Floor Statements

Madam President, speaking of personnel business, I wish to say a few words this morning about Mike Pompeo, our CIA Director and the President's extraordinary choice to serve as Secretary of State.

In recent days, the world learned that Director Pompeo had undertaken initial conversations with Kim Jong Un directly, over the Easter weekend, to discuss denuclearizing the Korean Peninsula. Obviously, he has the confidence of the President--engaged in the most sensitive undertaking one could imagine in today's world--and yet so many on the other side are suggesting they have reservations about this outstanding nominee.

Pursued with clear-eyed realism and clear objectives, this is a worthy effort. North Korea has been a perplexing problem for President after President after President, and Mike Pompeo is on the point of this effort, which hopefully will finally lead to some outcome. Although every Commander in Chief has insisted it would be unacceptable for North Korea to obtain a nuclear-armed intercontinental ballistic missile, it is this administration that finds itself having to actually achieve that objective because time has run out. So, as a matter of policy, it would be hard not to be encouraged by the fact that there were actually talks--direct talks--underway.

Based on Director Pompeo's impressive record at the CIA, the North Koreans undoubtedly view him as credible, determined, and insightful. Isn't that what we would want in a Secretary of State? The quiet nature of these discussions reflect how serious they were. The mission also speaks to Mike Pompeo's future as Secretary of State.

Here is a man who--through mastery of the daily briefings he receives, counsel on our Nation's most sensitive intelligence activities, and proven leadership in returning our CIA to the aggressive gathering of foreign intelligence--has inspired the confidence of not only the national clandestine service but, very importantly, the Commander in Chief. Hallmarks of Mike's leadership are listening, trusting career staff, acting decisively, and treating everyone fairly.

I have recently heard some critics claim that the Trump administration places too little emphasis on diplomacy. In truth, the public statements of Secretary Mattis, former Secretary Tillerson, and former National Security Advisor McMaster have signaled a clear preference for aggressive, realistic diplomacy over potentially risking American lives. I have heard Secretary Mattis say over and over again that the last thing he wants to do is use the military. He wants to buy time so diplomacy can work. But, regardless, in confirming Mike Pompeo as Secretary of State, the Senate can ensure that the Nation has a chief diplomat who enjoys the complete confidence of the President. Isn't that what we should all want, regardless of party?

Those who claim to want a larger role for diplomacy should match those words with action and vote to approve him. What would be a better example of diplomacy than just what we were talking about--the visit to North Korea and direct conversations with Kim Jong Un.

We all know Mike's resume. He is a graduate of the U.S. Military Academy and Harvard Law School. He has served as a U.S. Army officer, on the House Intelligence Committee, and as Director of the CIA. In my view, Mike Pompeo is uniquely qualified to restore esprit de corps throughout the ranks of the Foreign Service. It is hard to imagine a better choice for Secretary of State than Mike Pompeo.

Now, one final matter. We have been talking all week about a big philosophical difference between Democrats and Republicans. Tax reform has thrown it into stark relief.

On the one hand, the Democrats' governing philosophy is about consolidating as much money and power as possible right here in Washington, DC. Under President Obama, we watched Democratic leaders turn every challenge the country faced into an excuse to raise taxes and impose regulations. Our dear friends on the other side are the party of taxation, regulation, and litigation as well. We saw who wins under this top-down philosophy and who loses.

America did not recover quickly enough from the great recession, and the unimpressive growth we did see during the Obama administration was extremely uneven. According to one study, nearly three-quarters of the job growth and 90 percent of the net population growth from 2010 to 2016 went to metropolitan areas with more than 1 million residents. The occupant of the Chair and I represent a lot of rural and smalltown folks. They didn't benefit from whatever job creation there was; it went to the big cities all across America. In the wealthiest coastal cities, there was some improvement, but the simple fact is that the Democratic policies left the rest of the country behind. In small towns and smaller cities and rural areas, opportunities dried up, paychecks stayed flat, and hope for a more prosperous future began fading.

That is what President Trump and this Republican Congress were elected to change. Our governing philosophy is very different. We think that more of the American people's hard-earned money should be left in their own hands--their hands--to spend or save as they see fit. We think government needs to give workers and job creators some breathing room. We think every American community deserves to flourish. So we passed record-setting rollbacks of harmful Federal rules that had thrown a wet blanket on the economy, and we enacted sweeping tax reform to help families and reignite growth.

What are the early results? Consumer confidence hit a 14-year high, jobless claims a 45-year low--jobless claims, a 45-year low--and millions of Americans receiving bonuses, pay raises, and new benefits. Ninety percent of wage earners expected to see lower income taxes than last year. Ninety percent of wage earners--lower income tax rates than last year.

The philosophical difference is especially stark in States where one Senator votes to let all of this good news happen, but the other Senator tried to stop it from taking place.

Bonnie Brazzeal from Missouri told President Trump last month that she is using her tax reform bonus to save for retirement.

In West Virginia, Sean Farrell says he is using expanded 529 savings eligibility to afford Catholic school tuition for his children.

Chelsee Hatfield from Indiana is using her permanent raise to pay for community college classes, working toward her associate's degree.

At some point, the Democratic Senators from these States I just mentioned will have to explain why they voted to stop all that from happening. They will have to tell Bonnie and Sean and Chelsee that they agree with the Democratic leader, who has said Washington knows how to spend money better than citizens do.

But, my Republican colleagues and I will stay on the side of the American people.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I move to proceed to legislative session.

Mr. President, I move to proceed to executive session to consider Calendar No. 624.

Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk.

I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum call be waived.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate resume legislative session for a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 478, submitted earlier today.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Foreign Relations Committee be discharged from further consideration of and the Senate now proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 431.

I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H. Con. Res. 115, which was received from the House.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 3 p.m., Monday, April 23; further, that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and morning business be closed; further, I ask that following leader remarks, the Senate proceed to executive session and resume consideration of the Duncan nomination; finally, notwithstanding the provisions of rule XXII, the cloture vote on the Duncan nomination occur at 5:30 p.m. on Monday.

Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it stand adjourned under the previous order.

Mr. President, the Senate pays tribute this morning to a beloved American who passed away yesterday.

To our 41st President, her lucky husband, Barbara Pierce Bush was a beloved wife and partner for more than seven decades. To the American people, whom she lovingly served as an exemplary First Lady, she was one of the most respected and well-liked public figures of her generation. And to the 5 children, 17 grandchildren, great- grandchildren, and all the family Barbara Bush leaves behind at the age of 92, she was a beloved matriarch. By all accounts, she was equally capable of building up those she loved most and poking fun at them when they deserved it. Put simply, Barbara was a founding partner of the most influential political family of our era.

The epic love story of George Bush and Barbara Pierce began at a Christmas dance in 1941. The intimacy of wartime love letters beat back the vastness of oceans, and they married just weeks after George returned from the Pacific.

George once wrote that his beloved wife has ``given me joy that few men know.'' Barbara put it this way just a few weeks before her passing: ``I am still old, and still in love.'' The love story grew and grew. Eventually, it incorporated the entire Nation.

Barbara embraced the mantle of ``America's grandmother.'' The self- deprecating humor in that title was classic Barbara, but her plainspoken humility concealed formidable strengths and talents. Even under all the bright lights and the pressures of public scrutiny, she always combined wit with warmth, smarts with common sense, and great toughness with greater compassion. The beneficiaries of these qualities were many. The cause of literacy, in particular, bids farewell to a devoted champion, but above all, Barbara's life was defined by love. She loved her husband and her family. She loved her country, and America loved her back.

Today, the Senate stands united, as does the Nation, with the Bush family and their great many friends. We join them in mourning their loss and in prayer.

Congressional Review Act Resolution

Mr. President, later today, the Senate will vote on rolling back another piece of Obama-era overreach. Just like the historic 15 times we have already used the Congressional Review Act, the goal here is simple: We want to protect consumers and job creators from needless interference by the Federal bureaucracy. Today, thanks to Senators Moran and Toomey, we can make it 16. We can nullify a particularly egregious overstep by President Obama's Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and notch another victory in this Congress's record of rolling back overregulation.

Nomination of Carlos Muniz

Mr. President, we will also vote to confirm President Trump's choice to serve as general counsel at the Department of Education, Carlos Muniz. This qualified nominee has been waiting for his confirmation vote since October. I would urge everyone to join me in voting to confirm him.

Coast Guard Authorization Bill

Mr. President, we will also vote today to advance the Coast Guard Authorization Act. This is an important step for brave men and women whose work often flies under the radar. Today, as ever, the United States calls on our Coast Guard to carry out critical safety and security missions with little room for error. Just last year, Coast Guard personnel stopped over $7 billion in illegal drugs and contraband from crossing our borders. They guarded and maintained shipping lanes, and they risked their lives to lead heroic rescues after Hurricanes Harvey and Irma.

In addition to authorizing funding for the Coast Guard, this legislation includes a bipartisan measure that is particularly important to States with navigable inland waterways, such as Kentucky, Mississippi, Alaska, and others. I am very proud to have worked with Senators Wicker, Sullivan, Thune, and Rubio to make sure this provision was included. In Kentucky, 1,900 miles of navigable waterways are used to ship everything from agriculture to coal. They support 13,000 maritime jobs, and those jobs support countless others throughout America--moving food from the fields, energy to homes and businesses, and exports to market.

Our vessel owners and operators have been saddled with uncertainty. They have faced a patchwork of overlapping, duplicative regulations enforced by the Coast Guard, the EPA, and the States. This inefficient regulatory regime unnecessarily raises costs and jeopardizes jobs.

Our provision, the Commercial Vessel Incidental Discharge Act, would clean up that mess and make life easier for American mariners and vessel operators, while still protecting our environment. It would give them regulatory certainty and a single, uniform, cost-effective standard enforced by the Coast Guard. This predictable structure will protect our natural resources, while ensuring that commerce can flow freely to market.

This provision commands broad bipartisan support. It has been reported favorably out of the Commerce Committee six times during the last three Congresses, including when my Democratic colleagues controlled the committee.

I am glad that this year we have the opportunity to reauthorize funding for our Coast Guard and deliver this key victory at the same time.

Tax Reform

Mr. President, on another matter, I noticed that a number of my Democratic colleagues attended a small protest rally yesterday. It was right here on the Capitol grounds. Apparently, it was put out by a number of leftwing pressure groups, including moveon.org, Planned Parenthood, and Big Labor.

What were they protesting out there? What outrage brought leading Democrats to join this protest on the east front of the Capitol? It turns out it was the fact that Republicans let middle-class families and American small businesses keep more of their own money. That is right. The Democrats are rallying to repeal the tax cuts. Never mind that our own pro-growth tax reform has led to thousand-dollar bonuses, pay raises, educational opportunities, or other new benefits for literally millions of Americans. Democrats still want to repeal it. Never mind the new estimate that says tax reform will yield more than 1 million new jobs in the next decade or the fact that jobless claims are at their lowest levels since--listen to this--1973.

No amount of good news will shake Democrats' confidence that they know how to spend the American people's money better than the American people themselves. My friend the Democratic leader said so right here on the floor a few weeks ago. This is exactly what he said: ``There are much better uses for the money.'' Really? On average, a family of four earning a median income will save about $2,000 on their taxes. I don't think a middle-class family will have difficulty finding good ways to use $2,000. They certainly don't need a bureaucrat to do it for them. Maybe they need a new washer and dryer or a new refrigerator. Maybe it will help them make the downpayment on a second car. Maybe they will use it to keep up with rising health costs since ObamaCare has utterly failed to keep costs down for American families. Whatever they choose, I am glad Republican tax reform is letting hard-working parents keep more of their own money.

But my Democratic colleagues obviously disagree. They are rallying to take back--to take back--that family's money so they can spend it themselves. They are so out of touch that they scoff at $2,000 tax cuts, thousand-dollar bonuses, and permanent wages increases for hourly workers. They call them ``crumbs''--``crumbs.'' To be fair, in the wealthiest parts of San Francisco or New York, maybe $1,000 does look like a rounding error. We know those are the places our Democratic colleagues are literally focused on. When President Obama was in power, Democratic policies fueled an incredibly uneven economic recovery. By one estimate, the biggest, richest urban areas captured 73 percent of all job gains.

Meanwhile, millions of Americans in smaller cities, small towns, and rural areas saw little or no progress. Believe me, after years of being left behind by Democratic policies, the middle-class Kentuckians I represent and hard-working Americans all over the country do not see a $1,000 bonus or a $2,000 tax cut as ``crumbs.''

Democrats protest America's tax cuts, bonuses, and new jobs. They can protest it all they want to, but Republicans will keep defending middle-class families.