Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today--and it was my intent to ask unanimous consent with my colleague, the vice chairman of the Intelligence Committee--for the Senate to confirm Bill Evanina as Director of the National Counterintelligence and Security Center.

Bill has served our Nation for over 23 years, including service as a supervisory special agent and assistant section chief with the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Prior to joining the NCSC, Bill served as the chief of counterespionage at the CIA.

Bill has served honorably as the Director of the NSC since June of 2014, before the position required Senate confirmation, necessitating a vote by the U.S. Senate. Here is a guy who has served for 3\1/2\ years, and we changed the statute and said that this is a position that the Senate needs to confirm in the future, and, all of a sudden, the same guy who has been there is now being held up.

Intelligence threats facing our Nation are numerous. They are growing, and they are significant. Bill is experienced, professional, and understands the threats through real world experience. We need a Director who can ably lead our Nation's counterintelligence security activities during a period of unprecedented threats. We need someone who can actively and effectively engage and educate the private sector on the threats--something Bill has done time and again.

Director Evanina was unanimously approved by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence in May, and it is time this body moved forward. We cannot continue to let politics or nongermane issues get in the way of confirming good people.

I ask this body to confirm Bill Evanina as Director of the National Counterintelligence Security Center without further delay.

I yield to my vice chairman of the Intel Committee.

Mr. President, I move to proceed to Executive Calendar No. 1111, Robert H. McMahon.

Mr. President, I wish to thank Senators Daines and Gardner for their critical support for backing this program. If there is only one takeaway anybody has from anything I say today, let it be this: This costs zero in taxpayer money, zero. For those who are budget hawks, it is a great bill.

In June, the three of us, along with some of our colleagues, convened in front of the Capitol to commemorate the 100th day until LWCF expires. It is unfortunate we are here today, less than a week away from its expiration, with no extension of this program.

I believe we ultimately will win this fight because our colleagues know it is the right thing to do. As Senator Daines pointed out, the majority of the House of Representatives and the majority of the U.S. Senate is supportive of this. It costs zero in taxpayer money, and it provides so much at the State and Federal level.

I appreciate my colleague's comments on public access. That is usually the focus of my LWCF monologues. Not a lot of my constituents are thinking about outdoor recreation right now; they are dealing with Hurricane Florence and her aftermath. As you all know, North Carolina recently experienced a hurricane of epic proportion. Flooding has reached record levels. People's homes and businesses are in disrepair, and flood levels continue today at dangerously high levels in some areas.

Obviously, much of this is unavoidable. If we ensure our infrastructure is well positioned to deal with major influxes of water, we can minimize the devastating impact we saw from Florence. I am not referring necessarily just to bridges, dams, and roads; I am talking about our natural infrastructure.

If we strategically create green spaces in our cities and in our river basins, we can mitigate some of the flooding. Guess what. LWCF dollars help us do that. A great example is the South Cape May Meadows Preserve and the surrounding Cape May National Wildlife Refuge which LWCF helped create in New Jersey.

The State of New Jersey, the Army Corps of Engineers, and the Nature Conservancy have worked together to restore wetlands, which now include engineered structures, as well as natural features like marshes, dunes, and wetlands.

This wetland area has since withstood several major storms, including Hurricanes Sandy and Irene. The wetland was positioned in such a way that it was able to absorb enough of the impact and water in order to protect many of the surrounding communities.

In 2016, a study by the Nature Conservancy, in partnership with a risk modeler for the insurance industry, showed that the marsh wetlands saved over $650 million in property damages during Hurricane Sandy alone and reduced annual property losses by nearly 20 percent in Ocean County, NJ.

This isn't just about protecting lands and public access; it is about those things we can do that provide a better community--a lower cost of insurance, a better way to mitigate some of nature's challenges.

Did I mention it is also a bird sanctuary? Did I mention it is a recreational destination? It also serves as critical infrastructure in times of disaster, like the one my State is dealing with today.

More and more, our civil engineers are incorporating these pieces of green infrastructure. At first glance, one would naturally think they are for aesthetic reasons.

In Charlotte, a series of greenways wind through the city. One of the greenways, Four Mile Creek Greenway, used an LWCF grant to develop the land into a multipurpose area, rather than actual acquisition of the land. It has trails winding through it. It is home to hundreds of different animal species. Yet it is also used for natural drainage. It absorbs water. It slows down the water with the vegetation and the winding creekbeds.

Our cunning civil engineers have us thinking they are building a park, but what they are really building is a flood mitigation program. As you can see, LWCF is used for projects in our cities and our rural areas--big and small projects. Ultimately, the biggest filters of water in North Carolina are our own natural forest and the Great Smoky Mountains National Park.

Healthy forests in these public lands help us to slow the flow of water, and we need those units to have the integrity so they can do their job of feeding healthy river systems that are much less prone to that flooding.

In conjunction with traditionally engineered structures, preserving strategic pieces of land in their natural state or restoring others to better take in water saves us money in the long run. Ocean County, NJ, proved that.

I can go on for hours. I can go on with hundreds of examples. There aren't a lot of facts I can give you about the program that I haven't already laid out in the past opportunities to be on the floor, but I think it is useful to end my speech by restating the original mission laid out 54 years ago when LWCF was created--authorized for 25 years, reauthorized for 25 years, and then only reauthorized for 5.

What do we want? We want permanent reauthorization. It is a program that has proven to be successful, regardless of your political views, a program that uses zero in taxpayer money, a program that produces benefits to every State in America that started with this mission statement:

To assist in preserving, developing, and assuring

accessibility to all citizens of the United States of America

of present and future generations . . . such quality and

quantity of outdoor recreation resources as may be available

and are necessary and desirable . . . to strengthen the

health and vitality of the citizens of the United States by

(1) providing funds for and authorizing Federal assistance to

the States in planning, acquisition, and development of

needed land and water areas and facilities and (2) providing

funds for the Federal acquisition and development of certain

lands and other areas.

I am not sure you can sum up any differently what the definition of a good program is, a successful program. It is not just in the mission statement; it is in the examples of what over those 54 years we have accomplished. There are not many things I can walk away from and believe that my grandchildren and my great grandchildren will be positively impacted by, but I can assure my colleagues of this: Permanent reauthorization of LWCF is one of those things. I am committed, along with my colleagues, to make sure there is no temporary reauthorization; there is a permanent reauthorization. We have met the burden of proof as to why this should never go away and why the American people support it in overwhelming numbers.

I am grateful to my colleagues for their support and their time to be on the floor today.

I yield back to Senator Daines.

Will the Senator from Montana yield?

I want to drive home what Senator Gardner said. This is not the first time we have been here. Almost 100 days ago, after that event we had outside, we came inside and moved to reauthorize the Land and Water Conservation Fund.

I just pulled out my drawer and found three instances. All of those speeches start like this:

``At this time, we are only 66 days until September 30.''

``At this time today, we are only 45 days.''

``Today, we are only 38 days until expiration.''

We continue to drive this with our colleagues. Why? Because the American public supports this program so much and because this is effective and impactful in every community of every State in the country. I know my colleagues agree with me. We are going to be relentless in how many times we come to the floor.

Sometimes, Senator Gardner, when you have been here as long as I have, you learn that sometimes you have to wear down the people who might find a reason to disagree with you. But, you know, nobody has disagreed with us because it costs money. Nobody has disagreed with us because it wasn't effective. Maybe they disagree with us because they haven't utilized it the way so many other Americans have. I can't think of a better legacy we can leave for generations to come than to permanently reauthorize that, and I believe it will happen this calendar year.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the Land and Water Conservation Fund. I talked a lot yesterday about the benefits of the Land and Water Conservation Fund and how it is one of the most popular and successful bipartisan programs that exist for conservation.

I shared with my colleagues and with those who listened a newsletter from the Blue Ridge Parkway Foundation that stated some of the great things they are doing with private sector dollars. They are taking what the Land and Water Conservation Fund provides--which is zero in taxpayer dollars but royalties off of exploration--and they are giving that to the States to protect treasures we have.

In those States and localities, they use that Federal seed money to leverage private sector dollars to produce inholdings, edge-holdings, and outparcels, sometimes traded so that we protect the land that is most valuable to us and that leverages volunteers and private dollars. It is on the order of 10 to 1 private dollars to Federal dollars.

Today, I want to give you a great example how LWCF money was used for acquisition of land that has made it safer for outdoor enthusiasts and also easier for local governments in my State of North Carolina.

We have a falls called the Catawba Falls. It is a popular attraction in western North Carolina, but the trail to get to the falls is over private land; therefore, those who venture there for recreational benefits and the beauty of Catawba Falls find a circuitous route to get there, and in many cases, we have individuals who have gotten injured. This becomes very costly to local emergency services because when you extract somebody from an inholding that you have no public access to, you have to airlift those individuals.

The Foothills Conservancy recognized the need, and this wonderful local land trust was able to move quickly when the landowner became willing to sell for public access.

I think it is an interesting fact that this family who sold to Foothills was the first family in the United States to sell land to the U.S. Forest Service in 1911 under the Weeks Act.

The Forest Service was eventually able to acquire the land through the Land and Water Conservation Fund. Now there is a road and a parking lot for visitors. The cost of emergency services to get to the falls to respond to accidents has been dramatically reduced. Visiting the attraction is now safer for hikers. Visitor experiences were improved with parking and restrooms. A beautiful trail that belongs to the public was made, and local government's burden was eased.

They average one medical situation a month. Since the Presiding Officer is a physician by practice, I know he understands the cost that is incurred with an emergency of that magnitude. Because of this access, they have saved one hour per extraction, and McDowell County Emergency Management is saving $1 million annually because they don't have to do helicopter extractions.

It is an economic stimulus to the town of Old Fort and protects the headwaters of the Catawba River, which, I might add, is the drinking supply for the city of Charlotte, NC.

Talk about a win-win-win. This is one of them. This is a perfect example of how LWCF helps make access for the public easier by purchasing an edge-holding.

As Americans, we need more outdoor recreation and access opportunities,

not fewer. The program is widely supported by outdoor recreation industry enthusiasts, conservationists, anglers, hunters, birdwatchers, and all who appreciate access to America's unparalleled lands. If I didn't mention it, it requires zero in taxpayer money. Let me say that again. There is zero taxpayer money.

The U.S. outdoor recreation economy generates $87 billion in consumer spending. It generates $65 billion in tax revenue. If you don't utilize the outdoors as an individual and you are a budget hawk, it is a good program. It grows the economy. It produces revenues for the Federal Government.

The program has been so successful that just a decade after its original enactment, in 1977, the Congress decided to triple its authorization to a level of $900 million--the level it remains at today. I might add that the first two authorizations of this bill were for 25 years--25 years. Eventually, the authorization level for funding went to $900 million. It has only been funded at $900 million one time in the over 50 years since it has been established.

In our great wisdom, for some reason, 3 years ago, we authorized it at 3 years, and on September 30, it will expire. As of March 30, the Land and Water Conservation Fund had a credit in its account of $21.5 billion because over the years Congress chose not to allocate the full $900 million that has been credited to the fund. This bill puts the money toward deferred maintenance and returns the rest to Treasury.

Very quickly, let me just tell you about a bill that I am going to ask unanimous consent that this body take up and pass. The base of the new bill is permanent authorization of the program. It also includes a provision that I sprung on everybody yesterday.

Members of the U.S. Senate have expressed a concern about a permanent reauthorization with no ability to go in and alter that, so what I did was I added a provision that allows for the Congress to take up a dissolution resolution every 3 years where, with a 60-vote margin, they can disapprove the automatic renewal.

We have tried to address all of the concerns that have been raised. Since the beginning of the 115th Congress, I have tried to come down here and get this bill on the floor, only to hear: Not today. It needs to be on something else. We can't have a vote on it.

We have never been allowed to have a vote on it. I am sympathetic to individuals who have raised questions on the ability to vote.

If future Congresses believe they need to review the program, this provision allows them to do it by simply passing the joint resolution of disapproval. Every 3 years, they are given the opportunity.

Additionally, this bill shares funds currently available to the LWCF program. Again, let me remind everybody of the background. Every year-- $900 million is credited on an annual basis to the Land and Water Conservation Fund. That is in the statute. Every year, appropriators determine how much money they intend to appropriate, and in only one of the years since 1977, when we raised the allocation to $900 million, has it actually been funded at $900 million. So each year, $900 million goes in, and appropriators dole out what they want to. It is all royalty money; it doesn't have anything to do with taxpayer money. That has left a hefty chunk of change just sitting there, waiting for Congress to appropriate--$21.4 billion.

To meet my colleagues halfway, in addition to a 3-year review, with a vote to disapprove an automatic renewal, my bill does this. I have decided to put those available funds toward a program that many of my colleagues have been very vocally supportive of in the past year. This bill would reallocate $11 billion out of the LWCF trust fund, and it would allocate that money and dedicate it to the National Park Service for maintenance.

I know many Members are anxious to get a parks maintenance bill through, and we have had trouble doing that. I am giving you an opportunity and an option that would fund it at a level we haven't even talked about. We are talking about somewhere right around $1 billion. Yet we know we have $10 billion worth of deferred maintenance. With just the reauthorization of this one conservation program, we would shift $11 billion out of the LWCF account and into the parks maintenance account. It doesn't take a mathematician to realize that the money would be available immediately. It would still require the appropriations process.

There would be an additional $10 billion left in the LWCF fund, So what I propose in this legislation is that the bill would credit back to the General Treasury $10 billion to go toward paying down debt.

I have heard a lot of my colleagues stand up here--as a matter of fact, many in this body voted for a rescissions package that had a $16 million reduction in the LWCF fund. I voted against it because I got no help in trying to understand why we were going to cut money out of a program that we had yet to fund at the level at which it was authorized. If they were willing to cut $16 million of LWCF to pay down debt, I am giving them a great opportunity--I am giving them $10 billion in this bill.

So we are going to take $21 billion that the LWCF has accrued over its existence, that has been unallocated to them but is still there, and we are going to give $11 billion to the parks and recreation maintenance fund, and we are going to give $10 billion to the Treasury to pay down debt.

I have been working on all aspects of LWCF for about 5 years, if not longer. I think that in the last 24 hours, I have addressed every concern that has been expressed--budget, taxpayer money, parks maintenance, why we should do it. Let me suggest to the Presiding Officer and to my colleagues why we should do it. Because Americans really appreciate this program because across this country, there are generations today who believe that their children and their grandchildren will be able to experience the same experience they had because we have been smart enough to protect some of those treasures.

I don't want to be greedy. I would love to appropriate $21 billion, as I am sure my colleague from Colorado, who I see standing over there, would love to do. It is probably not needed all at one time, but the credit is there. If we are willing to reauthorize this program and to give them some degree of permanency, then I believe every person who is the beneficiary of or interested in the Land and Water Conservation Fund will not argue with saying: OK, we will take the $21 billion we built up, and we will give $11 billion to the parks maintenance program and we will pay $10 billion to the Treasury. And we will start over at accruing at $900 billion a year what the American people, through their Congress, in the past have said we are going to invest in these conservation efforts.

It is a significant gift. There are winners and winners and winners. There is no difference between this and the Catawba Falls example I gave you where the winners were the local community, the individual who sold the land, and the emergency services cost to the county. This is a win-win for America, and we are doing all of this with zero taxpayer money. We are using the royalties off of exploration to fund it.

I am going to do something that is probably a first in this body. There are individuals who still would like to object to this. I am going to ask unanimous consent, and then I will object to my own unanimous consent request because I understand the rights of any one individual in the Senate.

I could have waited hours to speak until one of them came to object, but I saw it more worthy of my time to come here and to raise this issue, to present solutions, and to object to my own unanimous consent request because I respect the rights of every individual.

But I hope through doing this those colleagues that might have an objection to this would alleviate that objection. If you don't like the program, that is one thing, but don't claim that it is because you want to reduce the debt. Don't claim that you don't want to use taxpayer money. Don't claim that you want to package this with the parks and maintenance program.

I am giving it all to you in one bill. The only thing I am asking in return for the Land and Water Conservation Fund is to give us the ability to know long-term that this is in place so that we can leverage every private sector dollar in this country that we possibly can toward whatever appropriations the appropriators decide on an annual basis to give to the fund.

So at this time, I ask unanimous consent that at a time determined by the majority leader, in consultation with the Democratic leader, the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of my bill in relation to LWCF, which is at the desk, with 1 hour of debate, and the Senate then vote on the bill with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I reluctantly object.

Madam President, I rise today to talk about the Land and Water Conservation Fund.

Today we have only 39 days until September 30, which is the expiration of the current authorization for the Land and Water Conservation Fund. I am committed more than ever to getting LWCF reauthorized or the authorization across the finish line. I have been waiting to get a vote for the entire 115th Congress. I have been told to wait, and I was patient for a while. The last time I was on the floor, I offered it as an amendment to the last appropriations bill, knowing that it was not germane but knowing that the issue needed to be brought to the forefront of the U.S. Senate because it is at the forefront of the American people. I will reiterate again that I can't wait any longer.

In 2015, it took the expiration of the Land and Water Conservation Fund before Congress got serious about reauthorizing the program and allowing these vital conservation efforts to continue. I am putting this body on notice once again: I will not allow it to expire again.

Several pieces of legislation have come before this body over the previous months, and yet again I am being told by my colleagues--many of whom profess, by the way, to be supportive of this legislation--that we should wait just a little bit longer, that I can't even receive a vote on the matter until then. I have offered my colleagues a very simple proposition: Give me one vote on reauthorizing the Land and Water Conservation Fund at a 60-vote threshold. I am not asking for us to forgo the requirements for a 60-vote threshold.

I have asked for an amendment for months on any legislation coming through the Senate, and I am being repeatedly told no. So I am here offering a somewhat different solution. The bill that I will ask unanimous consent on shortly is different in that the language hasn't been offered as a standalone bill, but it is actually language that has been passed by the U.S. Senate--this Chamber--by a vote of 85 to 12. It is a bipartisan bill--or it is bipartisan language that was part of the energy package that Chairman Murkowski negotiated with the ranking member, and it includes reforms that both sides would like to see.

There is one change that I am offering today; that is, the ability for LWCF to be reviewed every 3 years for all future Congresses, if they believe it is warranted. It does so by including a joint resolution of disapproval every 3 years in perpetuity, meaning an individual from this body can come to the floor and, with the appropriate votes for disapproval, can eliminate the automatic reauthorization.

This is a permanent authorization of LWCF, but every 3 years, the Senate as a body can vote to disapprove the automatic reauthorization, and, in fact, they would essentially bring an end to the program. The provision gives Congress a chance to take another look at the program every couple of years, which seems to be in line with a number of what my colleagues currently want, given the short-period options that I have been offered in the past few years.

Let me talk about the reason this is permanent, because when LWCF was created in the 1960s, its original authorization was for 25 years, and when it came up for reauthorization in 1989, we reauthorized it for another 25 years. It wasn't until 3 years ago, when it was up for reauthorization, that all of a sudden the Senate, in their infinite wisdom, decided: Well, we are only

going to do this in 3-year increments. And even as late as a month ago, we were offered a 1-year reauthorization. What does a 1-year reauthorization say to the conservation community, which plans for generations what programs they will have to work with? It was only in 2015--after LWCF expired, I might add--that Congress chose a short-term extension.

I believe that to embrace what the creators of this program believed, we have to get back to a longer term reauthorization, and I will propound in this unanimous consent request that it be permanent, with a 3-year review and the ability to pass a disapproval of that authorization. It is a responsible proposal.

This Chamber agreed to pass these reforms on a bipartisan basis, and I am offering even more opportunity to appeal to the concerns of my colleagues than we have ever done. I would urge my colleagues to allow me to get this bipartisan language passed so that we can concentrate on other pressing matters.

I think it is important, and I can never miss an opportunity to talk about what LWCF is. It is a popular and successful bipartisan program. There is a House companion bill, which has 233 cosponsors. Let me say that again: It has 233 cosponsors.

LWCF is a dedicated means for the conservation and protection of America's irreplaceable natural, historic, cultural, and outdoor landmarks. Over the 50-plus years of its history, the Land and Water Conservation Fund has conserved iconic landscapes in every State and is responsible for more than 42,000 State and local outdoor recreation projects. It is far and away the Nation's most important conservation program.

LWCF has protected places like the Great Smoky Mountains National Park, Cape Lookout National Seashore, and the Blue Ridge Parkway through the Federal programs and places like Whitehurst Forest, Camden Community Park, and Four Mile Creek Greenway in Mecklenburg County through State and local programs.

LWCF is already paid for by using a very small percentage of receipts off of oil drilling revenues. Let me put that in layman's terms that every Member of Congress can understand. It requires no taxpayer money. We use a percentage of receipts that we collect off of exploration, and that funds the Land and Water Conservation Trust.

I might add that this doesn't bypass appropriators. I will remind everybody that I am not here amending an appropriations bill. This requires appropriators on an annual basis to appropriate money. The pot, though, is accrued based upon the royalties off of exploration, so not a dime of taxpayer money is used.

I might also add that the current account balance for the Land and Water Conservation Fund is $21 billion. This year, the Congress of the United States will appropriate roughly $450 million. So if we were to appropriate the same thing and never increase the size of the trust fund, this program would run well over 30 years on the existing money that is in the fund, assuming that there was no increase in the fund's balance because of money it might make off of it.

LWCF helps make access for outdoorsmen easier by purchasing inholdings and edge holdings. With changing land use and ownership patterns, historic recreational access can be cut off or blocked in many areas. Oftentimes, vast expanses of public land are separated from roads and towns by narrow strips that are privately held, necessitating a long drive to access hunting or fishing grounds only a few miles away.

America's growing population needs more outdoor recreation and more access opportunities, not fewer. If we want our children and grandchildren to enjoy the same hunting, fishing, camping, hiking, and paddling opportunities we enjoy today, protection of habitat and watersheds must keep pace with the growing population and development pressures. This program is widely supported by the outdoor recreation industry, conservationists, hunters, anglers, birdwatchers, and all who appreciate access to America's unparalleled public assets. The U.S. outdoor recreation economy generates $887 billion in consumer spending and $65 billion in tax revenue.

North Carolina has received approximately $246.7 million in LWCF funding over the past five decades. This is a newsletter I got in the mail over the weekend from the Blue Ridge Parkway Foundation. I want to highlight a few things in this because this is all about the program.

The first one is the ``Community of Stewards'' thanking Project Parkway volunteers, highlighting the effort where 200 volunteers devoted their time to cleanup projects along the Blue Ridge Parkway.

``High Pass Boogie riders'':

This spring's High Pass Boogie motorcycle event was a hit!

Riders enjoyed a weekend of fun and raised $13,000 for the

Parkway.

``Happy Camper Memories.'' Here is an individual who, as a child, actually spent her summers camping in the Blue Ridge Parkway, and this is her story of what it meant to her. Talk about a generational impact. It is right there.

``Overlooks get a clear perspective.'' Some of my colleagues say this empowers the Park Service--or somebody--and they limit access. I just talked about how we are using this to expand access. But here is one where the Park Service took on the opportunity, with private funding, to begin to clear the view over overlooks so that people who ride down the Blue Ridge Parkway can stop at the overlook and actually see the beautiful land that is out there, where it had been encroached by scrub trees. Some of my colleagues would never think that the Park Service would go in and actually cut down something. Not only did they do it, they did it with money that was donated to them by people who use the park.

``A Fresh Face for Flat Top.'' Flat Top is a property that, when the Parkway was created in the 1950s under the jobs program, was a residence that was absorbed into the park property. Hopefully, the restoration on this will let this property last for another 100 years-- all driven with volunteer dollars, not with appropriations. We know the backlog we have with maintenance needs on our parks.

The last one I will highlight is ``Farm Aid: Repairs to historical structures at Humpback Rocks are underway.'' I will just read the last sentence of the paragraph: ``This is a much needed transformation and a great example of your donations at work!''

You see, this isn't something where we are trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the American people. We are actually highlighting the great things we have preserved, and we have an opportunity to use the Land and Water Conservation Fund with zero taxpayer dollars to leverage these private donations for projects like farm aid.

The last one: ``Leave Your Mark on the Mountains: Where there's a will, there's a way.'' This basically says give to the Blue Ridge Parkway Foundation.

I say to my colleagues, this makes such common sense to me. Across this country, we have individual Americans who give of their own money, not just to protect but to maintain these valuable pieces of land. Here, we have an opportunity to use money that was designated over 50 years ago, authorized, that we accumulate in a pot, and we use that to leverage the private donations. Maybe this is a model for us to look at as to how we do park maintenance, where we might be able to leverage more private sector dollars to help with park maintenance because this, in essence, is maintenance, but it is also preservation of national treasures.

The program has been so successful that just a decade after its original enactment, Congress, in 1977, decided to triple its authorization level to $900 million--the level it remains at today. Let me just point out for my colleagues, it is authorized to be appropriated, $900 million a year; it has $21 billion in its fund, and this year we will appropriate about $455 million. I am not here to fight an appropriations battle. I will save that for when we have permanent reauthorization because I think it is high on the passion list of many Members.

As of March 30, about $21.5 billion is in the LWCF fund. From 1965 through 2018, about $39.8 billion was credited to LWCF. Less than half that amount, $18.4, has been appropriated.

I want every Member to understand what I am asking today. I am going to ask unanimous consent that the Senate take up a bill with an hour debate

and an up-or-down vote that does this: It permanently authorizes the Land and Water Conservation Fund. It does not appropriate. It still leaves up to appropriators the annual amount that is appropriated. The language of this bill is a negotiated, bipartisan reform package led by the chairman of the Energy Committee. Most importantly, to those who have been uncomfortable with the extension of reauthorization in the past, every 3 years the Congress is given the ability to pass a disapproval for reauthorization, and if they collect those votes, the program is not authorized.

I am not sure that we have left any concerns that have been raised over the past year and a half out of the equation in this bill. I thank the chairman of the Energy Committee for her diligent work at negotiating the bipartisan language and her willingness to be supportive of the reauthorization. I firmly believe that she will have to object because, in some cases, that is your job when you chair a committee. But before I make my unanimous consent request, I want to make a promise to all the Members: If I have to come down here and do this morning and afternoon, day after day after day, I will do it. I have enough iterations of this bill that I can accommodate the concerns anyone may have and find a way to get permanent authorization. It is not because I want it; it is because the American people want it. It is because the next generation deserves for us to do this. For some unknown reason, a small number of people will not even allow a vote to happen.

Unanimous Consent Request--LWCF

Madam President, at this time, I ask unanimous consent that at a time to be determined by the majority leader, in consultation with the Democratic leader, the Senate proceed to consideration of my bill, which is at the desk, in relation to LWCF; that there be 1 hour of debate; and that the Senate vote on passage with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague, and I rise in support of his amendment.

The Land and Water Conservation Fund--you may remember, last month when I tried to get a vote on its reauthorization, I had just come from a press conference marking 100 days until it expires. We have been here before. I am sort of shocked sometimes how hardheaded we are in this institution.

This program has now reached a point where it is 66 days away from expiration. In the 115th Congress, we actually let it expire. The reason Congress passed legislation to reauthorize it was the pressure of the American people.

Let me say at the start that I have unbelievable respect for the chairmen of the committees whose bills make up this package, and I have deep respect for the ranking members. I hold in high esteem the chairman and the ranking member of the full committee. This is no beef with them. This is a beef with what we have set up as the process for the very choreographed movement of a piece of legislation--in this particular case, the appropriations bill.

Some have told me this is just not germane to this bill. The only way it wouldn't be germane, in my book, is that we are debating legislation on the use of taxpayer money to fund government, and the Land and Water Conservation Fund uses zero dollars of taxpayer money. You see, it was created to take a percentage off the royalties of exploration by visionaries who said: We want a perpetual fund that taxpayers aren't obligated to--that is self-generating off of the resources we take out of the land--to be pumped back in to protect the treasures for generations yet to come. Masterful. Absolutely masterful. As a matter of fact, it was so smart that over 60 Members of the Senate--if we called for a vote right now, up or down, with nobody objecting or making a motion, it would pass. It would meet the highest threshold in the Senate to actually move out of this body. With over 240 cosponsors in the House of Representatives, it would pass in the House. The President would sign it into law, and this would be behind us.

We would set the example for the next generation, as parents and as leaders, that there are some things you have to save for generations who need an opportunity to be exposed to them. It is not as much about what we get out of it; it is about the example we set on how we get there. That is why it troubles me.

I look at this as a tremendous opportunity. Although by standards, it is not germane, it is germane because we are not using taxpayer money. We are actually protecting treasures for generations to come, which is our responsibility as adults.

As I said, it is likely that there will be an objection. I hold no personal disrespect for those who are forced to object to it. If we were to table this amendment--I have already conceded to the chairman that they would probably win, not because a majority of the body isn't for it but because of the pressures that come with that vote; that actual sponsors of the legislation--people who would vote for it--might actually vote to table this for another day.

I have tried since the beginning of this Congress to bring up this legislation. I only ask for an up-or-down vote at a 60-vote threshold. I am not trying to short the process in the Senate by one vote. I am not trying to piggyback and hide behind something. I just want the Members of the Senate to actually have an opportunity to debate this and to have a vote.

At the end of the day, I think what we would find is that a majority of Senators--I think over 60--would support it and a majority of House Members would support it.

There is one assurance I can give my colleagues: A majority of America agrees with us. They believe we should pass this. We can have a debate as to whether we change it. We are the U.S. Congress; we can change a program at any time. But why would we not provide the certainty that the program is going to be extended?

Many that remember the creation of the Land and Water Conservation Fund--it was authorized and capped at $900 million a year. It has never received $900 million a year because every dime that we get off of royalties is funneled through the same appropriations process in which we are currently engaged.

Another reason I would claim that common sense would say this is germane to what we are doing is because it is money that is controlled by the Appropriations Committee, and for whatever reason--and I am not questioning it--they never appropriated it at $900 million. No administration ever requested $900 million. But nobody can prove to me that there is not $900 million worth of worthy projects out there.

Much of this land ends up back in the inventory of States' parks, and the residents of those States get to enjoy hunting, fishing, and recreation on that land. They are not relying on their ability to buy a piece of property that they can do it on; they share it with others in their State.

In my State of North Carolina, we have some national treasures that, thank goodness, founders before me recognized and protected. One of them is called the Blue Ridge Parkway, the most traveled piece of Federal road structure that we have in this country. When we cut it through the mountains from Virginia to North Carolina in the 1950s--and we created the greatest jobs program at the time; that is what it was designed for--there were private landowners who had property adjacent to that road. What is the prudent thing? The prudent thing is to occasionally buy a piece of property that is not adjacent to the road and trade with the landowner who is on the road so that we can protect the roadway. That is the type of project that Land and Water Conservation Fund money goes to. It is not to create a bigger Great Smoky Mountains National Park, which is also in my State. It is the most visited park in the United States. I am not asking to enlarge it. I am asking for us to provide these funds so that great decisions can be made in coordination with local officials about what treasures should exist down the road for our children and our grandchildren.

We are not going to have an opportunity to acknowledge today that we are going to move this legislation. I believe that is incredibly unfortunate. I think it is tough because I think there are a lot of people who would be supportive who sound a little bit like crickets today.

Here is the only promise I can make to my colleagues today: You are going to have an opportunity to vote on this time and again. As long as the Senate goes into session, if we intend to move legislation, you will have an opportunity to vote on the Land and Water Conservation Fund reauthorization. When this floor opens in the morning, on a regular basis, I will come down here, and I will not encumber the Appropriations chairman in every case; I will probably pull every chairman into this. And I won't just rely on chairmen's vehicles of legislation that they are very passionate on. I have an Intel authorization bill that I can't even get to the floor for authorization, and I can't think of anything that is more important. I think the chair and the ranking member of the full Appropriations Committee both served on the committee in the past, and they know the importance of the Intel authorization bill. I can't get it up because sometimes we get more hung up on the power of one person in this institution than we do on the importance of what it is we are doing.

Well, if that is what we want to do, I will come down as one person, and I will ask unanimous consent that we consider the reauthorization. I am sure somebody will stand up and object.

They always do. They are objecting to what the American people want us to do. They are objecting to a program that has a proven track record of success and requires zero--nada, not a dime--of taxpayer money. If there has ever been a thing that we have presented to the American people that we should be applauded on--and that doesn't happen often-- this has been one of them.

Yet, because we have chosen convenience over debate, because we are trying to fit this in a really small box, let me suggest to my colleagues that we are making a foolish mistake for the long term in this institution. This is an institution that was created for this moment. It is an institution that was created so that we could come to this floor and debate, so that we could come in and believe one thing, hear the debate, and actually go out and say: It changed my mind.

Maybe some people will listen who are now supporters, and maybe some supporters will listen to what I have said and will now vote against me. Here is the troubling thing: They will not have the opportunity. With the promise I will make to them, they will get that opportunity. So watch what you say because before I leave this institution, you will be given the opportunity to vote time and time and again if, in fact, procedurally, we are blocked from letting the American people's voices be heard with a vote in the Senate.

I yield back to my colleague.

Madam President, I rise today to honor and celebrate the life of C.D. ``Dick'' Spangler, a great North Carolinian who passed away earlier this week.

The true mark of a great man, a great contributor to our society is the fact that there are several acts in that individual's life, there is no one single attribute to which to ascribe that contribution, and Dick Spangler was such a man.

In that first act, Dick built an impressive wealth, at the time making him one of the wealthiest individuals in this country in the family construction and real estate business. The son of a Charlotte contractor and real estate investor, Dick attended Woodberry Forest School, then the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and Harvard Business School. After serving 2 years in the Army, he moved back to his native North Carolina to work in the family business, C.D. Spangler Construction.

In 1973, while continuing to serve in the family's construction company, Dick became chairman of a little bank at the time, the Bank of North Carolina, and was subsequently elected director of NCNB, which would eventually be sold to Bank of America.

Although he was a brilliant businessman, in my mind Dick Spangler will best be remembered in our State for his commitment to education and what it means for lifting individuals out of poverty, giving them a path for learning, and expressing their individuality. He did this by advocating for a return to an emphasis on teaching the basics, higher salaries for teachers, and programs for training high school principals for a very challenging job. That second act and the energies and personal contributions he made to it are what made Dick the remarkable man he was.

During his time as president of the University of North Carolina System, a position he held for over a decade, Dick was laser-focused on keeping North Carolina's public university system affordable and low- cost for all seeking postsecondary education. It is because of his dedication so many years ago to low-cost tuition in the UNC System--a mission he pursued without a paycheck during his time as president-- that current North Carolinians today receive an affordable, great university education. Dick Spangler once said:

Low tuition is not a gift. It's an investment in these

students. They go to work and pay that back over a lifetime.

The number of individuals who have chosen to do just that by making North Carolina their home after graduating from one of the UNC System's great schools is a testament to that effort.

He viewed leading the UNC System as one of the truly great jobs anyone could have. On the eve of his departure, he said, when talking about the UNC System:

We're on the side of angels. Spending time with our

students--to be with them is one of the great joys a person

could experience. . . . I live in a community that is

vibrant--not asleep. It's wide awake and there's always

turmoil because people are bright with viewpoints sometimes

in conflict.

But for those who know the Spangler family and Dick's commitment to the State, I will always remember Dick for his philanthropy and the commitment to bettering our State through his personal efforts and his personal giving.

The C.D. Spangler Foundation dedicated hundreds of millions of dollars over the past several decades to better public education in our State. Through this work, over 120 distinguished professorships, purposed toward improving instruction in our public education, were funded, providing generations of North Carolinians with the benefits of a quality education.

For those unfamiliar with the racial history of North Carolina's schools, Dick Spangler was prompted by Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, that seminal Supreme Court decision which said it wasn't enough to simply say desegregation of public schools was the law of the land; towns needed to commit to it and follow through on educating minorities next to their White peers. It is no exaggeration to say that without Dick's leadership in Charlotte during the 1970s and 1980s, racial desegregation of Charlotte's schools might not have happened the way it did, serving as a national model for other communities grappling with racial tensions in their schools.

Dick was so adamant about this fact, he decided not just to put his tremendous personal wealth to work, but to put his time on Earth to work as well. So he ran to become vice chairman of the Charlotte- Mecklenburg Schools in an effort to ease the racial tensions that existed at the time in Charlotte, NC. Although he could have afforded to send his children to private school, he chose to lead by example, and he sent them to the Charlotte public schools to prove what is obvious to us now but was seemingly so controversial at the time.

When I hear Dick Spangler's name, there are words I think of:

``Honest.'' He was never questioned about his honesty.

``Passionate.'' Dick Spangler was committed to every effort that he joined into, and he never sold it short.

``Opinionated.'' He made you listen, whether you wanted to hear it or not.

``Fair.'' He never let his wealth influence his outcome.

``Daring.'' He took on things that other people ran the opposite way from.

``Demanding.'' I am not sure I have been in many meetings with an individual who controlled attention the way Dick Spangler did. He saw time as a precious thing, and he knew we were limited on the amount that we would be here to use it. Dick Spangler used every minute of his life to make our State and this country better.

Last one, Dick Spangler was committed. He was committed to this country. He was committed to this State. He loved his UNC Tar Heels. More importantly, he loved his family.

His leading by example rather than simply words will remain in my mind as we mourn and we celebrate the loss of a great man. Today, I wish to extend my condolences and deep appreciation to his wife of 58 years, Meredith, to Abigail, to Hannah, to Tom, and to the extended family. Their loss is not only our State's loss but our country's loss.

I can feel confident, as I think Dick Spangler does today in Heaven, that Dick did everything he could to set the example for every generation to come; that you have to invest something to get something. I, for one, am moved, inspired, and committed to live on that commitment.

I yield to my good friend from North Carolina.

Mr. President, today I wish to celebrate with the citizens of Madison, NC, the town's 200 years of rich history. Named for President James Madison, the town was acquired at auction in June 1818.

In Madison's infancy, tobacco was a high-demand commodity and employer in town due to its location on the Dan and Mayor Rivers, which offer fertile soil for cultivation. By the late 1800s, Madison was home to more than 40 tobacco factories, 1 reported to have been the largest grower of tobacco in the world at that time. In the early 1900s, Madison reaped the benefits of a growth in the textiles industry when Gem Dandy, Inc., opened for business in town. It remains headquartered there today. Madison gained another employer in the mid-1990s when Remington Arms made Madison home to its headquarters.

Today Madison boasts two historic districts and several landmarks listed on the National Register of Historic Places.

I am proud to offer my congratulations to the citizens of Madison, NC on the occasion of their bicentennial.

Madam President, I thank the vice chairman of the Intelligence Committee, and I would also reiterate what he said. This is one of the last bipartisan committees on the Hill. It should be. It is because we are entrusted with seeing things and hearing things that nobody else can and verifying that we live within the letter of the law and the Presidential directives for the rest of the 85 Members of the Senate and the American people. We take that very seriously.

I rise today in support of Gina Haspel, the President's nominee to be the next Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. Ms. Haspel has been asked to lead one of our Nation's most treasured assets, an Agency that works in the shadows. It requires a leader with unwavering integrity who will ensure that the organization operates lawfully, ethically, and morally.

Gina was born in Kentucky. She was the oldest of five children. Her father was in the Air Force. She traveled from place to place. She told her dad one day that she wanted to go to West Point, only to hear her dad very gently remind her that West Point did not invite women. That did not delude her sense of service. After graduating from the University of Kentucky, Gina went on to work as a contractor with the 10th Special Forces Group. It was at Fort Devens that Gina learned about the CIA, a place where she could serve her country along with other women doing clandestine work around the world. This excited her.

In 1985 Gina swore an oath to defend the Constitution and began a 30- plus year career of service at the Agency. Since that day, Gina Haspel has developed extensive overseas experience and served as Chief of Station in several locations around the world that we can't mention. But I can tell my colleagues that every time I traveled abroad to a location where Gina was the Chief of Station, I received the most thorough brief from the most organized station that I have had the opportunity to see.

In Washington she has consistently proven herself a strong leader, rising to the role of Deputy Director of the National Clandestine Service and then Deputy Director of the entire Central Intelligence Agency. Those who saw her approach to that role say she served as a peacemaker, a general, a tough advocate for people, and a clear, steady guide for an Agency dealing with a complex web of world crisis.

I believe Ms. Haspel's experience, her dedication to service, and her judgment make her a natural fit to lead the CIA as it enters a period of profound change and uncertainty. She is, by many accounts, the most qualified person the President could have chosen to lead the CIA and the most prepared individual in the 70-year history of this Agency. She is intimately familiar with the threats facing our Nation. Where others can discuss world events, Gina Haspel has lived those events. She has no learning curve.

She has acted morally, ethically, and legally over a distinguished 30-year career. She has earned the respect of the Agency workforce, of her peers, of Republicans and Democrats, of military officers, and of civilian security leaders, evidenced by the number of letters received in support of her nomination--too numerous to read.

Gina has also the courage to speak truth to power, and she has demonstrated that courage time and again. She has a clear-eyed vision for the Agency and its future, informed by her career and her past experiences. Previous outside leaders of the CIA have worked hard to understand the Agency they were asked to run. But when a case officer, just back from a war zone, describes to Gina the credibility of a newly recruited asset and the challenges of dodging check points to get to a meeting with a source, she knows all the right questions to ask because she has been there and she has done that.

For all these reasons, I support Gina Haspel to be the next Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. I am also mindful of the historic nature of Gina Haspel's nomination and what it means for those first- tour case officers and junior analysts who will join the Agency this year and in the years to come.

As I said at Ms. Haspel's nomination hearing, outside the Agency workforce, not many Americans get an opportunity to walk the halls of the old headquarters building. Those who do, after entering, encounter a series of portraits depicting former Directors of the OSS, Central Intelligence, and the Central Intelligence Agency, as its name has morphed. Some of these Directors were loved. Some were controversial. Some little understood the Agency they were asked to lead. Some made disastrous decisions out of hubris or inexperience or both. But one thing is common: All the portraits are of men.

Many want to make Gina's nomination about one small piece of the Agency's past. If that were the standard that this institution applies, John Brennan would never have been confirmed as the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency because when he was at the Agency, he was fourth in command, versus Gina Haspel, who was a GS-15. Most of us, though, are looking toward the Agency's future.

Avril Haines, Meroe Park, and many others who have served or are currently serving have cracked the glass ceiling at the Agency. Gina is poised to break it. It may be impossible to measure the importance of that breakthrough, but I do know that it will send a signal to the current workforce and to the workforce of the future that a lifetime of commitment to the Agency and its mission can and will be rewarded. To those walking for hours to get to a source meeting, to those officers who stay up all night preparing for the Presidential daily brief, to those making tough calls about putting their people in harm's way to secure the intelligence we need to keep our country safe, to those who find a needle in a haystack, catch the bad guys, find the weapon shipments, and come home and walk past a wall of stars at the Agency, know that we support you and we support the job you do. You deserve a Director who understands who you are, what you do, what you can do, and what you should do. You deserve a Director who understands your sacrifice and has a clear vision for the future of

the Agency and its mission. You deserve Gina Haspel.

I ask that we in this body this afternoon confirm Gina Haspel as Director of the Central Intelligence Agency without further delay.

I thank the Presiding Officer.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, it is with great sadness that I rise to note the passing of, and acknowledgement of, the service of a valued member of the Intelligence Committee staff. On the evening of April 23, while attending a conference on behalf of the committee, Matthew Pollard lost his life to a heart attack. He was 52 years old. Matt is survived by his mother, three older sisters, and a young son Bradley, who was the cherished one.

Matt served honorably in the Army as an intelligence officer and twice deployed in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom, from 2003 to 2004, and Operation Enduring Freedom, from 2009 to 2010.

Matt was smart. He was really smart. He held a master's degree in strategic intelligence and mechanical engineering and was close to completing his third master's degree.

Matt had one of those jobs, like many who serve on my committee, that you can't talk about very much. That silence did not accurately reflect the value he brought to the Intelligence Committee. He filled a critical role. He was the majority staff member responsible for conducting oversight over the Nation's overhead architecture. In layman's terms, he knew satellites. Matt knew a lot about satellites. He knew about what they were capable of and what they weren't capable of. He knew what they cost and, perhaps more importantly, what they should not have cost.

Matt also had the unique ability to explain the unexplainable, which, as many here know, is a rare skill. Matt had a mind and an eye for detail, both technical and budgetary. He prided himself in finding ways to cut the costs of those fantastically expensive programs.

On our committee, he had a discerning eye for calling out contractors when he saw deficiencies. Matt was good-natured with his colleagues in industry. He was tough, but those same colleagues loved him. Matt would half smile, half frown at a presentation, and you could see contractors lower their heads and shuffle their feet a little bit because they knew Matt was right. He was universally respected and liked by all who encountered him, whether they sat on the same side of the table or whether they were on the other side. When Matt passed away on Monday, word literally spread around the country in a matter of hours. His loss is devastating to many, including the committee, the members, and the staff.

Matt actually served twice on the staff of the Intelligence Committee. He began his first tour with us in March of 2002. That first tour lasted 11 years. Matt couldn't stay away from the Senate for long, though, and he gave in to tremendous pressure from the Appropriations Committee to join them, which he did in April of 2014.

Matt's drive to serve was strong. When I became chairman in January of 2015, I had one objective: persuading him to rejoin the Intelligence Committee, and it was one of my top priorities. I am eternally grateful that I was able to lure him away from the appropriators and know, without a doubt, he was one of the strongest members of the Intelligence Committee staff.

Matt studied. Matt inquired. He never backed down from a debate. Matt spoke his mind and spoke truth to power, and he did it often without bias. We loved him for all of it, and we will sorely miss Matt.

However, more importantly than the values he brought to the committee, to the U.S. Senate, and to the Intelligence Committee was how Matt conducted himself as a person and as a father. Matt loved his son Bradley. That is probably what I will remember most about Matt. Bradley was Matt's world--Boy Scouts, campouts, soccer games. If Bradley was involved, Matt was there. He was a great dad.

We weren't surprised when we heard that Matt recently misjudged the forecast. Despite wearing only a T-shirt and shorts in 40-degree temperatures and whipping winds, he cheered loudly as Bradley played his first soccer game. This is one small example of his devotion to Bradley, whom he proudly referred to as ``my boy.''

Bradley, I want to say thank you for sharing your father with us. We will forever be grateful.

Given Matt's hours and portfolio, he, like many of the staff, often worked on the weekends, and Bradley was a regular presence in the committee, on those weekends, in the committee space. He often could be found playing board games with kids of other staffers who were also working weekends and similarly engaged in finding a work-life balance.

Matt's devotion and generosity extended beyond Bradley. He was also known, on occasion, to lead many adventures around the Capitol. He would take him through the complex with small herds of children in tow so their parents could actually get some work done. Kids would come back full of stories with ``guess what we did'' to their parents.

We at the committee, and our sister committee on the House, will miss having the benefit of his wisdom and his experience. So, too, will those in the intelligence community who worked with Matt, to include the senior leadership at some of the most important agencies.

While the American people may have never known Matt by name, hopefully, this statement will give you some insight into his character and, more importantly, the contributions he made to our Nation's security. We will miss his expertise, his infectious sense of humor and, most importantly, his friendship.

Mr. President, before I yield, I would like to turn to Senator Blunt.

I thank my colleague Senator Blunt.

Mr. President, we are saddened, but we are blessed. We are saddened at the loss, and we are blessed that we participated in a small part of Matt Pollard's life on Earth.

I yield back.

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

Mr. President, I rise today because of what is on our schedule for next week. Next week, the Senate will consider the nomination by the President for his Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo.

This is one of those times that I want to compliment the administration on a great pick. Mike Pompeo is a great leader. Mike, as a teenager, decided he wanted to go to West Point. Not only did he graduate from West Point, he graduated from West Point at the top of his class. He went into one of the least likely places, the Cavalry. He was a magnificent leader within the U.S. Army Cavalry.

He went on to Harvard Law School, and he earned his law degree, but he didn't stop there. He was invited to be part of the Harvard Law Review, which is a very special cadre of individuals.

He left and started an aerospace company, as many know--a very successful business. After that, because he believed community service was important, he ran for the U.S. House of Representatives, State of Kansas, where he served three terms with great distinction.

He was tapped, all of a sudden, to the Director of the CIA in one of the most challenging times to be involved in intelligence, much less to be the Director of the CIA.

By all accounts, those of us who serve on the Intelligence Committee and those people within the intelligence community but, more importantly, our partners around the world, after a very short period of time, have gained unbelievable respect for Mike Pompeo.

It is tough for me to believe that this is not a nomination we are passing like the last two Secretaries of State, John Kerry and Senator Hillary Clinton. The vote was 94 to 2 for both of them. I was here. I am pretty sure that I supported both of them, and it is not because I aligned with them politically. It is because I inherently believe that a President has the right to pick his nominees and for those nominees to serve, and short of something that is a disqualifier that the Senate finds in their background, the President should have the authority to have that person serve.

I just described to you the background of Mike Pompeo. Somebody is going to be hard-pressed to show me anything that is a disqualifier-- other than politics. This institution has shown that politics never plays a part in nominations, whether we are in charge or whether the other side is in charge, regardless of who is at the White House.

This institution has been bogged down because nominations take weeks. We pass nobody under unanimous consent. Everybody is a challenge. It makes you wonder why people like Mike Pompeo would, in fact, go through the process to be confirmed.

Let me remind my colleagues, we just confirmed him for his post, so he has already been confirmed to serve in the administration in one of the most challenging jobs--the CIA Director. For some reason, people now find that he is not qualified to be Secretary of State. What could it be, other than politics, that comes into play?

I am here to attest to my colleagues that Mike Pompeo is a good man. He is a good husband. He is a good father. He has been a great leader. As a Member of the Senate with the charge of confirming nominees, I would say that this is the type of person we pray will be sent to us by the executive branch to confirm in a role.

I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle--you may have differences with positions he has taken in the past, but for God's sake, do not question his qualifications to be a great leader. He has proved it. Do not question his background from a standpoint of education or his commitment to the country. He has passed the hardest tests in education, and, more importantly, he has passed the most important test of patriotism. He has served his country with distinction. My hope, my plea with my fellow colleagues is that they will allow Mike Pompeo to continue to serve his country, this time in the role of Secretary of State. I urge my colleagues to support him.

I yield back my time.

Madam President, I rise with my colleague from North Carolina, my colleagues in the U.S. Senate, and the American people to honor the life of a North Carolinian, Billy Graham--a man whose life has literally reached millions around the globe.

Reverend Graham's grace marker will be inscribed this way: ``Preacher of the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ.''

As the son of a minister myself, I am uniquely aware of the sacrifices and the responsibility that come with this calling. Indeed, this is a calling that Reverend Graham fulfilled honorably and nobly, bringing hope and comfort to millions around the globe. Reverend Graham was someone who was shaped by his roots on a North Carolina dairy farm, who committed his life to Jesus Christ at the age of 15, and who lived the commitment with faithfulness for the next 84 years.

He was married for 64 years to Ruth Bell Graham and was the father of 3 daughters, 2 sons, and now 19 grandchildren. As his casket was laid in honor in the Rotunda, all of a sudden, I realized that one of those grandchildren was a graduate of West Point, one of my nominees, and a soon-to-be lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Army. It was certainly good to see him.

Reverend Graham preached to almost 215 million people in more than 185 countries and territories on 6 continents. He prayed with soldiers on the battlefields of South Korea and Vietnam. He preached in poor villages and at Britain's Windsor Castle, and he provided counsel to every President from Harry Truman to Barack Obama. He also stood up for what was right--denouncing segregation and oppression and preaching jointly with the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., in the 1950s. He lived a life of integrity and of honor.

He spoke words of comfort and hope at the National Cathedral following the September 11 terrorist attacks, reminding America: ``God is our refuge

and strength, an ever-present help in trouble.''

Reverend Graham will be deeply missed. I send my condolences to his children, his grandchildren, and his numerous great-grandchildren. Yet Graham himself said: ``My Home is in heaven, I am just passing through this World.'' Today, we honor the life that he lived, his faithfulness to the calling, and his impact on millions of individuals around the globe.

If I may take just another moment before my colleague from North Carolina speaks, I will read some remarks that were made by individuals who played important roles in American history.

President Bill Clinton said: ``Some were pressuring Graham to segregate his audiences by race but he refused.'' Clinton remarked: ``Graham would cancel the crusade rather than preach to a segregated audience'' because everyone deserved the chance to hear God's Word.

President Obama said this in his condolences: ``Billy Graham was a humble servant who prayed for so many--and who, with wisdom and grace, gave hope and guidance to generations of Americans'' and, I would say, Americans to come.

Lastly, Martin Luther King, Jr., said: ``Had it not been for the ministry of my good friend Dr. Billy Graham, my work in the civil rights movement would not have been as successful as it has been.''

The country mourns the loss of Dr. Graham, but the country understands the impact of his life--that life as a servant of God, to preach His Word to everyone he could find, and a career of 84 years. He exhausted the opportunities that were given to him and will proudly affect generations that have yet to be born by the work that he did as a disciple of our Lord Jesus Christ.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, on behalf of Senator Tillis and me, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S.J. Res. 53, introduced earlier today.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the joint resolution be considered read a third time and passed, the preamble be passed, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

I thank the Presiding Officer.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. President, the U.S. Senate has just done the right thing. In a matter of hours, hopefully, the decision to fund the government and to put people back to work will find its way to the House of Representatives. I am sure that it will find a quick agreement there, and tomorrow everyone will be back in place, and both the House and the Senate can work aggressively between now and February 8 to make sure that this doesn't happen again and that we bring permanency and certainty to the funding.

The vice chairman of the Intelligence Committee and I were notified when the House CR appeared that there was language in it that was different than in the past. The language in section 148 of the CR is of concern to the Intelligence Committee. Let me just read the language:

Sec. 148. Funds appropriated by the Department of Defense

Missile Defeat and Defense Enhancements Appropriation Act,

2018 (division B of Public Law 115-96) may be obligated and

expended notwithstanding section 504(a)(1) of the National

Security Act of 1947.

This language is troublesome for the committee because it would authorize the intelligence community to spend funds ``notwithstanding'' the law that requires prior authorization by the Senate Intelligence Committee or by the House Intelligence Committee.

The vice chairman and I were on the floor, I think, last week, and we had a 65-to-34 vote to reauthorize the most significant intelligence tool to keep America safe. In that debate, both Senator Warner and I said to our opposition that we would do everything within the committee's power to make sure we did aggressive, real-time oversight over the entire intelligence community.

Sometimes that means that when we see there might be something we are uncomfortable with, we alter the ability to access funds. In congressional terms, we call it fencing off money. But we utilize the tools as an authorizer to affect what, in fact, individuals within the intelligence community can choose to do.

When you take away section 504 authorities that the committees have, for the next 3 weeks we will have an inability to exercise, in our estimation, the tools that we might need to keep our commitment to 34 individuals who still voted against us but, more importantly, to the American people, for whom we would do everything to make sure our intelligence communities act in a way that those educated and elected in this body see fit. As a result, this language can erode the powers of the authorizing committee. Effectively, the intelligence community could expend funds as it sees fit without an authorization bill in place and with no statutory direction indicating that an authorization bill for 2018 is forthcoming.

Let me just say to my colleagues, a situation like this is untenable. We have worked with our colleagues in HPSCI to develop language to change this. I might say, we have had a couple of opportunities to do it, and we should have done it literally when we changed the date of the CR. When we changed the date from the original date, which I think was the 16th, to the 8th of February, we should have inserted this new language. But because there is a fight between appropriators and the Intelligence Committee in the House, we weren't able to do that.

I have a feeling that Senator Warner and I are going to find there is now a fight between the Intelligence Committee and the appropriators in the U.S. Senate because, I fear, someone might object to the unanimous consent request I will ask after Senator Warner speaks.

Let me read what the committee has come up with. This is bicameral. The House Select Committee on Intelligence is in agreement. In section 148, it would say:

Funds appropriated by the Department of Defense Missile

Defeat and Defense Enhancements Appropriations Act, 2018

(division B of Public Law 115-96), for intelligence or

intelligence related activities are deemed to be specifically

authorized by Congress for purposes of section 504 of the

National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 414) during fiscal

year 2018 until the enactment of the Intelligence

Authorization Act for fiscal year 2018.

The vice chairman is a lawyer; I am not. I really rely upon the legal counsel that we have within the committee to interpret U.S. law. It really doesn't take a law degree to understand that there is a huge difference between ignoring section 504, ``notwithstanding,'' and applying section 504, which our change makes.

This isn't really a misinterpretation. This is a question of whether you want to take section 504 of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 414) and continue to let it apply or whether you are going to provide the intelligence community a waiver that exempts them from having to adhere to a part of U.S. Code.

The reason I wanted the opportunity to speak before we ask unanimous consent is, I want my colleagues to understand that we take our oversight role extremely seriously. We want to have every tool in our basket that we can to give the American people the assurance that we know exactly what is going on and that we are at least in agreement that they proceed forward, not that they have free rein only because they have been appropriated a pot of money because an executive request was made. It would be no different under the Obama administration or under the Trump administration. I would encourage my colleagues not to object to it when I ask for the unanimous consent because that is what we are here for.

With that, I yield to the vice chairman.

Mr. President, I thank the vice chairman of the committee. There are over 30-plus professional staffers who staff both sides of the Intelligence Committee. On each side, there is a staffer designated for each of the intelligence agencies in this country. I would dare say today they know their particular portfolio of intelligence agencies as well as the employees who work inside that agency. They are experts. They are tasked with that degree of knowledge. Layered on top of that are 15 Members of the U.S. Senate whom the leadership on both sides have asked to spend countless hours behind closed doors--as the vice chairman said--typically in a bipartisan fashion to provide for every Member and for the American people our certification that we agree with what the intelligence community is doing; that it lives within the letter of the law; that there is some congressional oversight on a constant basis, in real-time, assuring Members and the American people of that accuracy. Why would you take away the tools we have to actually hold them accountable?

I know appropriators believe this hinders their ability to spend money when we are in a continuing resolution

period because of section 504. I am not sure I interpret it the same way they do. Just because an executive branch has asked for a pot of money, I have never considered that the committee couldn't go in, because of a vehement disagreement with the way some of it is being spent, and alter it. That altering means that on the part of 15 Members we have a hesitancy as to how it is being done. If you neuter the committee, you neuter our oversight.

Mr. President, at this time, I ask unanimous consent that the Burr amendment to amendment No. 1917, which is at the desk, be considered and agreed to.

Mr. President, it is my hope that we will come to our senses at some point in this process and that this waiver to U.S. Code will, in fact, not be in place, but I will assure, on behalf of the vice chairman and myself to all our Members, we will, to the best of our ability, given the limitation that is placed on us, hold the intelligence community accountable for everything they do and that we will be much more active in the future relative to the appropriations that find their way there if, in fact, they are not going to provide us the tools to manage, in a constructive way, those things the agencies choose to carry out.

If I didn't have the number of individuals in Members and in staff who are experts, I probably wouldn't be as confident, but these folks take it extremely seriously because we know what is at stake--the trust we have with our Members and the trust we have with the American people.

With that, Mr. President, I yield back but with great disappointment.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.