Floor Statements

Mr. President, I listened carefully to the distinguished Senator, and I am going to come back to the floor and explain why he is wrong on every point. I am just really amazed that they make these arguments when they are the ones who really caused the healthcare bill to come forth, which is just eating us alive, but I am here for another reason.

I would like to open my remarks by joining the President and the American people in welcoming home three courageous individuals who have been held in captivity in North Korea.

We are all grateful for their safe return, but even as we celebrate their homecoming, we cannot forget about another brave American who has been unlawfully detained abroad--Joshua Holt.

For 2 years, Joshua and his wife Thamy have been held on spurious charges in a prison in Venezuela, and for 2 years I have been working hard to bring them home. Rest assured that I will continue to work closely with the administration to secure their release.

Now, Mr. President, I would like to turn to another matter as President pro tempore of the U.S. Senate and as the longest serving Republican on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. I ask my colleagues to come together in voting to support Gina Haspel's nomination to serve as the next Director of the Central Intelligence Agency.

I took to the floor just 2 weeks ago to speak on behalf of Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. While I am delighted we were able to get behind his nomination, I am shocked and embarrassed by the scale of partisanship and enmity that marked his confirmation process.

On the day of Ms. Haspel's hearing, I am once again disappointed at how poorly a dedicated servant has been treated by the press and by some in this Chamber.

This is someone who has served her organization faithfully for over three decades. She is one, among a very small group, who rose up through the ranks within the Directorate of Operations during the Agency's transition from the Cold War to the War on Terror.

The job of the CIA operative--our Nation's first line of defense--is a thankless one. For generations, the American people will never know the length of the sacrifices these men and women make to keep us all safe. For these men and women, public service is not only a profession but a lifestyle--a commitment that often requires the sacrifice of family and loved ones as well. It is a life of constantly being on the frontlines, being in the arena in every sense of the expression.

Ms. Haspel embodies all these qualities and has given of herself in ways we can never imagine or begin to do ourselves. In turn, she has not only acquired the needed experience and expertise for this job but has also gained the respect of men and women of the organization she is to head.

She has also worked closely with Secretary Pompeo as his Deputy for the year during which he was Director--a level of trust that would be critical in her new role as Director working with the Secretary of State.

It is worth pointing out to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle the words of praise offered for Ms. Haspel's nomination by security officials who served under President Obama.

James Clapper, the former Director of National Intelligence, said: ``I think the world of Gina; she is capable, smart, very experienced, well respected by the Agency rank and file, and a great person.''

Leon Panetta, who served as both CIA Director and Secretary of Defense, said: ``I'm glad that they have a first woman as head of CIA, and I'm glad that it's Gina because frankly she is someone who really knows the CIA inside out.''

John Brennan, who also served as President Obama's CIA Director, said: ``She will be able to provide that unvarnished, apolitical, objective intelligence input to Donald Trump and to others.''

If these words do not represent a seal of approval, then I don't know what does. Never have I seen someone receive such widespread praise from such a distinguished and bipartisan group of seasoned authorities, and never did I think I would live to see the day that the CIA would receive its first female Director.

I know we will all come together, ultimately, to vote to confirm Ms. Gina Haspel as Director of the CIA, but I would like to take this opportunity to again remind my colleagues in the Senate of the destructive nature of this partisanship. Two weeks ago, we were on the cusp of not having a Secretary of State all because we were more concerned with political loyalties.

Today we see the same dynamic in play. We are again divided along party lines and, once again, on a candidate who is supremely qualified to lead the organization for which she was nominated. This type of partisanship is unprecedented in our history, and it is destructive for our future. It represents a true national security threat of the highest order.

We can disagree about specific policies, we can have our political stakes, but let's keep those out of our first responsibility of serving the American people, whose physical well-being and safety should be our first priority. Who better understands this than Gina Haspel, a distinguished public servant who has kept our country safe during the most dangerous times in recent memory.

I ask my colleagues to stop with this dangerous behavior. Enough of the partisan games. We will be able to hold Ms. Haspel, as other Cabinet members, accountable for specific policies, as is our job, but let's get them into their jobs first. Our Nation needs them, and our Nation needs us to behave as the representatives and stewards of our democracy that we ought to be.

I urge all of my colleagues to vote in favor of Ms. Haspel's nomination.

Mr. President, as we move through life, certain people leave a lasting impression, and I rise today to recognize one of them. Leo Montoya, a citizen of Utah, is an exceptional man who has impressed me with his commitment to family, faith, and community.

In 1928, the year Alexander Fleming discovered penicillin, Leo was born on June 4 as the seventh of nine siblings to Epifanio and Decideria (Gutierrez) Montoya. Decideria's family roots were in New Mexico, where she raised her family as head of household in La Jara and Lumberton. Decideria worked outside the home, so her daughters took care of their youngest siblings while the older brothers contributed to support the family any way they could. The family lived under extreme poverty and hardship in La Jara until Leo's 14-year-old brother, Candido, traveled 90 miles north to find work in the Lumberton coal mines.

Candido saved his meager earnings to buy a small ranch to support his mother and siblings with the help of his younger brothers, Jose and Eudoro, who also worked in the mines. Jose had only one arm but loaded coal shovel-for-shovel against any other worker. Both Candido and Eudoro served in the military during WWII, and Leo, Tony, and Elisandro served during the Korean war. Leo's oldest child, Tereso, was born during the Korean war.

It is Utah's good fortune that the entire Montoya family eventually settled in Utah. They are hard-working, honest, and enterprising people who value God, family, and country above all else. Leo is the last of them, and it is fitting that his achievements and contributions to Utah are recognized. Leo is a true American success story.

While serving in the Army, Leo met the love of his life at a small town dance, Rebecca Manzanares, of Monticello, UT. They were married in the Glendale neighborhood of Salt Lake City and together raised 11 children: Leona, Jay, Guy, Luben, Jim, Tanya, Reba, Leo, Max, Toni, and Belen. Leo worked at Hall Process Company for $1.45 an hour, but he and Rebecca still managed to invest a small fortune in real estate.

Where some saw oppression and exploitation, Leo and Rebecca saw opportunity and fortune, teaching their children that they could obtain and achieve anything America offered if they worked hard, became educated, and stayed out of trouble. Their children succeeded in different ways and remain powerfully united as a loving and supportive family unit.

Leo also contributed to the Salt Lake community. Beginning in 1965, he began encouraging young boys to discipline themselves through sports in his Glendale neighborhood. At first, Leo trained young boys on a punching bag hung under a tree in his side yard, where he could keep an eye on them while he worked. By 1970, boys started showing up in larger numbers, many of them troubled youth from broken homes, so Leo began holding daily practice in church and school gymnasiums to give the boys something to do after school.

By 1975, his boxing team had more than 20 members that he took to compete in tournaments throughout the intermountain area and beyond-- all at his own expense. By 1980, Leo knew he needed something more permanent for the boys, so he bought an old secondhand store in Salt Lake's Guadalupe neighborhood and converted it into the Leo Montoya Boxing Club, which still welcomes young male and female boxers.

Leo supports his Guadalupe neighborhood in other ways as well. In the winter, he plows the sidewalks of the Boys and Girls Club on 600 West and 300 North, as well as the sidewalks for his elderly neighbors. Leo regularly patrols the Guadalupe neighborhood in his golf cart to keep his community clean and safe. Virtually every resident and businessowner in the neighborhood appreciates Leo's vigilance.

In 2012, Leo was celebrated in one of Utah's major newspapers under the Salt Lake Tribune headline: ``In His West-side Gym, Leo Montoya Turns Boys Into Men.'' In 2013, Leo's contributions to the neighborhood were featured on the front page of the Deseret News under the headline: ``Community Celebrates Boxing Coach's 85th Birthday, Impact on Neighborhood.'' A quote in the Tribune article might have best captured what makes Leo unique and such a treasure as he contemplates: ``It makes me feel great that I've been accomplishing something nice (and helped) somebody . . .

Everybody wants to get paid for everything. Somebody's gotta do something for nothing.''

Leo has also been a dear friend to me for many years, and he proved it by posting my 6-by-9-foot campaign posters in front of his gymnasium for every one of my reelection efforts over the past 33 years. His gym is located in a predominantly Democrat neighborhood. Leo's son, Luben, and daughter-in-law, Ruthie, have been like family to me for more than 30 years, and I had the privilege of blessing his grandson and namesake, Leo, 24 years ago. Elaine and I have also truly enjoyed the company of Leo and Rafelita over the years.

From helping his brothers in the coal mines and train yards at 14 years old, to supporting his community and building a small business empire, Leo is truly deserving of recognition as a great American success story. I am proud of Leo and his family, and I am very grateful for his contributions to his community, to Salt Lake City, and to Utah. In this, the year of his 90th birthday, I welcome this body in joining me to wish Leo many more years of good health and happiness.

Mr. President, today I wish to pay tribute to a remarkable man who was a giant in our community and who had an immeasurable impact on the lives of many, many people. Sadly, Sam Granato passed away peacefully at his home after a 2-year battle with cancer. He fought his personal medical battle the same way he approached life: with grit, determination, and perseverance.

Sam spent most of his life as a resident of Millcreek, UT, where he learned from his father, Frank, the value of

hard work. Frank taught his son the elements of the food industry, imparting to Sam invaluable lessons that he would later implement as he established and operated several Italian delis and distributed food to Utah stores and restaurants. Lunch at Granato's was a mainstay for people from all walks of life. Some of the most interesting political discussions, for people on both sides of the aisle, have taken place in the ``boardrooms'' of Sam's beloved restaurant.

To Sam, everyone was his best friend. Sam enthusiastically greeted every person who walked in the door of Granato's, whether he had known you for decades or had just met you. His mantra was always, ``How can I help you?'' Time after time, I watched Sam put his arm around someone, lean in, and offer a word of encouragement or help.

Sam contributed to so many areas of Utah life. He was a successful businessowner, an effective Salt Lake councilman, an advocate for the needy, and a loving husband and father. He often brought people together--Mormon and Catholic, Republican and Democrat--and would bridge the gaps that confronted us. He represented a better era in politics in which we focused more on where we agree than where we disagree.

With Sam's passing, Utah has lost an important member of its community. Sam was a man whose small stature belied his huge impact. Elaine and I extend our deepest sympathy and love to his wife, Ann, and to their four children. May our Heavenly Father's loving arms encircle them as they mourn his loss and celebrate his life. I will miss my friend and his kindness and support, but I know that the contributions he made will continue to bless our State for generations to come.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to complete my remarks on the floor.

Mr. President, there is no excuse for the delays in the confirmation process except sheer partisanship. It amounts to an ongoing partial government shutdown, and it definitely hurts the American people. Such obstruction is not worthy of the Senate, and the resulting judicial vacancies do great harm to the judicial system.

These are not my words but the words of the Senator from Vermont, Mr. Leahy, when he chaired the Judiciary Committee in 2014. Judicial vacancies today are 60 percent higher than when he expressed those concerns back then. Vacancies are 52 percent higher than what he said was a ``disaster for our Nation's overburdened courts.''

The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts labels some judicial vacancies as judicial emergencies because of their duration and impact on caseloads. On March 12, 2012, the Senator from Illinois, Mr. Durbin, said that 35 judicial emergency vacancies would cause the administration of justice to suffer at every level. Today, there are 72 judicial emergency vacancies, more than twice as many as Senator Durbin warned about.

To be fair, I have to say that the leftwing groups that are such faithful allies of Senate Democrats are no better. In July 2012, for example, the Alliance for Justice proclaimed that 76 vacancies demonstrated ``an overall and ongoing vacancy crisis in the federal courts.'' Today, vacancies are 88 percent higher than the crisis level, and all we hear from the Alliance for Justice are calls to oppose and obstruct even more. Judicial vacancies today are 74 percent higher than when the Brennan Center for Justice said the Senate was not meeting its obligation to the American people.

If high judicial vacancies harm the judicial system and prevent Americans from seeking justice, why aren't Democrats and their leftwing allies leading the effort to confirm judicial nominees today? If Democrats once said that 79 vacancies constitutes a crisis, why are they silent about 143 vacancies today?

Today we face the highest judicial vacancy total since June of 1991, after Congress had created dozens of new judgeships. It is crystal clear why this dire situation confronts us today. The process for appointing Federal judges, after all, has only three steps: nomination by the President, consideration by the Senate Judiciary Committee, and a decision by the full Senate.

The first step in the judicial appointment process is Presidential nominations. President Trump has made more judicial nominations than his predecessors of both parties at this point, so he is not the problem--as you can see from that chart.

The second step is consideration by the Judiciary Committee. Chairman Chuck Grassley has held a hearing on 75 of those nominations--more than under previous Presidents, so the Judiciary Committee is not the problem.

That leaves the third step right here on the Senate floor. Even though President Trump is ahead of the nomination

pace, and the Judiciary Committee is ahead of the hearing pace, the Senate's confirmation pace is half what it was at this point for the past five Presidents.

March 20, I spoke here about some of the below-the-radar obstruction tactics Democrats are using to make this part of the process as time- consuming and cumbersome as possible. Let me offer a brief review. Democrats once complained about U.S. district court nominees being reported from the Judiciary Committee on a party-line vote. That is happening at a rate of more than four times as great today.

Democrats once criticized the failure to cooperate in scheduling floor votes for judicial nominees. So far, Democrats have forced the Senate to take separate votes to end debate, called a cloture vote, on 96 percent--96 percent--of President Trump's judicial nominees. The Senate has been forced to take 16 times as many cloture votes on President Trump's judicial nominees as under the last 12 Presidents combined at this point. You heard me right. The Senate has been forced to take 16 times as many cloture votes on judicial nominees as under the last 12 Presidents combined at this point. That is every President since the cloture rule was first applied to nominations in 1949.

In 2014, with a Democratic President, Democrats said that every time the minority refuses to cooperate in scheduling confirmation votes, every time the majority leader is forced to initiate the cloture process, the Senate is forced to take up scarce floor time, when we know these nominees will be confirmed. Today, Democrats are using that and other tactics on a scale this body has never seen before.

Democrats once objected to voting against confirming U.S. district court nominees who were supported by their own two Senators. At this point, President Obama's confirmed district court nominees had received a total of zero negative votes--zero. President Trump's district court nominees have received 73 negative votes--73. Think about that. Think about the unfairness of it.

Each of these, and more besides, is a tactic that Democrats once condemned but are today pushing to record levels of obstruction. Even more important than seeing where we are and how we got here is understanding why the Democrats and their leftwing allies are working so hard to prevent President Trump from appointing judges.

I have served in this body and on the Judiciary Committee for nearly 42 years. I have participated in the confirmation of half of all article III judges who have ever served in this country, from the beginning. In all that time, the conflict over judicial appointments has never been over judicial nominees; it has always been over judicial power. The vacancy crisis we face today is a consequence of the broader, ongoing conflict over the kind of judge America needs on the bench.

America's Founders gave us a system of government that includes a judiciary with a role defined by three important principles. First, as Founder James Wilson put it, the people are masters of the government. Second, the Constitution is the primary way that the people set rules for government. Third, among those rules is the separation of powers into three coequal but different branches.

Judges acting consistent with these principles, what I have called impartial judges, fit the design of our system of government and the liberty it makes possible. Judges who depart from those principles, what I have called political judges, are at odds with that design and undermine our liberty. President Trump is committed to appointing impartial judges, while those working so hard to obstruct his his nominees favor political judges.

President Obama led the way in the quest for a political judiciary. First, as a Senator evaluating judicial nominees and then as a President choosing them, he said judges decide cases based on their empathy, their vision of how the world works, their core concerns, and their deeply held beliefs. If judges make decisions on their personal views, then it is no wonder the Democrats want so badly to know a judicial nominee's personal views.

I will never forget the confirmation hearing for Chief Justice John Roberts in 2005. Democrats pressed him to commit, in advance and under oath, to particular results in different categories of cases. They asked repeatedly: Whose side will you be on? Political judges take sides, even before cases come before them, because their main objective is to ensure that the favored side wins and that the preferred political interest is served.

We see this in plain view today. Democrats observe a judicial nominee's personal views, or his legal views on behalf of a client, and insist that those views will dictate his judicial views. This is why many Democrats will oppose any nominee who has conservative personal beliefs or who has advocated for conservative clients. To them, there is no difference between politics and law.

Democrats oppose judicial nominees because of their personal views, even when the American Bar Association--which has never been accused of being conservative--gives those nominees its highest rating. The appeals court nominee confirmed this week, for example, received that rating only after the ABA considered, in its words, his ``compassion, decisiveness, open-mindedness, courtesy, patience, freedom from bias, and commitment to equal justice under the law.''

In their heart of hearts, those who favor political judges have no problem with judicial minds being closed or biased so long as that leads to results they like. They seek politically correct results by any judicial means.

That judiciary is very different from the one contemplated by the Founders of this great country. That judiciary is very different from the one described by the oath of judicial office, by which a judge commits to do justice without respect to identities or interests. That judiciary is very different from the one that makes our liberty possible.

The liberty we enjoy is by design, not by accident. That design requires judges with a limited and defined role. Impartial judges support the liberty our system of government was designed to provide while political judges undermine it. Impartial judges take the law as it is and apply it fairly to decide cases, leaving decisions about what the law should be to the American people and their elected representatives. Political judges take decisions about what the law should be away from the American people, manipulating the meaning of statutes and the Constitution to follow their own views and their own agenda.

The conflict over judicial appointments is, and will remain, a conflict over judicial power and, therefore, a conflict over the system of government crafted by America's Founders. Remember the three principles I mentioned earlier. Impartial judges allow the American people to remain the masters of government; political judges become the masters of the people. Impartial judges follow the rules the American people put in the Constitution; political judges change the meaning of those rules to suit their own ends. Impartial judges respect the separation of powers while political judges breach it.

The unprecedented obstruction of judicial nominees today is a tool in the campaign for an increasingly politicized judiciary. The rhetoric of that campaign is all about desirable objectives, all about good intentions. I close with the words of Daniel Webster, who represented two different States in the House and represented Massachusetts in the Senate before serving as Secretary of State under three different precedents. He said:

Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption

of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the

Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers

of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to

govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good

masters, but they mean to be masters.

That is Daniel Webster. Let me repeat that again because Webster is one of the greatest people who ever served in this government.

Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption

of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the

Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers

of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to

govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good

masters, but they mean to be masters.

America needs impartial judges so that the American people can be the masters of government and so that liberty can thrive.

Let me go over that quote again from Daniel Webster. I will end with this.

Daniel Webster said:

Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption

of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the

Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers

of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to

govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good

masters, but they mean to be masters.

Some of those Founding Fathers really knew what they were talking about, and Webster was certainly one of them in many respects.

All I can say is that we have a chance to work together to do what is right and in the best interest of the American people. I intend to see that we do that, and I hope we can because this country is worth it. Our system of government is the best this world has ever seen, and I want to see it continue to be.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, the legislation in question makes a significant change to the pension funding rule, but it is narrowly written to only address issues concerning a single retirement plan. There are a number of companies that have similar funding issues which are not addressed by my colleague's proposal.

I appreciate the work that my colleague Senator Murray has done on this issue, and I appreciate that there is ongoing bipartisan work on issues that her legislation addresses as well as on other issues surrounding retirement plans.

The committees with jurisdiction over these issues, including the Finance Committee, continue to work on bipartisan solutions that have not fully vetted the matter that my friend Senator Murray is putting forth today. Until they do so, it is not appropriate to move this measure forward. Therefore, I respectfully object to this unanimous consent request.

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

Mr. President, as President pro tempore of the U.S. Senate, I ask my colleagues to join us in voting swiftly and unanimously in support of Mike Pompeo's nomination to serve as the next Secretary of State.

Frankly, I am embarrassed by the naked partisanship that was on display during Director Pompeo's confirmation hearing. The Director deserves better than this. That his nomination was nearly sent to the floor without recommendation is an utter disgrace.

This is a graduate of West Point and a man who served our Nation honorably as a cavalry officer in the U.S. Army. This is a talented litigator who graduated from Harvard Law School, where he served as editor of the Harvard Law Review. This is an accomplished businessman, a former Member of Congress, and the current Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. This is a man who is qualified to serve in every respect. Yet some of my colleagues wanted to block Director Pompeo's nomination on the grounds that he supports our President. Give me a break.

To these colleagues, I say: Enough. Enough of the partisan games. Enough of the political grandstanding and self-serving sanctimony.

Delaying this nomination undermines not only the reputation of this esteemed body but the very safety of our Nation. Obstructing Director Pompeo's confirmation would be a significant break from the bipartisan process that has characterized these kinds of nominations in the past and over my past 42 years.

For example, when President Obama nominated Hillary Clinton to serve as Secretary of State, Republicans and Democrats set aside their differences without delay, confirming her nomination almost unanimously with a vote of 94 to 2. Just 4 years later, the Senate did so again when we confirmed John Kerry with a vote of 94 to 3.

As Republicans, did we disagree with Secretary Clinton's and Secretary Kerry's views on a wide range of issues? Absolutely. But did those disagreements prevent us from confirming two preeminently qualified nominees? Absolutely not.

As a case in point, when Secretary Kerry was confirmed in January 2013, the Syrian civil war was raging, and many of us strongly disagreed with the Obama administration's policies in the Middle East. To my frustration and that of all my Republican colleagues, it seemed that Secretary Kerry's Syria policy differed little from his predecessor's, but rather than turn our dissenting votes into destructive votes, we voted almost unanimously for his confirmation.

There was an understanding at the time that you paid deference to the President's nominees, even if you disagreed with them on certain policies. Today, that custom is under siege. It is under threat. If we are not careful, in the future, then partisanship will sure get the best of all of us.

The partisan abandon with which some approached Director Pompeo's nomination is something that I fear the Founding Fathers would never have imagined, much less condoned. If we continue down this perilous path, a dangerous precedent will take root, making any nomination under any President at any time all but impossible.

Our role as legislators is to challenge the views of our nominees and to hold them accountable. It is not, however, to discredit, defame, and destroy the reputation of a sitting Cabinet official. Nor is it to prevent from serving a man who is so manifestly qualified to serve. To engage in such political games at a time when our Nation faces growing threats abroad is not only irresponsible, but it is dangerous.

So I say to my colleagues one last time: Confirm Director Pompeo.

He has proven himself as Director of the CIA--one of the most demanding, high-pressure jobs in government. He knows the world and its secrets better than virtually anyone. Moreover, he understands the scale of the threats facing the United States. I know that. I think I am still the longest serving member of the Senate Intelligence Committee. Perhaps most importantly, he has earned the love and trust of the people he serves, boosting the morale of the Agency and reinvigorating its sense of purpose and mission. We are in desperate need of someone who can do the same at the State Department.

Already, Director Pompeo has demonstrated he has the diplomatic skill to lead the State Department, setting the stage for negotiations between President Trump and Mr. Kim by establishing a back-channel line of communication with North Korea. He has also helped foster good relations with our foreign partners--a necessary skill for someone serving as our Nation's top diplomat.

Simply put, there is no reason under the Sun that Director Pompeo should not receive every last vote in this Chamber.

The way we treated Director Pompeo by nearly sending him to this floor without a recommendation was shameful. Indeed, the reputation of the Senate would have been tarnished were it not for the last-minute intervention of a few of my colleagues--in particular, Senator Chris Coons, for whom I have great admiration. He thinks for himself.

I wanted to recognize Senator Coons today and thank him for his leadership. In a display of both compassion and bipartisanship, Senator Coons switched his ``no'' vote to ``present,'' ultimately allowing Director Pompeo to secure a favorable recommendation. Senator Coons did so as a gesture to Senator Isakson, who could not be present for the vote because he was delivering a eulogy at his best friend's funeral.

This simple act of bipartisanship reminds me of the Senate I used to know--the institution that lived worthy of its name and reputation as the world's greatest deliberative body. Senator Coons' vote brought us back from the precipice overlooking a partisan abyss. It was a timely reminder that this body is at its best when we put comity and respect ahead of partisanship. Senator Coons' gesture was characteristic of the person I know him to be--a class act, a loyal friend, and a true gentleman of the Senate.

May we all take a cue from yesterday's bipartisan display. Our treatment of Director Pompeo in committee was embarrassing, to say the least, but now we have a second chance. Now we have the opportunity to set things right by voting unanimously for his confirmation. I urge all my colleagues to do what is best for the Senate and the Nation by voting in favor of Director Pompeo's nomination.

Let's get rid of this total partisanship around here. I think both sides are to blame, in some respects. I don't mean to just be picking on Democrats here today, but when somebody with the quality of Director Pompeo is seeing this type of treatment on the floor of the U.S. Senate, my gosh, what are we becoming? All I can say is, it is not right.

This is a chance to reform and make it right. I hope we will do that. If we don't, we have to find a way of getting together. We have to find a way of supporting whoever is President, who nominates people who are qualified and who are good people, regardless of whether we agree with them ideologically.

The fact is, this Senate has become a very partisan body. There are times to be partisan. There is no question about that, and all of us have felt those times from time to time. My gosh, should we be this partisan on somebody like Secretary Pompeo, who clearly is one of the finest nominees I have seen in the whole time I have been in the U.S. Senate?

I hope my colleagues on both sides will vote for him and give him the respect, the support, and the help he is going to need in this position. We all know he is going to be confirmed. The question is, Will he be confirmed with the support of all of us Senators who really think of these things and who really care for our country, who really believe in bipartisanship, who really believe that regardless of differences of politics and opinion, class acts like Mr. Pompeo should be supported?

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I wish to pay tribute to a dedicated public servant, a beloved statesman, and a gentleman of the Senate: Senator Daniel Akaka. On Friday, Senator Akaka passed away peacefully with his family gathered by his bedside. He leaves behind not only a strong record of legislative achievement, but a legacy of love and Aloha that animated his work here in the Senate.

Senator Akaka committed his life to public service. Whether as a soldier, educator, or Senator, he dedicated himself fully to the betterment of our Nation. After graduating high school in 1942, Senator Akaka enlisted in the Army Corps of Engineers, playing a key role in critical construction projects across the Pacific Theater during World War II. Senator Akaka's military service was a springboard to even greater opportunities, allowing him to finance a college education through the GI bill.

As a beneficiary of this historic legislation, Senator Akaka was perhaps the greatest advocate of our troops during his time here in the Senate, writing and spearheading passage of the 21st Century GI bill. He wanted our servicemembers to have the same opportunity he had to transition into civilian life, receive an education, and change this country for the better.

With help from the GI bill, Senator Akaka earned both a bachelor's and master's degree in education from the University of Hawaii. For nearly two decades, he worked in Hawaii's public schools, first as a teacher and eventually as a principal. Working in the trenches of America's public education system, Senator Akaka gained the

hands-on experience he would need as a legislator to take an active role in some of the most important education reforms of modern times.

After working as both a teacher and an administrator, Senator Akaka served as the chief program planner in the department of health, education, and welfare, and eventually served as the director of the Hawaii Office of Economic Opportunity. The sterling reputation Senator Akaka gained in State government helped launch his legislative career, and in 1976, the people of Hawaii elected him to the U.S. House of Representatives. He had a distinguished record as a Congressman before Hawaii elected him to the Senate in 1990.

In this chamber, Senator Akaka worked hard on behalf of our Native populations as the chairman of the Indian Affairs Committee. He also fought valiantly for our troops as the Chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, ensuring that our men and women in uniform were well taken care of upon returning home.

Having served alongside Senator Akaka for more than two decades, I remember best the spirit of civility he embodied as a legislator. He was caring and kind, loving and loyal, genuine and generous to all. He represented the best of this body in his willingness to lay aside partisan differences for the good of the Nation. Although we were members of different parties, he was the kind of Senator you could work with, never letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.

I consider myself lucky to have known Senator Akaka and even luckier to have called him a friend. Today my prayers are with Senator Akaka's family and the people of Hawaii, whom he loved and served so selflessly for so many years.

Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a long-time friend, a revered public servant, and a true southern gentleman, Senator Thad Cochran.

Thad Cochran will be retiring at the end of this month, bringing an end to more than 40 years of exemplary service to Mississippi and our Nation.

Senator Cochran is a Mississippi man through and through. He was born in Pontotoc to a mother who was a school teacher and a father who was a principal. After graduating as valedictorian at his high school, Thad attended Ole Miss, where he earned both his bachelor's and juris doctor degrees. After serving in the Navy, he practiced private law in Mississippi for several years, but it wasn't long before he entered politics.

After serving in the House of Representatives, Thad first came to the Senate in 1978, just 2 years after my own election. The truth is, I hardly know this place without him, and I can hardly imagine what things will be like when Thad is no longer sitting here.

It is difficult to describe the special bond you share with someone who has been your close friend and partner here on the floor and colleague for more than four decades. Thad and I have been here through some of the most formative events in modern history, including the fall of the Soviet Union, the rise of American hegemony, the creation of the internet, and the coming of the digital age. As Members of this body, we have had the privilege not only to witness history but also to help shape it.

Whether as chairman of the Senate Republican Conference, the Agriculture Committee, or the Appropriations Committee, Senator Cochran has spearheaded some of the most significant policy initiatives of the last several decades. With an equal mix of healthy persistence and pure southern charm, he quickly earned his reputation as the ``quiet persuader.'' I know I speak for all of my colleagues when I say he will be sorely missed.

Thad Cochran is so much more than the senior Senator from Mississippi. He is so much more than the legislation he has passed and the titles he has held and the awards he has received. Thad Cochran is a fixture of American politics, a man synonymous with the Senate, who embodies in every way all that is right and good about this body--a commitment to comity, character, and respect.

I think my colleague Senator Leahy put it best when he said that Senator Cochran represents the old school. He personifies a generation of lawmakers brought up on the principles of bipartisan and compromise, and I believe that these very virtues have been the keys to his success as a legislator.

Even in recent years, as our politics grew ever more divisive, Thad reminded us that in the era of endless gridlock and perpetual polarization, there is no alternative to civility and healthy debate. Thad is always someone you could trust to put the good of others above self, someone you could count on to reach across the aisle even when the political risks were great. In so doing, Thad gave all of us a template for effective legislating, and he followed the model for decades for the betterment of Mississippi and the Nation.

I consider myself lucky to know Thad and even luckier to call him friend. It is true that this body will not be the same without him, but I hope we can honor his service by recommitting ourselves to the virtues of civility and respect every day.

Today, I want to thank my colleague from Mississippi for his example and his many years of friendship. I wish him and his family the very best.

Thad, I want you to know that not only will we miss you, we will not get along as well without you. I think the world of you. It has been a pleasure for me to sit right by you on the floor for all of these years, and it has been a pleasure to learn from you. God bless you, and just know that a lot of us are pulling for you in every way.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, the prospect of retirement has imbued me with a sense of urgency as I have never felt it before. With just a few months left in office, I have an ambitious agenda that I am committed to getting across the finish line, and with the passage of this year's spending bill, I am grateful to be several steps closer to that goal.

In my first Senate address after announcing that this term would be my last, I made clear my intentions for my final year in office. I promised to be on the Senate floor, early and often, pushing the most critical reforms of this Congress, and I have been. I promised a flurry of legislative activity from my office, and you have seen it.

Anyone who wants to count me out doesn't know that I have a dedicated staff determined to drive this old workhorse into the ground, and with the passage of this year's omnibus, our efforts are beginning to bear fruit. True to my promise in January to go big and to go bold, I have been hard at work over the last few weeks to include in this year's spending package a number of legislative priorities that will make a meaningful difference for millions of Americans.

I wish to thank the majority leader, the majority whip, the Speaker of the House, and their respective staffs for going extra lengths to help me attach several of these signature initiatives to the bill we will soon pass. Whether it is historic legislation to prevent school violence and improve our background check system or bipartisan measures to empower law enforcement and strengthen our rural communities, this omnibus encompasses a number of policy victories that will greatly benefit both Utah and the Nation.

Let me begin with the Clarifying Lawful Overseas Use of Data Act, or CLOUD Act. This critically important legislation will create a workable framework for law enforcement to obtain data stored overseas while at the same time protecting providers from conflicts of law and encouraging other countries to strengthen domestic privacy standards. This bill is a win for law enforcement, for the tech community, and for the Trump administration as well.

Passage of the CLOUD Act is the culmination of more than 4-years of hard work. My first foray on this issue was the Law Enforcement Access to Data Stored Abroad Act, or the LEADS Act, which I introduced in September 2014. I continued my work last Congress with the International Communications Privacy Act, or ICPA. Then, earlier this year, I introduced the CLOUD Act with my good friends Senator Coons, Senator Graham, and Senator Whitehouse.

Among other things, the CLOUD Act authorizes the United States to enter into bilateral agreements with other governments to set clear standards for requests for digital evidence. Under these bilateral agreements, the United States agrees to lift its blocking statute on disclosure to foreign law enforcement if the other country similarly agrees to lift any such bar it has on disclosure to U.S. law enforcement. Moreover, the CLOUD Act requires that any order issued by a foreign government on a U.S. provider be subject to judicial or other administrative review before the provider can be forced to turn over data.

I am hopeful that the U.S.-U.K. bilateral agreement framework outlined in the CLOUD Act will serve as a model for future agreements between the United States and other countries. Expeditiously implementing similar agreements with the European Union and our other allies is critical to protecting consumers around the world and facilitating legitimate law enforcement investigations.

The CLOUD Act gives law enforcement the tools they need to keep us safe. So, too, does the STOP School Violence Act. We started working with families from Sandy Hook on this bipartisan bill several months ago. They had some great ideas for making our schools safer including school threat assessment teams; anonymous reporting systems; and training for students, teachers, and law enforcement to prevent future violence. We engaged with stakeholders from the security industry about school security infrastructure improvements. These and other evidence- based strategies and programs to improve school safety formed the foundation of the STOP School Violence Act.

We were refining the bill and shoring up bipartisan support when tragedy struck at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School. This certainly increased the urgency of the legislation, and I

welcomed the help and advice of the families from Parkland as well.

I can't even imagine how I would react if something like that happened to one of my children, so it has been incredible to see these families from Sandy Hook and Parkland channel that grief and anger into unifying action. In particular, I would like to thank Ryan Petty, Patrick Petty, Kyle Kashuv, and so many other outstanding individuals who shared with us their unique perspective on the issue of school violence. Without them, this bill would not have become a reality.

Despite everything people like Kyle and the Pettys' went through, they came in with the attitude of wanting to find common ground and bring people together. These families from Parkland came in wanting to make a difference, saying this time had to be different, and very soon, they can say that they helped pass a historic bill that will save hundreds, if not thousands, of lives.

In the spirit of keeping young people safe, I am glad we were also able to get my Child Protection Improvements Act included in the omnibus. The objective of this bipartisan bill is simple: to better protect the most vulnerable in our society, namely, children, the elderly, and individuals with disabilities.

The Child Protection Improvements Act amends the National Child Protection Act of 1993 to make permanent a pilot program originally created by the Adam Walsh Act. This program ensures that organizations that serve children, the elderly, and individuals with disabilities have access to FBI fingerprint background checks for their employees, volunteers, and coaches. My hope is that this bill, which is broadly supported by youth-serving organizations and law enforcement groups, will save many lives and better protect those who cannot protect themselves. Giving permanency to this background check program is an important step in keeping children and the defenseless safe from violent criminals and sexual predators who might otherwise slip through the cracks.

Also among our Nation's most vulnerable are those struggling with addiction to opioids. Opioid abuse in our Nation has reached epidemic levels, leaving in its wake a trail of tragedy and shattered life. Few are immune to the devastating effects of addiction. For many, dependency begins with a painkiller prescription in the aftermath of a surgery or serious injury. Against their own will, patients develop an addiction to pain medication that leaves them craving more. Over time, feeding this addiction becomes increasingly difficult, pushing many to look for a harder fix. Some even turn to heroin, spurring a rapid descent into despondency from which few return.

To combat this harrowing epidemic, the omnibus more than triples the Federal resources devoted to the opioid crisis, allocating billions of dollars to opioid prevention, treatment, and enforcement. Moreover, the omnibus increases NIH funding to research new advances in healthcare and medicine, as well as alternative pain management options. My home State of Utah is a leader in this field, and this bill will give researchers the resources they need to continue to break new ground. In short, this legislation is a symbol of hope for millions across the country whose lives have been ravaged by the opioid epidemic.

In addition to helping Americans whose lives have been upended by addiction, I am also committed to helping Westerners who are struggling in our rural communities. That is why I worked long and hard to include in this year's omnibus a 2-year extension of the Secure Rural Schools program, or SRS.

The SRS program is absolutely critical to rural, forest counties in Utah and across the West. As the timber industry has declined in our country, rural counties with high presence of National Forest System lands face significant hardships in maintaining schools and essential infrastructure. Fortunately, with the extension of SRS, hard-working county leaders will be able to improve road maintenance, fund law enforcement, and keep our schools and libraries open.

The SRS program, as well as programs such as PILT, are a boon to families across the State of Utah. Of equal importance are our defense programs. Utah has some of the most patriotic people in the country, not to mention thousands of veterans and Active-Duty servicemembers. That is why I have always done everything in my power to support the warfighter, so I am pleased that this bill includes a much-needed 2.4 percent pay raise for our troops, the largest in 8 years. What is more, the legislation we are set to vote on today has the largest increase in defense funding in over 15 years, with a $61 billion increase over last year's levels. This is especially good news for my hard-working constituents at military installations throughout the state.

What I have mentioned thus far is by no means an exhaustive list of the legislative victories included in this year's omnibus, but also worth mentioning are initiatives to build research capacity at the National Institutes of Health; make childcare more affordable for America's hard-working families, expand TIGER grants to facilitate transportation projects across the country, strengthen the Economic Development Administration to bolster rural communities, and support evidence-based education programs for our Nation's youth. On each of these initiatives, I worked closely with stakeholders and everyday Utahns to ensure that their perspectives would be heard and their needs would be met.

I am pleased with the work we have been able to do on this bill. Like any compromise, it is far from perfect, but it's undeniably good, and I can confidently say that the bills included in this legislative package will have a lasting effect on the lives of thousands of Utahns and thousands more across the country.

Now, some have criticized the process of passing this legislation, criticizing the fact that lawmakers have not been able to read the omnibus from beginning to end. I take serious issue with this criticism. True, the omnibus is large, but every bill included therein has been thoroughly vetted over the course of several months and, in some cases, several years, so the assertion that we are passing a bill, the contents of which are unknown, is completely disingenuous. We know exactly what is in this omnibus because it is the culmination of all our hard work this Congress. This is a common vehicle for passing vetted legislation, and anyone who tells you otherwise is playing political games.

Let me just conclude by saying that, with the time I have left here in the Senate, I plan to leave everything on the field. For me, 2018 is not a victory lap but a sprint to the finish, and I plan to finish strong.

Mr. President, I submit this statement on behalf of myself and Ranking Member Wyden. The provisions of the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 1625, showing the text of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018, before the Senate for debate today includes technical corrections to legislation enacted prior to 2017. These provisions are important to provide clarity to taxpayers and to the administration of the law. I and Ranking Member Ron Wyden have asked the staff of the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation to make available to the public a technical explanation of this legislation.

The technical explanation expresses the congressional understanding and legislative intent behind this important legislation. It is available on the Joint Committee's website at www.jct.gov. It is document JCX-6-18, ``Technical Explanation of the Revenue Provisions of the House Amendment to the Senate Amendment to H.R. 1625 (Rules Committee Print 115-66),'' March 22, 2018.

I thank the Presiding Officer.

Mr. President, 1 year ago today, the Senate Judiciary Committee opened its hearing on the nomination of Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch. The Stanford Law & Policy Review has now published my article on one of the opposition's arguments made in that hearing and sure to be repeated should President Trump have the opportunity to make another Supreme Court nomination.

Today, I want to look at the lower courts because no fewer than 138 positions on the Federal district and appeals courts are vacant. That does not include 33 vacancies that we already know will occur in the next year or so. Everyone must understand both the seriousness and the cause of this crisis.

By itself, 138 is just a number. It is a big number, but it needs a frame of reference or a standard for us to know whether this number of judicial vacancies is normal or a serious problem that has to be addressed. I certainly don't want to be accused of partisanship, so I will rely solely on the standards and criteria used in the past by my Democratic colleagues. Let's first use some Democratic standards to evaluate the number of judicial vacancies that we face today.

One standard is that the Democrats have specifically identified how many vacancies are unacceptable. In February 2000, with a Democrat in the White House, the Democrats said that 79 vacancies were ``too high.'' In September 2012, with the Democrats both in the White House and controlling the Senate, they declared a ``judicial vacancy crisis'' when there were 78 vacancies.

If 78 vacancies is a crisis, what is the label for 138 vacancies? This is the highest judicial vacancy total since September 1991, but more than half of those vacancies were fresh from Congress's having created new judgeships several months earlier. So I think it is fair to say that in either total or percentage terms, we face today the most serious judicial vacancy crisis that anyone in this body has ever seen.

A second Democratic vacancy standard is that, as they did in April 2014, we can compare judicial vacancies today with vacancies at the same point under previous Presidents. If that Democratic standard is valid, vacancies today are 35 percent higher than at this point under President Obama and 46 percent higher than at this point under President George W. Bush.

There is a third Democratic vacancy standard. In June 2013 and at least as far back as April 1999, the Democrats have complained that the Senate was not confirming enough judicial nominees to keep up with normal attrition. Well, judicial vacancies today are 30 percent higher than when President Trump took office, and, as I said, at least 33 more have already been announced.

Finally, the Democrats have frequently said that the 107th Congress-- the first 2 years of the George W. Bush administration--should be our judicial confirmation benchmark. During that time, the Senate confirmed an average of just over four judicial nominees per month. The Senate has so far confirmed 28 of President Trump's district and appeals court nominees or fewer than two per month.

Take your pick. By any or all of these Democratic standards, we face a much more serious judicial vacancy crisis than in years past. In addition to the gravity of this crisis, however, the American people need to know its cause. I can tell you what is not causing this vacancy crisis. President Trump started making nominations to the Federal district and appeals courts on March 21, 2017, just 61 days after taking office, as you can see on this chart. By August of last year, he had made more than three times as many judicial nominations as the average for his five predecessors of both parties. President Trump has nominated 86 men and women to the Federal bench since he took office 14 months ago.

If the President is making so many nominations, perhaps the problem lies somewhere in the Senate confirmation process. Once again, my Democratic colleagues can help figure this out. In November 2013, then- Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy spoke about obstructing judicial nominees ``in other ways that the public is less aware.'' The Democrats are using such below-the-public-radar obstruction tactics at each stage of the confirmation process.

The first stop in the confirmation process is the Senate Judiciary Committee. Under Chairman Chuck Grassley's leadership, the committee has held a hearing for 62 of President Trump's judicial nominees--more than under any of the previous five Presidents at this point. So that is clearly not the problem. The first sign of Democratic obstruction is the unwarranted and partisan opposition to reporting judicial nominations from the Judiciary Committee.

In February 2012, 3 years into the Obama administration, the Democrats complained that five nominees to the U.S. district court had been reported by the Judiciary Committee on a party-line vote. This, they said, departed dramatically from Senate tradition. Today, just 14 months into the Trump administration, eight nominees to the U.S. district court have been reported by the Judiciary Committee on a party-line vote. The present rate of such party-line votes in the Judiciary Committee is more than four times what the Democrats criticized just a few years ago.

The below-the-radar obstruction tactics continue when the Judiciary Committee sends judicial nominees to the full Senate. The Democrats, for example, refuse to cooperate in scheduling confirmation votes. They can't prevent confirmation votes altogether because they abolished nomination filibusters in 2013, but if they can't make judicial confirmations impossible, they are determined to make them very difficult. Here is how they do it.

The Senate must end debate on a nomination before it can vote on confirmation. The majority and minority have traditionally cooperated to end debate and set up confirmation votes. In March 2014, not for the first time, the Democrats said that refusing consent to schedule votes on pending nominees was obstruction. When the minority refuses that consent, the only way to end debate and set up a confirmation vote is by the formal cloture

process, which requires a cloture vote and can add up to several days to the confirmation timeline, as seen here.

Since President Trump took office, the Democrats have forced the Senate to take 28 cloture votes on judicial nominations, compared to just two cloture votes at this point under the previous five Presidents combined. Even when cloture is invoked, Senate rules provide for up to 30 hours of debate before a confirmation vote can occur. Nearly half the time under President Obama, a judicial nomination cloture vote was followed by a confirmation vote on the same day. Under President Trump, that has plummeted to 17 percent. The average time between cloture and confirmation votes for President Trump's judicial nominations is more than 55 percent longer than it was under President Obama.

When a judicial nomination gets out of the Judiciary Committee, survives an unnecessary cloture vote, and then is subjected to postcloture delay, Democratic obstruction is still not over. In March 2012, the Democrats complained about Senators having voted against nominees to the U.S. district court who were supported by their own two Senators. In fact, the Democrats called this a new standard of obstruction because it departed so far from Senate tradition.

OK. Let's assume for the moment that this Democratic standard is also valid. At this point in the previous five Presidencies--from President Reagan to President Obama--U.S. district court nominees had received a combined total of 10 negative votes. So far, under President Trump, his confirmed district court nominees have received 72 negative votes.

Two weeks ago, the Pew Research Center released a new analysis showing that President Trump's confirmed judges have ``faced a record amount of opposition.'' In fact, this analysis concluded that President Trump's judges have each received an average of more than 22 negative votes, ``by far the highest average for any president's judges since the Senate expanded to its current 100 members in 1959.'' This level of opposition is more than four times what it was under President Obama-- or should I say oppositional delay.

These tactics don't involve high-profile filibusters or headline- grabbing confirmation defeats but, rather, internal Senate rules and unwritten traditions. That is why they operate below the radar. Yet the Democrats have criticized these tactics precisely because they take their toll. Individually and especially in combination, they can add days and weeks to the time it takes to confirm a single judicial nomination even when the final confirmation vote is unanimous.

In November 2013, for example, the Democrats said that taking cloture votes on unopposed nominees amounted to ``obstruction and abuse of Senate rules.'' At that point, almost 4 years into the Obama administration, the Senate had taken one cloture vote on a judicial nominee who was later confirmed without opposition--just one. We are only 14 months into the Trump administration, and the Democrats have already forced the Senate to take five cloture votes on nominees who were later unanimously confirmed. It has already happened twice this month. If doing this once amounted to obstruction and abuse, what would my Democratic colleagues call doing it five times as often in one- fourth the time?

These are just a few of what then-Chairman Leahy called obstruction tactics that the public may not be aware of. Believe me. There is more where these came from. As I said, I want to avoid partisanship. Each of these is a Democratic standard. These are Democratic criteria. If my colleagues who once thought these were valid standards want to abandon them now, then perhaps they were also wrong the first time around. Otherwise, we have to face the conclusions that follow from applying these Democratic standards and criteria.

We face an unprecedented judicial vacancy crisis. Since President Trump is making nominations and the Judiciary Committee, under Chairman Grassley's leadership, is steadily processing them, there remains only one explanation for the vacancy crisis we face today--plain, old- fashioned, partisan obstruction. The Democrats are manipulating this process at every stage, using the very tactics that they have loudly condemned in the past to make confirmations as difficult and time- consuming as possible.

Even in politics, actions speak louder than words. In July 2012, when there were 76 judicial vacancies, Chairman Leahy said that ``we should be doing better.'' Today, with nearly twice as many vacancies, I challenge my Democratic colleagues to put actions to those words.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I rise in support of the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act, which passed the Senate yesterday. This bipartisan bill protects and boosts the U.S. economy. I commend Chairman Crapo, members of the Banking Committee, and my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for the hard work in getting this particular bill proposal across the finish line.

Making the rules simpler and fairer for small and midsized financial institutions is a commonsense idea that has garnered broad bipartisan support. That is because, done right, it helps hardworking Americans who aspire to invent things, start businesses, and manufacture goods and services--exactly the kind of entrepreneurship and growth America needs more of.

There are plenty of people with different viewpoints on how to improve the financial system. Some, however, say that almost any modification to the 849-page Dodd-Frank Act equates to a bonfire financial regulation, a gift to Wall Street, and so on. I think we need to cut through such patronizing, derisive mudslinging, and instead focus on commonsense solutions for the American people.

Let me tell you a plain truth: The bill the Senate passed yesterday is the result of sensible debate, reasonable compromise, and hard policy choices. Without compromising the safety and soundness of our financial system, it provides regulatory relief to small and midsized banks, credit unions, and financial institutions--the kind most familiar on Main Street in my home State of Utah.

Our constituents deserve regulatory relief. Between 2010 and 2016, compliance with Dodd-Frank cost $36 billion and required 73 million paperwork hours. Dodd-Frank alone enacted more than five times as many restrictions as any other law passed by the Obama administration and more than 22,000 pages of regulations.

With their vast resources, large banks could stomach these regulations mainly through automation, but smaller banks could not. Saddled with extra compliance requirements and no material benefit to resilience, many buckled under the weight of these burdensome regulations.

Consider that there are 1,736 fewer community banks today than when Dodd-Frank was signed into law. Since 2010, the number of FDIC-insured commercial banks in Utah dropped from 53 to 42. In a similar timespan, the number of NCUA-insured credit unions in my home State fell from 94 to 66. Over the past decade, the percentage of small business and commercial loans dropped more than 15 percent.

Indeed, 8 years since the passage of Dodd-Frank, it is high time for Congress to reflect and make adjustments, as necessary, to improve our financial

regulatory system. Let's focus on resilience and efficiency. This bill does just that.

I would like to briefly highlight three reforms in the bill that benefit our national and local economies. First, the bill provides relief and flexibility to small financial institutions. More small bank holding companies will be able to raise capital, which will help bank lending opportunities for families, businesses, and startups. This policy was based on a bipartisan bill, the Community Bank Relief Act, that I introduced along with Senators King, Nelson, and Perdue. It is common sense to know that Utah's community banks are different from Wall Street banks, but too often regulations treat them the same.

Second, the bill increases the bank asset threshold for enhanced standards from $50 billion to $250 billion. I have long supported raising or recalibrating the asset threshold. It makes little sense that regional banks undergo stress tests and capital reviews similar to some of the largest, most complex global financial institutions. Similar to the unrealistic expectations put on community banks, this one-size-fits-all approach negatively affected regional banks.

Third, the bill eases the regulatory burden on 5,000 community banks that make up about 98 percent of financial institutions. For small banks and credit unions, this legislation provides relief from some of the requirements from the qualified mortgage rule, allowing them to devote more resources to serving their members rather than spending hours complying with regulatory overreach.

In today's era of extreme partisanship, this bill is a breath of fresh air. What the Senate has been able to accomplish this week is based on practical, consensus-led policy choices. While there remain other reforms that could relieve stress of burdensome regulations, this bill is a much needed start, which is why I wholeheartedly support this legislation.

Members on both sides of the aisle agree that the broad scope of Dodd-Frank created some harmful, unintended consequences. Let's make the rules simpler and fairer, as appropriate but not at the expense of safety. This bipartisan bill does just that, and the American people would be better off because of it.

I yield the floor.

I thank my colleague.

Confirmation of Gregg Doud