Floor Statements

Mr. President, I have 10 requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority leaders.

Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate:

Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, May 16, 2018, at 10 a.m. to conduct a hearing on the following nominations: Joseph Ryan Gruters, of Florida, to be a Director of the Amtrak Board of Directors, Jennifer L. Homendy, of Virginia, to be a Member of the National Transportation Safety Board, and Heidi R. King, of California, to be Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Department of Transportation.

Committee on Foreign Relations

The Committee on Foreign Relations is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, May 16, 2018, at 10 a m. to conduct a hearing.

Committee on Foreign Relations

The Committee on Foreign Relations is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, May 16, 2018, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Authorizing the Use of Military Force: S.J. Res 59.''

Committee on Indian Affairs

The Committee on Indian Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, May 16, 2018, at 2:30 p.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``Protecting the Next Generation: Safety and Security at Bureau of Indian Education Schools.''

Committee on Indian Affairs

The Committee on Indian Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, May 16, 2018, at 2:30 p.m. to conduct a hearing

Committee on the Judiciary

The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, May 16, 2018, at 10 a.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``Cambridge Analytica and the Future of Data Privacy''.

Joint Committee on the Library

The Joint Committee on the Library is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, May 16, 2018, at 3.30 p.m. to conduct a hearing.

Joint Committee on Printing

The Joint Committee on Printing is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, May 16, 2018, at 3:45 p m. to conduct a hearing.

Select Committee on Intelligence

The Select Committee on Intelligence is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, May 10, 2018, at 9:15 a.m. to conduct a closed hearing.

Subcommittee on Space, Science, and Competitiveness

The Subcommittee on Space, Science, and Competitiveness of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, May 16, 2018, at 2:30 p.m. to conduct a hearing.

Madam President, I rise in strong support of the nomination of Mike Pompeo, our current CIA Director, to be the next Secretary of State. I must say, I watched with interest the proceedings the day before yesterday in the Foreign Relations Committee. The debate was interesting on both sides. I appreciate the fact that accommodations were made so Mike Pompeo's nomination could be presented to the full Senate with a positive vote.

I am disappointed that so many of my Democratic colleagues have stated they will oppose this nomination. I heed the admonition of one of the Members of the Democratic Party at the confirmation vote before the committee when this Member asked that Senators not question the motives of anyone who takes a position one way or the other with regard to the nomination of Mr. Pompeo. I will heed that admonition and not question the motivation of any Senator who votes either yes or no on this nomination.

I will simply observe this: Mike Pompeo is a highly qualified nominee, a distinguished former Member of the House of Representatives. He served with accomplishment and great dignity and ability as Director of the CIA. He graduated first in his class from the U.S. Military Academy at West Point and went on to graduate with distinction at the Harvard Law School and served as editor-in-chief of the Harvard Law Review.

This is a man of great intellect, a man of great ability and great accomplishment. Without impugning the motives of anyone who would vote no, I simply observe they will be voting against a highly accomplished and qualified nominee.

When the shoe was on the other foot during the Obama administration, I--along with almost a unanimous majority of Members of my caucus-- voted yes, in favor of the confirmation of Hillary Clinton to be Secretary of State. I voted yes--again, a virtually unanimous vote on both sides of the aisle--for the nomination of our colleague John Kerry to be the successor to Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State.

I will simply note to my doubting friends, who are standing on their rights on the other side of the aisle, that the overwhelming weight of public opinion from the news media has come down on the side of Mr. Pompeo. The Wall Street Journal headline says we need a Secretary of State and that Mike Pompeo should be confirmed. The Chicago Tribune, in an editorial, states why the Senate should confirm Mike Pompeo. The Washington Post headline on the editorial page proclaims: ``Confirm Mike Pompeo.'' The New York Daily News says: ``Confirm Mike Pompeo: President Trump Needs a Secretary of State.''

I will add, this country needs a Secretary of State. The cause of international diplomacy needs a Secretary of State. The cause of human rights around the world needs a Secretary of State.

USA Today: ``Confirm Mike Pompeo to Fill the Void at State.''

I will not question the motives of any of my colleagues, my friends whom I respect. I will only say, things are surely different around the U.S. Senate nowadays than they were previously, when we rose up almost unanimously and confirmed John Kerry and Hillary Clinton and stood for the proposition that a President of the United States is entitled to his or her team and that person needed strong support.

I only say that at a moment when our country needs to send a strong message of resolve to our allies and to the entire international community, we need to send a strong signal of unity; that the vote we may take later this week in confirming Mike Pompeo might send a signal of excessive partisanship and division, I regret that.

We are going to have a great Secretary of State at the end of this process. I think this, unfortunately, narrow vote will come and go and perhaps not be the standard we operate under in future times. I will only say that for those colleagues who are still looking

for an answer and still wrestling with how they should vote, I commend to them the example of previous days and the example of sending a strong signal around the globe that this President is supported in his efforts in international diplomacy and that he is entitled to the team he has chosen.

I urge my colleagues to vote yes. I appreciate the distinguished minority leader for indulging me and allowing me to go forward.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I wish to celebrate the admirable career of Ms. Cynthia ``Cindy'' Stevens, a native Mississippian whose success in business is accompanied by a lifelong devotion to mentorship and public service.

After graduating from Mississippi State University, Cindy came to Washington as an aide to Mississippi Congressman Sonny Montgomery. She would go on to serve as his legislative director, helping to develop policies that made our State and country better.

Diligence and a devotion to good governance continued in her next role as the director of public affairs at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, where she worked on issues related to campaign finance and the administration of election laws by Federal agencies. She then joined the Washington Board of Trade, serving as a tireless advocate for the business community.

A reputation for hard work and results has characterized Cindy's work at the global accounting firm Deloitte since she started in 1993 as a member of the support staff for its east coast litigation support services. She was quickly promoted to risk support management and rose to become a principal in government relations, overseeing legislative affairs at the State and local

levels. She led Deloitte's efforts to comply with the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, and her collaboration with the strategy groups of other Big Four firms helped meet key legislative and regulatory agency objectives.

Cindy has been a role model to other female professionals throughout her career. She was a mentor to my current chief of staff when she was first starting her congressional career. Later at Deloitte, she highlighted the achievements and talents of younger female employees to her peers in other firms. She has also been instrumental in efforts to elect women to Congress.

Cindy's own story of success as one of the highest ranking female principals at Deloitte continues to inspire young women. She remains active in organizations she supports, serving on the Mississippi State Foundation Board of Directors, National Capital Multiple Sclerosis Society Board, and the U.S. Chamber Public Affairs Committee.

I wish Cindy well in her retirement. I know she will continue to use her talents and experience to benefit her community.

Mr. President, I have a request for one committee to meet during today's session of the Senate. It has the approval of the Majority and Minority leaders.

Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committee is authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate:

committee on foreign relations

The Committee on Foreign Relations is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Monday, April 23, 2018, at 5 p.m., to hold a hearing.

Mr. President, I wonder if my colleague will yield on that point.

Mr. President, I appreciate the Senator from Alaska mentioning the broad base of support, and it occurs to me that this legislation has garnered the support of the chamber of commerce and organized labor.

Mr. President, in an effort not to take up too much time, the Senator from Alaska didn't mention that the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers is for this bill. The International Longshoremen's Association is for this bill. We have crafted something--with the help of Democrats and the help of Republicans, with the help of labor and business--that has brought these people together to help us protect American maritime jobs.

I want to commend the Senator from Alaska also for the work he has done in accommodating people.

I ask my friend, am I correct that this is not the first version we had of this bill?

I am not going to ask my colleague to yield all of his time to me, but I would just observe this to my friends on both sides of the aisle. This is the kind of bipartisan legislative effort on the part of my colleague from Alaska that ought to be rewarded.

A Member of the minority party has come to him expressing concerns, and those concerns have largely been met at every pass. It is not like we are trying to jam something on the part of the business community or the far right. I just have to say to my colleague from Alaska that he has done a heroic effort. We need a couple of more votes from people who have, at one time or another, expressed strong support for this legislation.

We really should send a signal to the American people that we trust each other, that we appreciate somebody like the Senator from Alaska who has bent over backward to make this work for America, to make this work for labor, to make this work for the waterway operators, and to make this work for the environment. I think this will enhance the environmental system in our waterways all over the country.

I thank the Senator for yielding time. Once again, I just have to say how much I admire the statesmanship of this relatively junior Senator from Alaska in working across the aisle and making this a bill that we ought to all be proud of.

I thank the Senator for yielding.

Mr. President, I once again rise to express my strong support for the Coast Guard reauthorization bill and the Vessel Incident Discharge Act, which is contained within it. I also wish to thank the, literally, dozens and dozens and pages and pages of organizations that have come forward and said that this is an important piece of legislation for job creation and for those people who want to make a living on our waterways in this vital, vital aspect of our economy.

To pick up on something we were mentioning a few moments ago, not only does this legislation have the support of the chamber of commerce, business associations around the country, and job creation associations around the country, it has the support of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, the International Longshoremen's Association, the International Union of Operating Engineers, and Metal Trades AFL-CIO and Maritime Trades AFL-CIO. I could go on and on, pointing out that this legislation has the support of both labor and management.

I appreciate people of diverse political ideologies coming together on something that is going to make it easier to do commerce in the United States. I just hope we can get the 60 votes we require for consensus here in this body. I know we are close. We have 60 people who have, at one time or another, expressed support for this legislation, and I hope we can come together in a convergence in a few moments when we vote for this.

I want to discuss a couple of misconceptions that keep floating around about the ballast water, incidental water issue.

First, some people are saying that the bill lowers the environmental standards for ballast water. Of course, nothing could be further from the truth. Why would these organizations come forward with this if we are going to lower the standards? The very language of the bill preserves current Federal standards. Also, the bill includes what is already in the law; that is, the Environmental Protection Agency will have a principal role in setting the national standard for ballast water discharge.

The new standards and requirements would be based upon a term of art, and the term of art in the language is ``best available technology economically achievable,'' BATEA. This term comes straight out of our current Clean Water Act. It is already there. But in the Vessel Incidental Discharge Act--which we hope we can bring to the floor in a few moments--the best available technology would be mandated for this new, nationwide standard. This standard would, of course, be enforced by the Coast Guard, but it would be developed by the EPA according to the most stringent, scientifically available standards we could possibly have.

What we are trying to do in this regard is free up commerce--free up working men and women, free up people trying to create more jobs in the maritime industry--from complying with a myriad of different requirements as we go State to State to State. Some 25 different States have a little bit of a nuanced approach to this. As you can imagine, if you are in the barge business or in the maritime business, it is almost impossible to comply with 25 separate standards. This would set one standard across the country, but it would be at the best available technology. So please, don't anyone think this is some sort of lesser technology. This is the best.

According to the very wording of the bill that we are asking the Senate to vote on today, EPA concurrence is required for these regulations to be established. It would not be able to be enforced unless EPA comes in and blesses it. And EPA would have a principal role in developing the proposed regulations.

Let me say a word or two about the Great Lakes. This seems to be a matter of concern and misunderstanding. There is a myth that this somehow harms the Great Lakes. I have to commend the principal author of this legislation and the Senator from Alaska, who is currently occupying the Chair, for being willing to accommodate our friends from the Great Lakes during this process. The Great Lakes gets a little extra treatment in this bill because of concerns they have raised.

Here is what will happen if we pass this bill. All vessels entering the Great Lakes will need to flush their ballast water before entering. The only ballast water then being discharged by Great Lakes vessels will be water that they have taken in from the Great Lakes. They have to flush their ballast tanks before coming in. That is an accommodation we have made to bring our friends from the Great Lakes into this issue. According to this bill, the Coast Guard, in concurrence with the EPA, would be required to establish best management practices specifically tailored to the Great Lakes.

I would just say to my friends, let's talk about the facts, but please don't make up arguments that are not based in fact. This legislation, if it passes--and I still think we have an opportunity to get 60 votes and move on to considering the substance--would use the best scientifically available enforcement possible. It would give our barge folks and our maritime folks just one thing to comply with rather than 25 or 26 or 27 different regulatory schemes. And what do those myriad of schemes do? Every time you have to hire a lawyer or a compliance person, it is money you take out of your bottom line that you would like to use creating a job in America. That is what these people want to do. They want to increase employment for these boilermakers and longshoremen who have endorsed this bill.

I say to my friends, let's not be confused with arguments that have come in in the last week or two that have no basis in fact. This is a bill about strong, strong requirements for the water that, incidentally, has to come out of the ballast tanks, and it is about strong enforcement by the Coast Guard of standards imposed by the EPA according to the best available scientific technology--strong requirements to protect our environment but also to protect jobs and commerce for Americans.

I think we are going to vote in 10 or 11 minutes. I urge my colleagues who have at one time or the other come forward and endorsed this very proposal, please stay with us on this, particularly based on the accommodations the Senator from Alaska has made to make the bill more accommodating and more conclusive of the concerns that have been raised. I urge a ``yes'' vote.

We are going to continue this fight one way or another. This is a day we ought to stand for doing something for commerce, for labor, for business, and in the name of bipartisanship and in the name of rewarding the way we ought to be legislating on the floor.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, I, too, wish to join my colleagues in a tribute to our retiring statesman, Senator Thad Cochran.

First of all, I have been asked by Phyllis J. Anderson, Tribal Chief of the Mississippi Band of Chocktaw Indians, to have printed in the Record a proclamation that was adopted only recently about Senator Cochran in appreciation for his 46 years of public service as a Member of the House and of the Senate, and I ask unanimous consent that the proclamation be printed in the Record.

Madam President, I would note that the last paragraph of this document says: ``Resolved, that I, Phyllis J. Anderson, by the authority vested in me as Tribal Chief, do hereby honor the legacy of the Honorable Thad Cochran and extend sincere gratitude, appreciation, and many blessings of the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians to Senator Cochran upon his retirement after five decades of public service in the U.S. Navy, U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate.

Signed by Phyllis J. Anderson, Tribal Chief.

Back in December of 1937, Thad Cochran was born in the little town of Pontotoc, MS, population 1,832. He was born in the delivery room of the Rayburn Clinic. Some 13\1/2\ years later, I was born in the delivery room of the Rayburn Clinic in Pontotoc, MS.

During the campaign, some years later in 1994, when I was first trying to be a Member of the House of Representatives, Senator Thad Cochran and I went around the northern part of the State and told many people that he and I were born not only in the same town and not only in the same clinic but born in the same room, the delivery room of the Rayburn Clinic. We thought that was the truth. As it turned out, we found out later from our moms, the Rayburn Clinic had moved down the street; so while we were both born in the delivery room of Rayburn Clinic, that clinic itself had moved. It just points out how long Senator Thad Cochran and I have been friends and how long our families have been friends and how well associated we have been down through the years.

Senator Alexander mentioned that campaign in 1968, and then he mentioned that he was a candidate for Congress successfully in 1972. I was honored, as a college student, to go door-to-door for Senator Cochran during that 1972 campaign.

Yesterday was National Poetry Day. Perhaps it is appropriate for me, today, to quote a couple of poets, the first being Henry Wadsworth Longfellow who said:

Lives of great men all remind us

We can make our lives sublime;

And departing, leave behind us

Footprints on the sands of time.

As Thad Cochran departs the Senate in a few days, I think it is appropriate for us to reflect, as my friend from Tennessee and my friend from Texas have already done, and as others will do, about the great footprints Senator Thad Cochran will have left in the sands of time for our Nation.

Because of Thad Cochran, our Nation's defense is stronger today.

Because of the efforts of our colleague from Mississippi, my senior Senator, Americans are healthier today and will continue to be healthier.

American agriculture is stronger today because of the efforts of this ``quiet persuader'' in the field of agriculture; and our economy, as a whole, is stronger because of the many efforts of Senator Thad Cochran and before that, Representative Thad Cochran in the U.S. House.

I am just very grateful. We are all grateful for all he has done.

Senator Cochran acknowledged in his statement about his impending retirement that health had become an issue for him, and it was time to move on.

I told reporters and I told Members who asked me--I said it is a bittersweet moment, it is a poignant moment for me to hear such things. These sorts of things happen, and we all face health issues at some point.

Alfred Lord Tennyson, in his magnificent poem ``Ulysses,'' said:

Tho' much is taken, much abides; and tho'

We are not now that strength which in old days

Moved earth and heaven; that which we are, we are;

One equal temper of heroic hearts,

Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will

To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.

I say to my friend Thad that we appreciate the fact that he has been strong in will and, though time and fate have happened to Thad Cochran and will happen to me and to all of us, what abides is the legacy he has left of being a ``quiet persuader,'' of being a person of accomplishment, of being a gentleman who has made this country and its citizens better off, and I thank him.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I filed an amendment yesterday that, I hope, will be included in this banking bill that the Senate is considering today and tomorrow.

My amendment was inspired by a bill I introduced last July, which is a simple bill, bipartisan, and should be noncontroversial. Here is what the amendment would do: It would exempt trust-preferred securities from a bank's capital requirements.

Now, you ask: What is a trust-preferred security?

It is an investment vehicle that looks a little bit like equity and, at the same time, looks a little bit like debt.

How did these come about?

Actually, the FDIC asked many banks to invest in such securities in previous decades. A company creates trust-preferred securities by creating a trust, issuing debt to it, and then having it issue preferred stock to investors--trust, debt, and preferred stock to investors. The FDIC used to like trust-preferred securities. It considered them sound investments before 2010. May I repeat: The FDIC asked many banks to invest in these securities. However, through its interpretation of the Basel III regulations, the FDIC is now counting these securities against the banks' capital holdings.

Who is affected by this?

It happens to be 20 small banks in the heartland of America.

My amendment would exempt these banks from having to consider trust- preferred securities as part of their capital requirements; therefore, it would promote growth in rural communities around the country as well as provide regulatory relief for our small banks.

That is really what this bill is about. The Dodd-Frank legislation took a broad-brush approach and punished many medium and small banks when they had nothing to do with the financial crisis of 2007 and 2008. Dodd-Frank has done harm to Main Street. My amendment would alleviate some of that harm. If we want to help banks grow the economy, we need to be mindful of the ways in which Dodd-Frank's excessive regulations are hurting small banks. This goes right in hand with the major thrust of this overwhelmingly bipartisan bill on which we are about to proceed today or tomorrow.

These 20 small banks nationwide inject needed capital and access to credit in our communities--capital and credit to launch new local businesses or create jobs. When these small banks struggle, communities struggle. For one to comply with the one-size-fits-all Dodd-Frank regulations demands resources that some of our community banks do not have. Here I am arguing for my amendment and for the entire bill. Unlike big banks, these small banks in rural communities might be forced to close because of the demands that are too high or they might have to pass along extra costs to consumers. Neither option helps our local communities and the people who live there.

These 20 small rural banks were not in the least bit responsible for the financial crisis. So my amendment, based on a bipartisan bill, recognizes, along with the base bill, the fact that the small banks are not part of the problem and never were part of the problem. It would alleviate the burdens that these banks have shouldered since Dodd-Frank has become law.

I commend the chairman of the Banking Committee and the overwhelming bipartisan majority on the Banking Committee for working on this legislation. This is a red-letter achievement in a body that has become overly partisan, regrettably so, in the last few years, but we can work together to offer relief to our small credit unions and small community banks. In doing so, we need to take the added step of relieving these 20 smalltown banks from an onerous requirement.

I urge the chairman and the ranking member and Members of the Democratic and Republican leadership to consider making this part of an overall managers' amendment or accepting this amendment and moving forward because it has everything to do with following the thrust of this entire bill.

I thank the Presiding Officer.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, this Chamber is familiar with deadlines and has a habit of running up against them. We cannot lose sight of May 12, the deadline when President Trump will make a decision about sanctions on Iran.

In January, the President waived sanctions for the last time, calling on Congress to ``either fix the deal's disastrous flaws, or the United States will withdraw.'' We now have less than 3 months--a period in which bipartisan consensus on the issue of Iran is absolutely necessary.

To reimpose sanctions would effectively signal the end of America's participation in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, the JCPOA, an agreement better known as the Iran nuclear deal. The plan is flawed, and we cannot fix it without action.

I ask my colleagues for cooperation and collaboration so that we can act in the national interest and prevent the nefarious aims of the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism. When it comes to Iran, we must put aside our differences and work together on a bipartisan bill.

I know that the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Corker, has been working with Senator Cardin on this issue. Their efforts are commendable and necessary.

Let me stress again that this effort must be bipartisan. One-sided legislation would signal division and weakness on the issue of Iran. A partisan bill would also undermine our diplomatic efforts with the P5+1 countries to improve the JCPOA through a supplemental agreement. I am confident we can do our part.

First, Congress has repeatedly demonstrated its support for countering Iran's malign activities. Second, President Trump has laid out a clear road map for legislation that he would sign. Finally, this President has the will to walk away. He has made this promise, and I believe he will keep it.

Let me explore these three points in turn. No. 1, we have a long history of acting in an overwhelmingly bipartisan fashion on this issue. Last August, the President signed the Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act. The legislation included tough new sanctions on Iran's ballistic missile program, on its sponsorship of terrorism, and its human rights abuses. The Senate approved it by a vote of 98 to 2, and it earned a vote of 419 to 3 in the House-- bipartisan majorities. We also passed by voice vote Senator Rubio and Senator Shaheen's bill to crack down on illicit financing for Iran's client Hezbollah. The House companion also passed by a voice vote.

We have a blueprint for what to do. The President has outlined four proposals addressing critical flaws in the nuclear deal.

One of those proposals is that Iran allow anytime, anywhere inspections. Currently, Iran is blocking international inspectors from accessing military sites, such as the Parchin facility. Inspectors also have to follow elaborate rules even to request and receive access, despite Iran's long history of concealment and deception. If Iran has nothing to hide, then it has no reason to object to anytime, anywhere inspections.

Second, the bill would ensure that Iran never comes close to getting a nuclear weapon. The current nuclear deal attempts to keep Iran 1 year away from breakout--the point at which Iran

can rapidly develop a nuclear capability. One year is not much of an insurance policy, especially against the top state sponsor of terrorism. The bottom line is that Tehran should never come close to a nuclear weapon.

Third, the bill needs to maintain restrictions in perpetuity. The so- called sunset clauses are perhaps the most flawed part of the nuclear agreement. The way it currently reads, Iran does not need to cheat. They can simply wait us out. The conventional weapons ban sunsets in 2020. The ban on receiving ballistic missile assistance sunsets in 2023. The ban on replacing old centrifuges with advanced models sunsets in 2026. And all nuclear restrictions--on centrifuges, on enrichment facilities and levels, and on heavy water production--sunset in 2031. The sunset clauses do not stop Iran but kick the can down the road--a road ending in just over a decade.

Finally, the bill cannot overlook the connection between Iran's ballistic missile and nuclear weapons programs. The legislation must severely sanction the ballistic missile program. This is another no- brainer. A nuclear warhead is effective to the extent that it can be launched on a missile. Iran is not developing long-range and sophisticated ballistic missiles to deliver conventional payloads. The architects of the Iran deal, unfortunately, took great pains to keep it focused solely on nuclear. That has to end.

These four demands constitute a sensible framework for the kind of bipartisan legislation that Congress can achieve.

The final reason for my cautious optimism is that we have a President who keeps his promises. When President Trump calls May 12 the last chance, I take him seriously. I would encourage my colleagues to do the same. This President is dead serious about countering Iran's agenda. He said that he would decertify the deal last October. He followed through. That should have erased any doubts.

We should not wait until the eleventh hour to deal with this issue. It is too important. By putting aside personal or political feelings, we can absolutely achieve a bipartisan bill that fixes the Iran deal using the President's framework.

Thank you.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, the Senator is very kind, and time is not that pressing. I am actually expecting two or three colleagues, and perhaps we will engage in a colloquy after that. I do appreciate my friend's courtesy.

Climate Change

I thank my friend from Pennsylvania and would observe that he has exercised excellent leadership on this issue. It is a very important issue. It is not at the top of the news media's treatment, but it is an important issue, and it is one that we are close to being able to resolve in a bipartisan way. I also want to thank my colleague from Alaska, who has been a champion for this issue.

I would make a couple of points to underscore what my friends have just said.

We are talking about ballast water in the waters of the United States. Some of it gets out; they let some ballast water in, and they have to let some out. It is incidental to operating a boat in the waters of the United States of America.

We want this water to be clean. We want it to be as environmentally pure as possible. That is what this bill attempts to do and attempts to do on a uniform basis, rather than having a patchwork of regulations from State to State and area to area. It would give us one strict national standard regarding the incidental discharge of this ballast water.

The water that gets into our lakes and rivers needs to be safe for the environment, needs to be safe for fish in our American waters, and needs to be safe for marine plant life.

What this bill would do is have the EPA involved in writing the regulations and determining what is safe for American waters. So EPA would be the scientific part, and the Coast Guard would be a part of the enforcement. EPA has readily stated that they are not able to be in the enforcement business in the waters of the United States. So they are going to help with the science, according to this new proposal, and the Coast Guard is going to help with the enforcement.

Who is for this? Well, 300 businesses, labor unions, ports, and terminal operators. They are all in it together, and they all say that this would work. This is not an example of one side getting up some numbers on a partisan basis and deciding to try to run over the others. As a matter of fact, this is such a bipartisan idea that we have over 60 Senators in favor of this proposal.

I just want to assure anyone who has doubts about this legislation that the EPA is going to sign off on these standards. They are going to sign off on standards that are safe, but we are really doing this for jobs and commerce in the United States of America. Imagine you are in the business--the barge business or the commercial maritime business anywhere in the United States--and you have to worry about compliance from State to State. And it might be just a reporting requirement. Clearly this is a burden on people who want to do the right thing but simply would like to have one standard nationwide to comply with. That is what we are trying to do. We are close.

I would simply say to my friend from Alaska, who has done more work on this really than anybody in my memory, I would observe to the Senator that I think we are close to being able to do this on a bipartisan basis and perhaps putting this as an attachment to a must- pass piece of legislation. I think we can do it because we have demonstrated, through our friend from Pennsylvania and other Democrats and Republicans, that we have been careful to include everyone and to be bipartisan about it.

Would my friend agree that we are at a point where this really needs to be signed into law?

Mr. President, I thank my friend from Alaska for once again segueing to the larger issue there. Vessel incidental discharge is a very important part but only a part of the Coast Guard authorization. The Senator from Alaska makes the very valid point that we really need to get to a point where we take up the Coast Guard reauthorization on a regular basis because it is a very vital part of our national security. The Coast Guard is actually one of those domestic discretionary programs that provide us

with a great deal of national security. Our Coast Guard currently operates ships in its high-endurance cutter fleet that are more than 45 years old. We need some reforms in the Coast Guard. The Senate and the House need to pay attention to the reauthorization on a very regular basis. So the larger issue is absolutely well-taken on the part of the Senator from Alaska.

I would once again say that my friend the Senator from Alaska has exercised excellent leadership. He has been relentless on the Coast Guard reauthorization and particularly the vessel incidental discharge, and he and others who have fought so hard really deserve some results because there are no substantive objections that can be raised at this point.

Mr. President, the Senator from Nebraska has generously allowed me to intrude on her time for a half a minute to say that I strongly support this legislation--the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act.

Science is on our side in supporting this legislation, and public opinion is on our side in supporting this legislation. There are 60 percent of women, 64 percent of Independents, and 56 percent of Democrats who support ending late-term abortions, which is what we are trying to do. Medical practice is on our side in this legislation, and world opinion and world practice are on our side.

Let me simply reiterate that we in America are among a grim group of seven countries who permit abortions after 20 weeks--Canada and the Netherlands in the West and then China, North Korea, Singapore, and Vietnam. We are in a grim group that includes North Korea and China. We may not have the votes this time, but we are advancing the issue, and we are going to continue to fight for the unborn, particularly those who are capable of feeling pain after 20 weeks.

I thank the Senate for its time, and I particularly thank the Senator from Nebraska for indulging me for a moment.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all time be yielded back on both sides and the Senate proceed to the vote.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. President, the Senate voted yesterday to reopen the government. I am glad that cooler heads and bipartisan good will prevailed before too much damage was done, but where do we go from here?

The leadership of both Houses needs to negotiate appropriations caps for the rest of this year and all of next year. We all need to do our part to make sure this is done immediately. As a matter of fact, half of that job is practically done. Our colleagues in the House have a promise from the Speaker of the House to consider a Defense appropriations bill at the spending level set by the most recent National Defense Authorization Act. That amount is $700 billion and represents an increase of $88.6 billion over last year's enacted spending level--a welcome development. It would seem to make sense for this body to adopt that figure in the Senate bill, and the job would be halfway done. I hope our leaders will not wait until the week after next to get us an agreement on domestic spending.

Let's not approach the next few days as if the battle lines are again drawn. Rather than using the coming days to suit up for the next showdown, perhaps we can work to strengthen the Senate so that it does the governing that our Founders envisioned, the governing that the statesmen who preceded us have protected. Americans do their jobs day in and day out, and they expect the same hard work from their elected representatives in Washington.

In this regard, I would like to call attention to an op-ed by radio host Hugh Hewitt that was published online yesterday by the Washington Post. It is titled ``How to end the Senate's astonishing dysfunction''--a pretty graphic title for an op-ed. Mr. Hewitt warns that the institution of the Senate is ``careening toward widespread contempt, as happened to its Roman predecessor even before the emperors turned it into a fancy advisory council.'' One might be inclined to agree given the events of the past few days. Indeed, we have reached an embarrassing low point where a government shutdown is wrongly used as a bargaining chip for merely political gain. Mr. Hewitt concludes, ``It would be best for both parties to head off change imposed from pressure from the outside with change organically orchestrated from within by those with care for the body and its original design.''

There are plenty of experts with ideas on how to create a more efficient and more effective Senate. Those ideas should be welcomed now. But those of us who took an oath in this Chamber and serve with the great legacy of this institution cannot stay on the sidelines. We occupy a unique position to drive reforms and to make the Senate better, ensuring its existence and its success for the next generation.

There is real hope that these reforms have already begun. For example, there has been support by both Democrats and Republicans to change the procedural rules on executive and judicial nominations, shortening postcloture debate from 30 hours to 8 hours. The Democratic- led Senate passed this rule on a temporary basis in 2013, with bipartisan support. Our colleague from Oklahoma, Senator Lankford, has a thoughtful proposal. He suggests that we permanently shorten postcloture debate on executive and judicial nominations. I agree with this proposal. The practice of confirming noncontroversial nominees is a courtesy historically given without needless delay to whoever occupies the Oval Office, to whomever the public has installed as President, Democrat and Republican alike.

Delays are not only inconvenient as the new administration tries to put its team in place, but more importantly,

delays keep highly qualified individuals from serving the American people--sometimes in positions affecting our national security or delivering disaster response.

Like Mr. Hewitt, I believe we can do more to make the Senate work for the American people with ``an overhaul of its rules'' that ``preserves the rights of the minority in some cases . . . while also reflecting the speed at which the world moves today.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the op-ed by Mr. Hewitt be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, we can do more to streamline nominations, and we can do more to prevent the next budget stand-off.

I want to remind my colleagues of the bipartisan work that has been done by Senate Appropriations members--Republican and Democratic--in just the past year. Eight of the twelve annual appropriations bills passed out of committee last year. Most passed unanimously, with unanimous votes from Republicans and Democrats in the full Appropriations Committee. The remaining four were released as chairman's marks.

Let me recount the work that was done last year.

On July 13, 2017, the full Appropriations Committee, on a bipartisan basis, unanimously approved the fiscal year 2018 Military Construction and Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies appropriations bill. The vote was 31 to 0.

On July 20, 2017, the committee unanimously--again by a vote of 31 to 0--approved the fiscal year 2018 Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies appropriations bill.

Also on July 20, the committee approved the fiscal year 2018 Energy and Water Development appropriations bill by a vote of 30 to 1--still an overwhelming bipartisan vote on the part of the Appropriations Committee.

On July 27, 2017, the Appropriations Committee unanimously, by a vote of 31 to 0, approved the fiscal year 2018 Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act.

Also on July 27, the Appropriations Committee approved the fiscal year 2018 Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act. That was by a vote of 30 to 1--overwhelmingly bipartisan.

On the same day, July 27, the committee unanimously approved the fiscal year 2018 Legislative Branch appropriations bill.

I could go on and on. Two more:

In 2017, the full Appropriations Committee approved the Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies appropriations Bill. The vote then was a little closer--29 to 2--but still overwhelmingly bipartisan by a pretty evenly divided Appropriations Committee.

On September 7--well before the end of the fiscal year--the Senate Appropriations Committee unanimously approved the 2018 Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs appropriations bill.

All of these bills and then four chairman's marks have been available to this Senate for consideration, and not a single one of them has been brought to the floor. What would be the reason for that? I think Members of the majority would say it is because we couldn't get 60 votes for cloture on a motion to proceed, and realizing that we couldn't get the 60 votes, we decided not to burn the time that we needed for other considerations, such as nominations or tax reform or other legislation that had a chance. Members of the minority party would probably say we couldn't get to a realistic caps agreement for domestic spending and for defense spending, and so there was no point in doing that, so we wouldn't agree to the 60 votes. But for whatever reason, citizens should know and Members should know that the Appropriations Committee did its work, and they had bills within the caps available to them, that were available for consideration. Yet, for whatever reason, they were not allowed to come to the floor for a vote.

Shouldn't we make a commitment to at least bring one bill or at least a minibus, combining three bills, to the floor and see if Members can work their will during this calendar year of 2018?

Annual appropriations bills should be passed in committee and then should come to the floor for a vote. This is how the spending process ought to work. We can do that more easily with a budget deal. We can do it with a bipartisan agreement on spending caps, which is the next big item to be negotiated. We need to eliminate sequestration, and we need to agree to defense and domestic spending levels. As I say, the work is already halfway done for us. A parade of weeks- or months-long continuing resolutions is not how we should be funding the government, and we have a resounding agreement to that statement from Members on both sides of the aisle.

The government shutdown this week was unfortunate, but it does not mean we have to continue the Senate's ``downward spiral,'' as Mr. Hewitt describes. We now have an opportunity for reform and for reflection about how we want to shape the future of this institution. I hope my colleagues, with the support of majority and minority Members, will seize this opportunity to enact positive change.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, as we all know, our government is now in its second full day of a shutdown. Public opinion is swinging against what is happening. As that occurs, it has been interesting to me to see that the talking points have changed on the part of the congressional Democrats. We have just seen an example of that on the Senate floor. Let's first look at a few uncontested facts.

Our government has been operating since September 30 of last year under a series of continuing resolutions--CRs. In other words, Congress has passed a series of temporary funding bills instead of enacting appropriations for the full fiscal year. This is not an ideal practice--and there is plenty of blame to go around--but it is generally considered better than allowing funding to lapse and the government to shut down.

We have heard about generals and Pentagon officials decrying the practice of continuing resolutions. I can assure my colleagues that generals and defense officials like government shutdowns far less than temporary spending bills. So let's not say we are taking the advice of our military leaders in shutting down the government.

The last CR was adopted to run until midnight of January 19, this past Friday night. That was the date on which our Democratic colleagues decided not to extend temporary funding for the entire Federal Government for 1 more month. The specific reason the Democratic leadership gave for not agreeing to another CR was DACA--Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals--a program designed to protect those young immigrants who were brought to America illegally through no fault of their own.

President Obama implemented this program through Executive order. President Trump, in believing it was better to handle this issue through legislation, decided to end the program in March of this year. In ending the DACA Executive order, President Trump has called on Congress to formulate a legislative, statutory fix for DACA recipients. We should bear in mind that Republicans and Democrats have been working on a DACA solution and will continue to do so.

There are other important immigration issues that I believe should be attached to the DACA issue, including the funding of a border wall and the replacement of chain migration. Chain migration, as we know, is the practice of allowing immigration lottery persons to bring in a host of relatives to the United States. The good news in this regard is negotiators have until March to reach a deal on DACA.

It is also a fact that this government shutdown is happening because an overwhelming majority of Senate Democrats voted no on a cloture motion to bring a new funding bill to a vote. Now, cloture votes take 60 votes, and my Democratic friends can say until they are blue in the face that the Republicans are in charge of the entire government--in charge of the Senate, in charge of the House, and in charge of the Presidency--but that does not take away from the fact that it takes bipartisan support to end a filibuster. It takes 60 votes. It takes Democrats and Republicans in the Senate to move to cloture on a new funding bill, and it is simply a fact that a majority of Democrats voted no. That is why we are in a shutdown.

Another undisputed fact is, the most recent CR would have run until mid-February and that the DACA Program--this program for childhood arrivals--is not set to expire until March. How does it make any sense to shut down the government over a program that will last longer than the temporary funding bill? It doesn't. Yet that is exactly what our Democratic friends decided to do--shut down the government on an immigration issue.

Here is the front page of Friday's New York Times, which is not exactly known as a great friend to the Republican Party. It reads: ``Senate Showdown Looms As Spending Bill Advances.'' This was the morning before the evening when our Democratic friends refused to fund the government. ``House approves a stopgap measure while Democrats dig in on immigration.'' According to the New York Times, it was an immigration issue that caused the Democrats to dig in.

The Washington Post reported the same: ``Shutdown looms despite House action.'' The subhead read that the Democrats tie Dreamers--another way to say the DACA recipients--to the passage of a budget deal. Again, that is the headline by not exactly the strongest Republican paper in the country--the Washington Post.

I find it interesting to hear the Democrats now talking about other reasons for their votes to shut down the Federal Government, reasons that are unrelated to the immigration issue, which was their real reason. We have seen it on the Senate floor tonight. We saw it yesterday on the Senate floor--a colloquy of distinguished Democratic Senators who talked extensively about the S-CHIP program for children's health as having somehow been inadequately treated in the CR they helped to defeat.

My colleague from South Dakota pointed out just a few moments ago that, in fact, the continuing resolution provided for a 6-year extension of the S-CHIP program for these 9 million Americans. Yet somehow that became a reason, and it was a reason listed by my good friend from New Jersey just a moment ago.

I tuned in to hear the House proceedings yesterday and heard the Democrats going on at length about community health centers all of a sudden and then about flood and hurricane relief. We heard on the floor tonight that a good reason to vote against the CR was that we have just done it too many times. Three times is OK, but four times is just too many. Of course, they proposed yet another fourth CR, but it was only a CR they had preferred to vote for. We hear them talk about tax cuts for the wealthy, the National Institutes of Health, and opioids. This Congress has done marvelous work on this pressing opioid problem. Medicaid has been mentioned. Medicaid is a mandatory program. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the year-to-year appropriations bills.

We have just heard every reason in the world other than the reason the national press has pointed out, which is

that this is an immigration dispute that doesn't even ripen until March, but our friends have refused to give us 60 votes to bring that to a close. I wonder why that is.

Could it be our Democratic friends are beginning to realize that shutting down the government over an immigration dispute is not turning out to be a winner for them?

It may be they have read the most recent CNN poll. That poll showed 56 percent of Americans saying that approving a budget to avoid a shutdown is more important than continuing the DACA Program. Let me repeat that: 56 percent of Americans said to approve a budget and avoid a shutdown. Only 34 percent chose DACA over a shutdown. Maybe that poll and other indications of public disapproval have caused those who voted for the shutdown to modify their reasons. I hope it causes 60 of us later on tonight to say yes to a solution that will get the government back open.

I say to my Democratic colleagues, it might have been nice or even desirable to include a DACA bill in the most recent CR proposal, but there is still at least a month and a half to resolve that issue. We have time to tend to the DACA issue, and we don't need to shut down the government over that issue.

What the people cannot understand is how it makes sense to force a shutdown over an issue that is completely unrelated to the temporary spending bill. My Democratic friends now seem to be searching for a figleaf of a solution so they can relent and allow the Federal Government to reopen and to function. I hope they find that reason. Maybe a 3-week CR is that vehicle.

If a solution is agreed to, it will take about that long to actually write the legislation, but something needs to give, and it needs to give tonight. The American people need this shutdown to end, our adversaries around the world need to see we can get our act together, and our military, our security personnel, and all of our public servants deserve the right to get back to the jobs they have signed on to do.

I thank the Presiding Officer.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.