the absolute right to terminate a subordinate.

It is the ultimate and essential backstop that enforces and reifies an executive's power to make decisions. This is true for pretty much any leader, whether that leader happens to be the CEO of a corporation, the coach of a sports team, or a general out on the field of battle.

Yet, remarkably, under our laws, the President of the United States lacks authority over many high-ranking officers within the executive branch. Despite its elemental association with Executive power, Congress and the courts have time and again deprived the President of the ability to remove his subordinates at will.

These restrictions often take the form of statutory for-cause removal

protections, such as the provision of the Federal Trade Commission Act that provides that Commissioners may be removed only ``for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.''

In enacting laws like this, Congress has cast aside the original meaning of the Constitution and thereby eroded a critical safeguard of American freedom. As anyone who has studied the Constitution or constitutional law, for that matter, can guess, my reference to the FTC's for-cause protection is not accidental.

That statute formed the basis of the lawsuit that culminated in the 1935 decision by the Supreme Court in a case called Humphrey's Executor, in which the Supreme Court held for the first time that Congress may impose restrictions on the President's removal power.

In so holding, the Supreme Court overruled its earlier precedent in Myers v. United States, which had held that Congress may not limit the President's ability to remove principal officers within the Federal Government, but Humphrey's Executor didn't simply overrule Myers. Rather, as Justice Scalia later wrote, ``it gutt[ed], in six quick pages devoid of textual or historical precedent. . . . a carefully researched and reasoned 70-page opinion.'' That juxtaposition alone tells you what you need to know about these decisions. One had constitutional text and original understanding and historical precedent behind it. The other was constitutional law by judicial fiat.

Article II of the Constitution unquestionably establishes a unitary executive. The vesting clause provides that ``the executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.''

As Alexander Hamilton explained it in Federalist No. 70, placing the totality of the Executive power in a single individual was no happenstance. It was no mistake. It wasn't just sort of some fluke. The delegates to the Constitutional Convention recognized that a unified executive was essential to ensure energy and accountability in the execution of the laws, and the Constitution was drafted accordingly, consistent with this understanding.

Without the authority to supervise and direct, and, yes, ultimately fire his subordinates, it is impossible for the President to fulfill his duty imposed by article II to ``take care that the laws be faithfully executed.''

The Founders also understood that the President's removal power was the bedrock of his authority to oversee the executive branch. In a famous debate during the First Congress, James Madison argued that ``if any power whatsoever is in its nature Executive, it is the power of appointing, overseeing, and controlling those who execute the laws.''

He went on to note that ``if the President should possess alone the power of removal from office, those who are employed in the execution of the law will be in their proper situation, and the chain of dependence be preserved; [they] will depend, as they ought, on the President, and the President on the community.''

Madison's argument prevailed, and the First Congress declined, on constitutional grounds, for the reasons articulated by James Madison himself, to create for-cause removal protections for the heads of the newly established executive branch departments. They considered it; Madison raised, very persuasively, this constitutional argument against it; and then they voted it down. That was the original understanding of the removal power, and it predominated for nearly 150 years after the Founding.

Since Humphrey's Executor and its radical departure from the original understanding in 1935, for-cause removal protections, both statutory and otherwise, have, sadly, proliferated, giving rise to a vast, headless, out-of-control branch of government, a fourth branch of government, if you will, that exists beyond the control of the President and is therefore unaccountable to the people.

In fact, by some estimations, there are over 80 so-called independent agencies within the executive branch. These executive branch agencies that we refer to somehow as independent are entrusted with regulating immense swaths of American life--from competition policy and workplace safety regulations to labor relations and even securities laws. They make rules; they adjudicate rights; and they enforce laws. The potential for abuse is tremendous; the inconsistency with the republican principles this country was founded on, obvious.

Now, there are a lot of people here who like the sound of the term ``independent agency,'' and they might suppose, incorrectly, that an agency that is independent, that is beyond the control of the President of the United States to oversee, that that is somehow a good thing.

On closer inspection, we discover that quite the opposite is true. When we insulate someone from Presidential oversight, what we are doing is taking the American people out of the picture. There is a reason why we have elections every 4 years, and those elections focus on the election of a President. It is so there is some chain of accountability between the people and the executive branch of government.

That has become more important, not less, over the last few decades as we have created more and more executive branch agencies and we have entrusted those agencies with more and more power. It has never been more important than it is today to make sure the people are connected. If you disconnect the American people by insulating them from the political process, then you have a whole group of people who these days are charged not just with administrating the laws but, in some cases, with effectively making it and interpreting it, and you are taking them beyond the supervision that would otherwise be appropriate by the President of the United States within the executive branch of government.

In their fight against British tyranny, the Patriots of the American Revolution rallied behind the principle of ``no taxation without representation.'' Today we are faced with a somewhat different threat to freedom, as Chief Justice Roberts wrote in a case just a few years ago. ``The growth of the Executive Branch, which now wields vast power and touches almost every aspect of daily life, heightens the concern that it may slip from the Executive's control, and thus from that of the people.''

In other words, as Chief Justice Roberts explained, when you take this power away from the President, you are taking it away from the people. The people lose their input on and their control over these very important functions of what is appropriately described as the people's government.

The concern is further compounded by the existence of independent agencies that are, by law, divorced from any Presidential control. As a result, in this new fight against tyranny, our watchword perhaps must be ``no regulation without representation.'' That is why I have spearheaded the Article I Project and why I supported legislation such as the REINS Act and the Separation of Powers Restoration Act that would bring the Federal regulatory apparatus, as we know it, to heel.

Of course, more is needed. We need to not only reform Congress's relationship with the administrative state but the President's as well. To that end, I am introducing new legislation called the Take Care Act. The bill would restore the unitary executive envisioned by the Founders and, in fact, required by the Constitution by stripping away all existing for-cause removal protections from the so-called independent agencies. It would also limit Congress's ability to create for-cause protections by implication in the future and take other critical steps to fortify the President's directive authority.

Simply put, the Take Care Act would eliminate the headless fourth branch of government, empower the President to ensure faithful execution of the law, and make the bureaucracy accountable to the people again. Importantly, the Take Care Act would not cause the work of administrative agencies to become subject to the unmitigated whims and caprices of a President. There is still very real, very meaningful political constraints, including the Senate's advise and consent role, that would ensure, as they do now, in areas outside of these so-called independent agencies, that the executive officers can fulfill their congressionally assigned duties without undue interference.

In other words, although there are some so-called independent agencies as to which the President has no removal

power, there are a whole lot that are not. The President's Cabinet and many other positions within the Federal Government involve people who are appointed by the President, confirmed by the Senate, and who serve at the pleasure of the President who can be fired at any moment for any reason the President might deem appropriate.

Nevertheless, that does not mean that Presidents go around just firing people arbitrarily because Presidents understand that there is a political cost to doing that. We have seen in recent years, and we have seen earlier in American history, how Presidents, even when they have disagreements with members of their Cabinet or other people who serve at the pleasure of the President--Presidents are still reluctant to fire people because there are political costs attached to that, and especially where Congress perceives there might be a partisan political motive in mind, Congress may well take action.

In the case of the Senate, it almost inevitably will at least threaten, if not carry out the threat, to hold up future confirmations of Presidential appointees if Presidents abuse this power.

So it simply isn't true to say that this would open the floodgates and cause all Presidents to just fire people arbitrarily without hesitation in the future. What it would mean is that our elected President would have the power to represent the people and to oversee the executive branch of the Federal Government just as article II already requires.

So all this bill would do would be to rescind and limit unconstitutional restrictions on the President's removal power, and while it may be more convenient to limit this power by statute, convenience and efficiency are not the primary objectives or the hallmarks of a democratic government, as the Supreme Court has repeatedly reminded us.

Another famous catchphrase popularized by an American President is ``the buck stops here,'' which President Truman, of course, displayed on a placard on his desk in the Oval Office at the White House during his Presidency. What it means is, the President is the final decision maker within the executive branch, and, therefore, bears the sole and ultimate responsibility for executing the laws.

In order to fulfill that very special, sacred, important responsibility, the President must have plenary power to direct the President's subordinates in how they carry out their assigned tasks and, if necessary, fire them. That is what the Constitution and, indeed, common sense require. By restoring the original understanding and restoring the removal power to the Presidency, the Take Care Act would give the President this authority.

By taking this step, we would reempower the American people with that which is rightfully theirs to begin with.

Mr. President, it is that time of year where I am privileged to recognize exceptional young men and women from the great State of Utah who have answered the call to serve by applying to the U.S. Air Force Academy, the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy, the U.S. Military Academy, and the U.S. Naval Academy. It is one of my greatest honors to recognize these fine Utahns in the U.S. Senate.

Under title 10 of the U.S. Code, each year, Members of Congress are authorized to nominate a number of young men and women from their district or State to attend the country's service academies. Each of these students is of sound mind and body. This will serve them well in Colorado Springs, Kings Point, West Point, and Annapolis, but to succeed, they will need more than this.

The journey on which these young men and women will soon embark requires more than mental and physical aptitude. It also demands strong moral character: leadership, courage, honesty, prudence, and self- discipline. It calls for a commitment to service and a love of country. Ultimately, it provides a chance for some of Utah's finest to stand up for our country.

Today, I would like to congratulate each of these impressive students, all of whom embody, in their own unique way, the standards of excellence upon which America's service academies are built.

Carson James Angeroth will be attending the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy after graduating from Cottonwood High School, where he was part of the State champion baseball team. He served as a church camp counselor for 3 years and served his neighbors by helping them clean and renovate their homes. As a leader in the youth organization through his church, he is as an example for his peers. He is often found outdoors hiking, biking, and skiing.

Jackson Thomas DuPaix accepted an appointment to the U.S. Naval Academy. He earned his diploma a year early from Rockbridge County High School and has been attending Southern Virginia University. An Eagle Scout from Riverton, UT, he was part of his high school's drone club and lacrosse team. He served as president of his church youth group and stayed active in his community by helping with home renovations, city landscaping projects, and putting together Christmas boxes of food and toys.

Cassidy Ann Eiting is following in her father's footsteps and attending the U.S. Air Force Academy. After graduating from South Summit High School, she attended the Northwestern Preparatory School. She was a leader in high school as the student body vice president, captain of both her swimming and soccer teams, and a member of the two- time State champion softball team. Inspired by her mother, a commissioned Air Force officer, she stayed active in her school and community as a member of the MiteE Team, Interact Club, and National Honor Society.

Jacob Joseph Frederick, the student body president of Skyline High School, will follow his father to the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. He attended Boys State and earned his Eagle Scout Award, while being active on the basketball and lacrosse teams. Building his leadership skills, Jacob served as first chair trumpet for the concert band and jazz band, coach of a youth basketball team, and as a summer camp counselor. He worked on projects benefiting veterans at the Fisher House in Salt Lake City.

Christina Gillespie accepted an appointment to the U.S. Air Force Academy, joining a long family tradition of Air Force service. She graduated from Clearfield High School where she maintained a 4.0 GPA and captained the swimming team, earning the MVP title twice. She served as president of her church youth group and as the student body officer over service, where her school raised $50,000 for local charities. A member of the school choir, Christina is also a member of the Oratorio Society of Utah, a nondenominational choral organization.

Enoch Austin Horning, a member of the Utah Army National Guard, will be continuing his service at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point after having attended the Military Academy's preparatory school. He served as the student body president of the Utah Military Academy, where he was captain of the Ranger Team. Enoch was awarded the JROTC Cadet of the Year Award, earned his Eagle Scout Award, and attended Boys State. He served in the Civil Air Patrol, as president of the Strategic Gaming Club, and as a member of the Cyber Patriots.

Camryn Lynlee Karras, from Weber High School, accepted an appointment to the U.S. Air Force Academy. An outstanding soccer player, Camryn captained both her high school team and her national league club team. She is a member of the National Honor Society, the Robotics Club, and Health Occupations Students of America--HOSA. Each year at Christmastime, she looks forward to providing gifts and breakfast to the Boys and Girls Club in her community.

Spencer Burnett Knudsen will be joining a family history of Army service when he attends the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. He is already building his leadership credentials as the student body president of Monticello High School, captain of the basketball team, and head lifeguard for the city of Monticello. Spencer is a member of the National Honor Society, the Future Business Leaders of America-- FBLA--and serves his community as a volunteer EMT with San Juan County.

Karsten Korb Matosich will be attending the U.S. Military Academy at West Point after graduating from Bingham High School. An Eagle Scout, Karsten serves his community as an organist for his church and at local retirement homes, winterizing homes on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation, and coordinating the assembly and donation of hundreds of oral hygiene kits. He served as cocaptain of his debate team and played in the Bingham Symphony.

Levi Daniel Montoya will be attending the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. As a graduate of Juan Diego Catholic High School, Levi stayed busy as the team captain of both his high school and club lacrosse teams. A member of the National Honor Society, he also was a member of the Key Club, Pre-med Club, and the Boy Scouts. Levi was inspired to attend West Point by his father and grandfather, both Army soldiers, who told the stories of his great-grandfather, Army Medic Albert Montoya, who served valiantly on the beaches of Normandy on June 6, 1944.

Samuel Austin Nafus, who was offered multiple academy appointments, has chosen to follow his brother to the U.S. Naval Academy. A member of the State champion academic olympiad team for Bountiful High School, Sam also participated in DECA, debate, and Model UN. He maintained a 4.0 GPA while being active in his community as a lector for Saint Olaf Catholic Church,

attending Boys State, and earning his Eagle Scout Award. Sam received varsity letters for both football and track.

Jaxon Jefferson Porter will be attending the U.S. Military Academy at West Point after having served for 2 years as a missionary for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Armenia. Jaxon graduated from Weber High School in 2016, where he challenged himself by taking a difficult course load of AP classes. He served his community through projects with the Boy Scouts and with the Bates Elementary School library. Jaxon has been recognized as being goal oriented, which will serve him well as he enters the academy.

Alma Helaman Redd comes from a military family. His father and all of his brothers have served in the military, including an Air Force Academy graduate and a graduate of West Point. Alma is following their examples and attending the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. He graduated from the American Heritage School and is currently attending Utah Valley University after service as missionary for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. He is an Eagle Scout and a fan of ultimate frisbee. He attended Boys State and was a member of the yearbook staff, National Honor Society, and the honors band and honors choir.

Gabriel Rosa, a graduate of Skyline High School, has accepted an appointment to the U.S. Naval Academy. A leader in the making, Gabriel served as a captain and squadron commander in the Civil Air Patrol and as the chairman of the Utah Wing Cadet Advisory Council. He captained his ice hockey team, served as president of the Future Business Leaders of America--FBLA--and as the State party chairman at Boys State. Gabriel is a nationally qualified fencer in men's saber.

Ethan James Schofield will be entering the U.S. Air Force Academy after having served as a missionary for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Indonesia. A graduate of Lone Peak High School, Ethan stayed active in sports and served as the captain of the football team and as a member of the lacrosse and track and field teams. He earned his Eagle Scout Award with a project for the city of American Fork, where his team ran a tree inventory. He is an avid mountain biker and downhill skier.

Matthew Walker Schvaneveldt will again join the cadets of the U.S. Military Academy after having served in the Japan Sapporo Mission with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Matthew graduated from the Northern Utah Academy for Math, Engineering & Science, NUAMES, where he was president of the National Honor Society. He earned his Eagle Scout Award, attended Boys State, and was honored with the Volunteer of the Year Award from McKay-Dee Hospital in Ogden, UT.

Trevor Dean Smiley is returning to the U.S. Air Force Academy following 2 years of missionary service for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the Australia Brisbane Mission. Trevor played varsity baseball and football for Corner Canyon High School. He earned his Eagle Scout Award and spent time in Taiwan with the TIYEA leadership camp where he taught English to children.

David Sperry White is returning to the U.S. Military Academy at West Point after serving 2 years speaking Korean as a missionary for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the Korea Seoul Mission. A proud graduate and former student body president of Uintah High School in Vernal, UT, David is an Eagle Scout and published author. He attended Boys State and was president of the service club, Vernal Youth in Action.

Michael Ammon Wintercorn has been attending Brigham Young University while preparing himself to attend the U.S. Naval Academy. He graduated from Jordan High School, where he ran for both the cross-country and track and field teams. Michael, an Eagle Scout, served on the Sandy Youth City Council and as president of his church youth group. He spent 2 years speaking Japanese as a missionary for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the Fukuoka Japan Mission. A member of the National Honor Society, Michael also played trumpet for the symphonic band and for a local elderly care center.

Miles Stanley Zembruski is following in the footsteps of the many NASA astronauts he has long admired and accepted an appointment to the U.S. Naval Academy. A graduate of West High School, where he participated in the Navy JROTC and the Civil Air Patrol, Miles was a member of the Model Rocketry Club, the National Honor Society, and the cross-country team. He founded an independent philosophy/literature publication and a volunteer community service organization, all while maintaining a rigorous academic schedule of AP and IB classes.

It has been inspiring to nominate each of these exemplary young men and women. Doing so has given me an unshakeable confidence in the future of this great Nation and future of our Armed Services.

To these 20 students and to all their future classmates from around the country, do not forget: This is but the beginning of your journey.

You would not have arrived at this point were it not for your hard work and sacrifice and for the service and example your parents, family, teachers, coaches, and mentors. What matters most now is not your past accomplishments, but what you will achieve in the future.

Thank you.

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

Mr. President, on May 10, 1869, a golden spike was driven into the last link joining the rails of the first transcontinental railroad at Promontory Summit, UT. Made of 17-carat gold and driven into a predrilled hole in the very last ceremonial tie, it bore the inscription: ``May God continue the unity of our country as this railroad unites the two great oceans of the world.'' Indeed, it did, with the joining of the Union Pacific Railroad, stretching from the Missouri River near the Iowa-Nebraska border, and the Central Pacific Railroad, stretching from Sacramento, CA--east met west. The United States became truly united.

As the spike was struck, a telegraph was sent around the Nation, and bells rang out from coast to coast. This moment, you see, gave lots of people throughout the United States and lots of people in my State of Utah in particular access to what they needed to grow, to thrive, to prosper, to feed their families; that is, access to other people.

Throughout the history of humanity, people have needed access to other people. That is why great civilizations have sprung up along great rivers and in areas where they had access to an ocean port. It is one of the reasons why, throughout much of history, people in land- locked regions of any country, including our own, very often have a hard time making a living. The introduction of the railroad started to help to change that.

Tomorrow marks the 150th anniversary of this pivotal moment, and so it is only right that we pause for just a minute to recognize it, for this was a moment that changed the course of history in Utah and in our Nation and ultimately the entire world. With the driving of that golden spike, the arduous 6-month journey that used to be required to cross the country--costing $1,000--had become a mere 10-day trip costing only $150.

Thousands of miles of tracks were laid across the country, allowing people to migrate west and to establish new settlements far more quickly, safely, and easily. It transformed the economy across Utah and throughout the Nation. Goods became efficiently transported across much farther distances. Settlers found new markets, and buyers on the frontier and in rural areas were able to purchase items that had previously been completely unavailable to them in some cases or at least very difficult to obtain. It spurred a boon in communications, commerce, agriculture, construction, and mining. It started a significant new chapter in our relationship with Asia and the Pacific region, and it served as a model of innovation and prosperity for the rest of the world.

All of this came about, it is important to note, from the perseverance and efforts of many different people from different walks of life working together. It required a clear-eyed vision from President Lincoln and the Federal Government and a fruitful private- public partnership that allowed the engineers, railroad companies, and local communities the freedom to do their jobs and to do them well and without undo interference. It would not have been possible without the work of the Chinese, Irish, Mormons, Civil War veterans, Native Americans, and countless other laborers who toiled so long and so hard with such a clear devotion to build these railroads.

Most of this is, of course, in the history books, as well it ought to be. Most of us have a sense of the enormous achievement this moment represented some 150 years ago tomorrow, of the great impact it had on our Nation and the legacy it has left behind for us and for our posterity. But what we often do not know are some of the stories of the ordinary men and women behind these achievements and the ones who have worked so hard to preserve this great legacy. There are, in fact, hidden heroes who make history and unseen efforts of people who worked so hard to keep that history alive. The doors of history sometimes turn on small and often unseen hinges, and so I would like to take a moment to honor a few of those people today who helped move history forward.

Some of us might know the name of Theodore Judah--a railroad and civil engineer who was key to the original idea and design of connecting these railroads and who advocated for the so-called Central Route for the first transcontinental railroad, the Central Route marked in red in this picture. But less familiar is the name of Theodore's wife, Anna Judah.

While many routes were surveyed as possible paths for the railroad, Theodore Judah had an often-scoffed-at dream of laying rails through the mountains of the Sierra Nevada, from California going eastward. Anna Judah shared Theodore's dream of connecting the first transcontinental railroad. When Theodore hiked and surveyed the Sierra Nevadas, Anna hiked and worked right alongside of him. She sketched and did water colors and even oil paintings of the terrain, plants, and the foliage. She gathered and labeled the various fossils and minerals. She took copious notes all the while, taking into account different things she and her husband observed as they were traveling.

After their time in the Sierra Nevadas, Theodore and Anna, like Brigham Young, knew: This is the place. Together they fell in love with the idea of the railroad taking the Central Route across the Sierra Nevadas, believing that it would provide the perfect path for what they wanted to accomplish. So they began traveling back and forth from California, dedicating their efforts to lobbying for their dream in Washington.

Anna was sharp, charming, tenacious, and undoubtedly she was Theodore's biggest booster. She had the idea to display an exhibit right here in the Capitol showcasing her notes and her clippings from their travels in the area, her drawings and her paintings, samples of mineral and ore she had collected, and charts and graphs that she was able to present in a way that made them understandable to laymen, that helped other people understand why this area was so important and the significant role it could play in our Nation's development.

Literally hundreds of Senators, Congressmen, lobbyists, and government clerks visited her display, which helped convince the eastern legislators of the beauty of the western mountains--which many of them had never seen or at least not experienced anything like the way she had--and turned their hearts to the possibility of building a railroad over them and through them to unite a country.

Ultimately, Congress was persuaded--to everyone's benefit--to choose Judah's proposal for the Central Route and did so in large part because of Anna Judah's efforts.

Tragically, Anna's husband Theodore contracted yellow fever. As a result, he died before seeing the railroad completed and, in fact, even before the project was started in earnest. But Anna lived to see their dream to fruition. In fact, the driving of the last spike took place on what would have been the couple's 22nd wedding anniversary. On the date of the ceremony, Anna visited her husband's grave, and she wrote that there her husband's spirit--so long dedicated to the railroad--felt somehow near to her once again.

Years later, another young woman fell in love with the history of the Golden Spike and the beginning of the first transcontinental railroad. Bernice Gibbs Anderson, known to some as the Mother of the Golden Spike, was born in Colorado in 1900 and lived the majority of her life in Corinne, UT.

As a little girl, Bernice helped trail cattle near Promontory Summit and grew up hearing cowboy stories around the campfire, including stories about the Golden Spike, and, as her granddaughter put it, ``She just plain fell in love with it.'' From the time she was 19 up until the moment of her death, she tirelessly dedicated her life to recognizing and preserving the history surrounding Golden Spike.

Bernice conceived the idea that the area around Promontory Summit ought to be set aside to commemorate the completion of the transcontinental railroad. For years, she campaigned to make Promontory Summit a national historic monument.

She visited countless legislators, Governors, commissioners, and railroad officers to raise support and raise funds for a monument at Promontory Summit.

A mother of six children, she also worked as a correspondent and as a staff writer for the Salt Lake Tribune, where she wrote historic articles and poetry about the Golden Spike. She sent letters and invitations to Members of Congress, U.S. Presidents, and Park Service officials--all in hopes that they might come to recognize the importance of the site.

As President of the Golden Spike Association, she coordinated reenactment ceremonies and anniversary programs, encouraging local communities to participate in those celebrations every year. While some viewed her mission as somewhat unimportant--or, at least, less important than other things--and, therefore, dismissed her efforts, she never gave up.

Thankfully, Bernice lived to see the fruits of her labors. After years of devoting her life to this case, Promontory Summit was declared a national historic site on July 30, 1965. Just this past March, it was redesignated as a national historic park--the first in Utah--allowing even more of the railroad and the surrounding area to be preserved for history going forward.

Fast forward to 2019. We now reached the 150th anniversary of the Golden

Spike. Today, another dedicated woman has been behind its sesquicentennial celebration, Spike 150. Aimee McConkie, carrying the banner previously carried by Anna Judah and Bernice Gibbs Anderson, has been a driving force in our State and in her community. A BYU graduate, a wife, and mother of four daughters, Aimee has worked for 15 years in professional association management.

In 2005 she founded Utah Venture Outdoors, a summer festival series in Millcreek, UT. For 14 years, she volunteered her time and her resources to this event, seeking to bring the community together through recreational opportunities.

In 2017 she also launched LABELED, a 4-day film festival that seeks to break the stigma around mental health issues. Now she has once again brought her community together for an important cause--this time, to celebrate and commemorate the 150th anniversary of the Golden Spike.

Under her leadership as director of Spike 150, there are events taking place not only around Promontory Summit but also around the entire State of Utah--events to highlight the history and legacy of the Golden Spike, events for children and families, and events for music, art, and train enthusiasts.

It has taken tremendous amounts of organization, coordination, and perseverance, and it would no doubt make Bernice Gibbs Anderson proud. At the 1957 celebration of the Golden Spike, she said:

This is sacred soil, dedicated to the sacrifices of the

thousands who labored in the great race to build the first

transcontinental railway in the shortest possible time. . . .

The destiny of this nation rode triumphant upon the rails

that met at Promontory Station! The future of this site

depends on you, my friends. Will it take its rightful place

in the heritage and traditions of America . . . or will it

remain desolate and forgotten to sink into oblivion[?]

Thanks to the work of people like Aimee McConkie, we know that the Golden Spike will not sink into oblivion but will indeed take its rightful place in history.

Anna Judah, Bernice Gibbs Anderson, and Aimee McConkie might have lived at different times, but there is a common thread that runs throughout their stories: the triumph of ordinary people, of the hidden heroes behind so many of our great achievements in history.

Without the work of these ordinary Americans and Utahns, we never could have achieved one of the most transformative events in our Nation thus far: the driving of the Golden Spike and the completion of the first transcontinental railroad. And without the work of these hidden heroes, we could never reasonably hope and expect to be able to keep this legacy alive.

It is our task now to take up the banner that these women have carried--the banner of innovation, perseverance, and unity--and to ensure that our remarkable heritage lives on. If we do, there is no telling what Utah and our great Nation can achieve together.

Thank you, Mr. President.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, many Americans might be surprised, shocked, and troubled to learn that some of their tax dollars are going directly to Chinese companies and that some of those dollars even go to corporations owned by the Chinese Government, like Chinese banks, Chinese development agencies, and Chinese microprocessor factories. In recent years, in fact, China received $50 million in loans and guarantees, all backed by American citizens.

Taxpayers would be right to be puzzled and concerned about why their hard-earned money is subsidizing Chinese state-owned companies. To be clear, we are not talking about voluntary investment from American businesses; we are taking about the backing of the U.S. Government. They might ask: How is this the case? Why on Earth would we do this? Why is this happening? The answer has to do with the very institution to which we are going to be trying to confirm nominees today.

The Export-Import Bank--or Ex-Im, as it is often described--was created during the height of the Great Depression to help U.S. exporters when they were desperate for customers and foreign markets lacked the capital to finance trade. It was conceived particularly to help small businesses to be able to compete, as many of its current proponents still claim, still insist, to this very day.

But for decades, the institution that is the Export-Import Bank has unfortunately been used as a giant tool for corporate welfare. Ex-Im has operated to benefit the wealthiest and the most politically connected businesses in America, as well as their overseas clients and, believe it or not, foreign governments. Take Boeing, for instance. Look, it is no coincidence that Ex-Im has been nicknamed ``Boeing's bank.'' When Ex-Im financing was at its peak, Boeing received 70 percent of all Export-Import Bank loan guarantees and 40 percent of all Ex-Im dollars.

Which other large corporations have benefited? Well, they include General Electric, John Deere, Caterpillar, and other industrial giants--hardly businesses that are unable to get financing elsewhere; hardly businesses that fit within the category of what the biggest proponents of Ex-Im claim need Ex-Im to exist in the first place.

In fact, while Ex-Im claims that 90 percent of the businesses to which it provides support are ``small businesses,'' when you dive into those numbers, the numbers tell a somewhat different story. They show that small businesses received only about 25 percent of Ex-Im dollars. That doesn't even touch the fact that in 2014 Caterpillar and Boeing were the first and fourth largest recipients of so-called small business funds from Ex-Im. So if Boeing and Caterpillar--great U.S. companies that employ tens of thousands of hard-working Americans and make good products used by people all over the world--if they can be considered small businesses, it makes you question the vernacular used by Export-Import Bank proponents.

Looking at the Bank's track record as a whole, only one-half of 1 percent of all small businesses in America actually benefit from Export-Import financing--a very small tip of a very large iceberg; a very small portion of all business enterprises in the United States. It makes one question, why, then, do we have one entity that is set up to provide such a large benefit to so few businesses?

It is a similar story on the foreign side. Abroad, Ex-Im has largely benefited big companies that already collect massive subsidies as state-controlled entities and entities that can easily get private financing elsewhere.

The No. 1 buyer of exports subsidized by Ex-Im between 2007 and 2013 was Pemex. For those not familiar with Pemex, it is the notoriously corrupt petroleum company owned by the Mexican Government. Pemex, which has a market cap of $416 billion, received more than $7 billion in loans backed by U.S. taxpayers. Why?

During the same period, Ex-Im backed $3.4 billion in financing to Emirates Airlines--a company wholly owned by the Government of Dubai-- for Emirates' purchase of Boeing planes.

Indeed, a large share of Ex-Im financing has historically gone to foreign airlines and to foreign energy companies--businesses that are, in fact, competing with American companies.

Now, not that there is anything wrong with competition. It is great. Competition ought to exist. Competition improves quality, and it brings down prices. But why is it that we, as the U.S. Government, are in many instances financing the competitors of U.S. businesses--competitors that in many instances are owned by foreign governments? Moreover, we have been sending money to countries that in many cases have what we would describe as dubious records on human rights and high levels of corruption.

In the last 5 years, Saudi Arabia and Mexico were the top foreign recipients of Export-Import Bank aid, and in the past, when Ex-Im had the authority to grant larger subsidies, the top foreign recipient was typically China. In 2014, China received $2.2 billion in U.S. taxpayer- backed loans and guarantees with most of it going to businesses owned by the Chinese Government. If it weren't so sad, this would be funny. If it weren't so strange, it would be interesting. To top it all off, Ex-Im has had poor accounting and has had rather significant problems with transparency.

In 2013, Ex-Im was either unable or unwilling to provide any justification whatsoever for half of the financing deals in its portfolio. Here again, this is stunning. I find it troubling that we are seriously considering these nominees without first addressing why we have the Export-Import Bank in the first place and why there haven't been more reforms required before we confirm additional nominees to its governing body. There have already been 30 corruption and fraud investigations into Ex-Im's activity.

Now, thankfully, Congress put a check on some of Export-Import Bank's power back in 2015 when we allowed the Board's quorum to expire, and thus, we capped its ability to make deals larger than $10 million.

In the past few years, 66 percent of Ex-Im's loans have actually gone to small businesses instead of the Boeings and Caterpillars, compared to the 25 percent that went to them before. It turns out that the big businesses have been doing just fine, even since those limitations kicked in a few years ago. In fact, some of them--many of them--are doing even better than before. Last year was Boeing's best year yet, with exports making a particularly strong showing. As Boeing itself admitted, it had ``robust'' private sector financing. According to reports in 2017, there were unprecedented levels of competition among lenders and insurers to finance aircraft exports.

It turns out that when the government leaves a profitable line of business, private business enterprises do in fact compete in the marketplace to take its place, and, as it turns out, private businesses make better business decisions than governments. That is the lesson we need to take from this. The sky did not fall when these limitations kicked in a few years ago, and they would not fall if we continued additional reforms, or even, I would dare say, if we phased out the Export-Import Bank altogether.

Furthermore, with the decrease in Ex-Im's subsidies, U.S. exports have actually risen slightly. Between 2014 and 2018, exports rose from $1.7 trillion to $1.8 trillion.

Yet today the swamp strikes back. The prospect of confirming three nominees to the Ex-Im Bank, thanks to the nuking of the Senate rules a few weeks back, suggests Boeing's bank will in fact rise from the grave to resume its long history of fraud, corruption, abusive power, and government manipulation of the marketplace.

We do not need to further empower the rich and politically connected companies that are already flourishing. That only undermines trust in our government, which is supposed to protect taxpayers from corruption and from waste, and it unilaterally prevents us from having a more thriving, more competitive economy--one that would actually produce more jobs in America and one that would actually produce things in such a way that would benefit more consumers in America. We do not need to use this outdated, broken, corrupt Bank as a tool for countering foreign interests. We certainly don't need it as a tool for subsidizing foreign interests. The way to confront China's and other countries' expansionism is certainly not to subsidize their state-owned companies.

No, we don't need Boeing's bank, and neither do we need Beijing's bank. Cronyism and policy privilege threaten exactly, precisely the principles upon which our Nation was founded and the principles that have fostered the development of the greatest civilization and of the strongest economy the world has ever known. They subvert the rule of law by codifying inequality and rob ordinary Americans--the moms and pops and small business owners--from having a level playing field in what is supposed to be the land of opportunity. People's access to opportunity shouldn't depend on their access to government. It shouldn't depend on their ability to employ an army of lobbyists and government consultants. No, it should depend on their ability to innovate.

We are great as a country and we are strong as an economy not because of who we are but because of what we do. We have succeeded precisely because we have chosen free markets over central planning. We have chosen the rights of the individual in a free, open, robust marketplace rather than having business decisions made by a government bureaucrat in Washington, DC.

The fact that this might have made sense to those sitting in this Chamber and the House of Representatives some eight or nine decades ago doesn't mean that it has to make sense now. It doesn't mean that we are stuck perpetually in this same path. It certainly shouldn't mean that the American people should be required to work days, weeks, and months out of every year to fund the Federal Government that includes this program, the Export-Import Bank, which ends up giving a whole lot of that money to big businesses in America and to state-owned businesses abroad to participate in what is supposed to be a free-market economy and, thereby, dilutes the power of that economy.

If we are to move toward restoring fairness to our economy and our government, it would be in our best interest to get rid of this cronyist Bank altogether. At the very least, we ought not to empower it to its full capacity for abuse by confirming these nominees today. I will vote against them.

I yield the floor.