Floor Statements

Mr. President, I enter a motion to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, there is no objection to the Senate considering an amendment to strike the VIDA language. We have offered our colleagues the opportunity to vote on this amendment all week, and if the Senate needs to speak on the question of whether to include the VIDA language in the Coast Guard bill, I would welcome that debate and a fair up-or-down vote. There are many supporters of this language from both sides of the aisle, and I am confident the amendment would be defeated.

I would ask the Senator to revise his request: That the Senate resume consideration of the Coast Guard legislation; that the amendment to strike the VIDA provision be made pending and the Senate vote on the amendment prior to a vote on the motion to concur with further amendment.

So would the Senator be willing to modify?

I object.

Mr. President, today Senate Democrats have filibustered legislation to reauthorize funding for our Coast Guard.

In a dangerous world, the brave men and women of the Coast Guard are always ready for the call, whether it be to interdict drugs, to secure our ports, or to conduct daring maritime rescues. They deserve our support. They don't deserve a filibuster for the sake of political posturing. So let's have a little plain talk about why the bill failed.

Democrats filibustered this legislation because it contains an eminently sensible, bipartisan provision to streamline regulations for the mariners and vessel operators who drive America's maritime economy. It would cut back on duplicative rules and overlapping enforcement and provide a uniform standard that protects the environment and commerce alike.

If this sounds like a commonsense, bipartisan measure, that is because that is exactly what it is. This legislation has been favorably reported by the Commerce Committee six times--six

times--during the last three Congresses, including when our Democratic friends controlled the committee.

You might think that would be enough around here to get a bill passed. But earlier today, a number of the very same Democrats who cosponsored this very legislation, in this very Congress, flip-flopped under partisan pressure and voted against it. In fact, if all of the Senate Democrats who are currently cosponsors of this provision had voted for the bill, the cloture motion would have passed. Let me say that again. If the cosponsors of this measure in this Congress had voted for the bill, the cloture motion would have passed. If only those Democrats who had put their name on this provision would have actually followed through and voted for it, the filibuster would be over.

Look, our constituents sent us here to stand for their interests. In landlocked States like Kentucky and Missouri, thousands and thousands of jobs depend on our inland waterways. In coastal States like Delaware, Washington, and Florida, major ports enable hundreds of billions of dollars of U.S. commerce. Of course, the people of Hawaii rely on shipping for everything from groceries to gasoline.

In all of these States, and elsewhere, I know workers and job creators were excited about the prospect of reform in this area. How do I know that? Because, in several cases, they successfully persuaded their own Democratic Senators to support it--or so it had seemed, until today.

You know, Americans might be forgiven for thinking that persuading their Senator to go out of their way and cosponsor a bill would be the same thing as persuading them to actually vote for it. Apparently, where several of my Democratic colleagues are concerned, that is simply not the case because when party leaders came calling and asked my colleagues to put party-line obstruction politics ahead of their constituents' best interests, they folded. This is what people don't like about this town.

Well, my Democratic friends' political priorities may have shifted-- away from the people they are elected to fight for and toward leftwing pressure groups. But the merits of the issue have not changed, so the Senate will consider this issue further and will vote on this legislation again.

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

Mr. President, today the Democratic leader and I are proud to reestablish the Senate NATO Observer Group. The group was originally established in 1997 to provide a focal point for addressing NATO issues that cut across committee jurisdictions and to help educate Senators on the issues involved in any decision to enlarge NATO and to permit close interaction between the executive branch and the Senate during negotiations on NATO enlargement. Following the Senate's ratification of the protocols of accession in April 1998, the group ceased to function until it was reestablished on June 17, 2002. Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota and Minority Leader Trent Lott of Mississippi announced the formation of a new Senate NATO Observer Group to follow NATO's decision to formally invite additional new countries to join the Alliance at the Prague Summit. In his floor announcement, Senator Daschle said the bipartisan Senate NATO Observer Group would ``advise the full Senate'' on NATO and the next round of NATO enlargement. The Senate NATO Observer Group remained active through 2007, but was ultimately disbanded due to a lack of NATO enlargement rounds.

In arguing for reestablishment of the group, Senators Tillis and Shaheen wrote to Senator Schumer and I that: ``Exactly 10 years ago Estonia was one of the first countries to come under attack from Russia's modern form of hybrid warfare. In 2007, Russia conducted massive cyber-attacks on Estonia in response to Estonia's decision to relocate a Soviet Red Army memorial in Tallinn. One year later, as talks of eventual NATO membership for Georgia were debated, Russia activated its famed little green men in Georgia, invaded, and eventually occupied the Georgian regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. These regions are under Russian occupation to this day.''

In 2014, Ukraine befell a similar fate as Russia instigated a conflict, resulting in the occupation of Crimea and continued bloodshed in Ukraine's Donbass or eastern region. Since April 2014, when war erupted in eastern Ukraine, more than 10,000 people have died, a number which is steadily rising. Despite successive attempts at international negotiations and peace, the Kremlin grew more aggressive in its stance and, in 2016, expanded its malign efforts into Western Europe and the United States.

During the 2016 U.S. Presidential elections, U.S. intelligence agencies were able to conclude that Russia interfered in the U.S. elections using a combination of hybrid tools. A similar pattern soon emerged across NATO states, where the Kremlin used both cyber attacks and disinformation to sow chaos and mistrust in Western democracies. Given these newfound challenges, increased engagement and assistance for transatlantic security was elevated as a critical priority for the Senate, as well as successive administrations.

The 2018 Senate NATO Observer Group will mirror the structure and make-up of previous Senate NATO Observer Groups with eight Members serving ex officio, the two leaders plus the chairman and ranking member of the Appropriations, Armed Services, and Foreign Relations Committees. In addition, the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Intelligence Committee would also be invited to serve as ex-officio members. Senators Shaheen and Tillis, both Members of the Senate Armed Services Committee, would be named the cochairs, and a small group of Senators active on NATO issues would be named to the group jointly by the leaders and cochairs.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 361, S. Res. 426.

Mr. President, I know of no further debate on the resolution.

I ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported amendment to the preamble be agreed to and the preamble, as amended, be agreed to.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 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 Committee on Rules and Administration be discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 463 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that the 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 the Senate now proceed to the en bloc consideration of the following Senate resolutions, which were submitted earlier today: S. Res. 474, S. Res. 475, and S. Res. 476.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolutions be agreed to, the preambles be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, all en bloc.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10 a.m., Thursday, April 19; 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, that following leader remarks, the Senate proceed to executive session and resume consideration of the Bridenstine nomination. I further ask that all postcloture time on the Bridenstine nomination expire at 1:45 p.m. tomorrow and the Senate vote on confirmation of the Bridenstine nomination with no intervening action or debate; finally, that if confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it stand adjourned under the provisions of S. Res. 474, and do so as a further mark of respect for the late John Melcher, former Senator from Montana, following the remarks of Senators Durbin, Inhofe, and Portman.

Madam President, yesterday afternoon I filed cloture on S. 1129, the Coast Guard Authorization Act, a comprehensive package that equips an adaptable force to meet a variety of important missions. I hope my colleagues will join me in ensuring its swift consideration and passage this week.

First, Madam President, the Senate will consider yet another chance to use the Congressional Review Act and repeal yet another of the last administration's runaway regulations. Thanks to Senator Moran and Senator Toomey, today's effort will protect consumers from a brazen attempt by the past Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to stretch his authority and interfere in the auto industry.

The Dodd-Frank Act of 2010 got a lot of things wrong, but one thing Dodd-Frank got right was protecting auto dealers from meddling by the

Madam President, today is tax day, the deadline for most Americans to file their tax returns. For many middle-class households, that means sending too much of their hard-earned money off to the IRS--hardly cause for celebration. But this year, the gray clouds of tax day have a silver lining. Today is the very last time that American families will have to file under the unfair, outdated Tax Code that Congress and the President got rid of a few months ago. Out with the old and in with the new.

Republicans' historic overhaul cut taxes for families and small businesses. We doubled the standard deduction, expanded the child tax credit, and lowered rates as well. And we accomplished all of this while preserving key middle-class provisions, such as the mortgage interest deduction. The upshot of all of this is simple: major tax relief for middle-class families and a big shot in the arm for the U.S. economy, which will lead to more--and higher-paying--homegrown American jobs.

Already, tax reform has given American workers a raise, since less of each paycheck needs to be withheld for the IRS. When all is said and done, the Treasury Department estimates that our tax cuts will leave 90 percent of wage-earners with more take-home pay--that is 90 percent of wage earners with more take-home pay as a result of our tax reform measure.

In addition, millions of Americans are receiving special bonuses, pay raises, or new benefits from their employers as a direct result of tax reform. Thousand-dollar bonuses for workers at Kansas City Southern Railway in Missouri; a higher starting wage at First Farmers Bank & Trust in Indiana;

higher wages and new job opportunities at CSS Distribution Group, a small business packaging and distribution company in Kentucky; billion- dollar investments in pension plans for UPS and FedEx workers--the list goes on and on.

My Democratic colleagues from New York and San Francisco scoff publicly at the idea that a $2,000 tax cut or a $1,000 bonus would make a difference for American families. They have called these things ``crumbs.'' Something tells me they haven't tried that talking point around many middle-class kitchen tables. I suspect they would be laughed out of the room.

And these are just the first fruits. Tax reform laid the foundation for a more prosperous future with more good-paying American jobs. That is because we made sending jobs overseas less appealing. We created new incentives for businesses to invest, expand, build, and hire right here at home. We gave overseas competitors something to worry about--a healthy, competitive U.S. economy. Already, job creators of all shapes and sizes are investing more and expanding. For example, a furniture store in Ohio is planning a 4,500-square-foot expansion, a craft brewery in Iowa is planning to open a new production line, and a deck and patio builder in Virginia is hiring 10 new employees to meet rising demand, just to name a few.

Republicans designed every piece of tax reform to benefit middle- class families and small businesses, both right now and in the years and decades ahead. That used to be a bipartisan priority, but this time, Democrats chose to put political posturing ahead of America's best interests. Every single Democrat in the House and every single Democrat in the Senate voted to block tax reform--and by extension, every bit of this good news--from happening. Later today, in fact, some of our colleagues across the aisle will be demonstrating against the law right here on the grounds of the Capitol. I wonder whether they are protesting all the new jobs, or maybe it is the big family tax cuts, or maybe they are protesting the bonuses and wage hikes or all of the small business expansions. Their first mistake was voting to block all of this in the first place. Now, even as the economy is starting to thrive, they want to repeal these historic tax cuts and literally claw back the money. But make no mistake--Republicans will continue to stand and fight for the American people.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I move to proceed to S.J. Res. 57.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

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