[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 163 (2017), Part 5]
[Senate]
[Pages 6282-6288]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           EXECUTIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

                           EXECUTIVE CALENDAR

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the Clayton 
nomination, which the clerk will report.
  The assistant bill clerk read the nomination of Jay Clayton, of New 
York, to be a Member of the Securities and Exchange Commission for a 
term expiring June 5, 2021.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time until 12:30 
p.m. will be equally divided in the usual form.
  The Senator from Wyoming.


                 The President's First One Hundred Days

  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, over the weekend, President Trump 
celebrated 100 days that he has been in office as President of the 
United States. Newspapers and magazines and pundits on television were 
all talking about what the President has accomplished in those first 
100 days.
  From what I heard talking to people at home in Wyoming this past 
weekend, his first 100 days has been a huge success. People tell me 
that they think America is finally headed in the right direction again. 
I had a lot of people tell me they feel as if they have actually gotten 
a new spring in their step as a result of the Presidential election 
last year and President Trump taking office.
  The other day when I was home, I was in line at the gas station 
behind a guy. A friend of his came and said: Hey, how are you doing? 
The guy said: Great. We are hiring again.
  That is the kind of confidence that is happening all around Wyoming. 
The polling company Gallup says that it is happening not just in 
Wyoming but all across the country. For 24 straight weeks, more 
Americans have been more optimistic than pessimistic about the economy. 
As soon as Donald Trump was elected President, economic confidence 
soared, and it has stayed positive ever since. Gallup said that this is 
the exact opposite of what they had seen in the previous 8 years; that 
is, during the whole Obama administration, during the entire so-called 
economic recovery.
  In another poll released last week, Gallup said that people are also 
less worried that they will lose the job they have. They found that 
American workers are less concerned about being laid off from their job 
than at any time since Gallup started asking questions way back in 
1975. That is more than 40 years ago.

[[Page 6283]]

  Why are people optimistic now? I think it is because they see that 
President Trump and the Republicans in Congress are serious about 
improving the economy. They see that we are serious about giving relief 
to Americans who have been getting buried under an avalanche of 
redtape. They see that the President is off to a very fast start in the 
White House.
  Just look at what we have already done to help relieve the burdens on 
Americans. Congress has rolled back 13 different midnight regulations 
that President Obama tried to sneak through at the last minute. We 
struck down a stream buffer rule that was meant to block coal mining. 
We got rid of a rule that puts Americans at a competitive disadvantage 
when they are trying to develop energy resources overseas. We got rid 
of a regulation that took the control of local energy issues away from 
the State officials; we got rid of that regulation. And we got rid of 
one of the regulations that gave more control to Washington and less to 
States. These were regulations that harmed Americans and wiped out 
American jobs. Now those regulations are gone.
  We have more that we can do to roll back terrible regulations like 
these. I have introduced a resolution to block another damaging rule 
that has come out by the Bureau of Land Management, which has to do 
with the Obama administration rules on methane that is produced at oil 
and gas wells. The new regulations created confusion by duplicating 
other rules that were already on the books.
  That was the problem with so many of these regulations coming out by 
the Obama administration as they left office: regulation on top of 
regulation causing costs and confusion. They added costs that 
discourage energy production and kill energy jobs.
  I hope that we can have a vote on this resolution very soon and get 
rid of this unnecessary red tape.
  As active as Congress has been getting rid of these unfair, last-
minute rules, President Trump has been even more active. He has already 
signed at least 30 Executive orders to help clear a path for the 
American economy to take off again. He signed a major Executive order 
promoting American energy independence. This has been an enormous shift 
away from the Obama-era approach of disruptive regulations, 
restrictions, and Washington overreach. All of these regulations did 
more to harm hard-working Americans than they did to actually help the 
environment. From now on, Washington will be looking for ways to 
protect our environment while helping our economy to grow.
  Just last week, President Trump took another important step to keep 
his promises. He eased restrictions on drilling for oil and gas in 
offshore areas, like the Arctic and the Atlantic Oceans. These places 
have great potential for producing the energy America needs. President 
Trump is helping to create certainty that those resources will be 
available if we need them.
  President Obama couldn't imagine that it was possible to have 
responsible energy development in America. President Trump knows 
differently. He knows it is possible. He knows that American workers 
can do the job. He knows that America will be stronger because of it. I 
think that is the kind of thing the American people mean when they tell 
me that they feel they have a spring in their step.
  I can also tell you that this is just the beginning. Remember when 
President Obama bragged that he had a pen and a phone? Well, President 
Trump has proved that he has a whole drawer full of pens, and he 
intends to keep using them to help get the American economy growing 
again. He wants to hear more people saying that things are great; we 
are hiring again. That is what the President has been doing, and it is 
what Congress is doing. These are the kinds of things that will get 
this country back on track when it comes to our energy policy.
  In Wyoming and in much of the country, energy means jobs. Our goal 
should be to make American energy as clean as we can, as fast as we can 
without raising costs on American families. All of us should be able to 
agree on that. It is time to restore that balance to America's energy 
policy. President Trump is dedicated to getting that balance right.
  Republicans in Congress are dedicated to getting the economy back in 
gear, and I hope that more Democrats will join us with their ideas and 
with their support. That is what the American people want, and it is 
what they voted for. It is why people are confident and why they see 
better days ahead for this great country.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                    National Flood Insurance Program

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I rise to discuss an issue of 
extraordinary importance to the people of Louisiana and to many 
Americans. Yet again, Americans are witnessing a dramatic, rumor-filled 
guessing game. I am not talking about the latest new release from 
Netflix, I am talking about the reauthorization of the extremely 
important National Flood Insurance Program--we call it the NFIP, which 
I can assure you has played more like an episode of ``Veep'' than 
``House of Cards'' for the audience that watches it unfold every few 
years.
  I am sorry to say, Congress has repeatedly and consistently mangled 
the reauthorization of this essential Federal program. In 2010, the 
NFIP expired four times--not once, not twice but four times, for a 
total of 53 days, which injected uncertainty throughout a fragile 
housing market that had just been devastated 2 years previously.
  That was inexcusable. Local economies felt the sting of 1,400 home 
closing delays or cancellations per day that the program was expired. 
Now, along with many of the program's stakeholders and participants, I 
believe it is crucial that we avoid this type of congressionally 
imposed delay.
  Congress should extend the program. Let me say that again. Congress 
should extend the National Flood Insurance Program for a multiyear 
reauthorization before the September 30 deadline of this year. Our 
economy demands it. Many Americans may remember when the Biggert-Waters 
Flood Insurance Reform Act was signed into law in 2012. I was not in 
the Senate then. I was State Treasurer in Louisiana, but I certainly 
remember it.
  In an effort to bring the program closer to solvency after Superstorm 
Sandy, policyholders, as a result of Biggert-Waters, saw their premiums 
quickly rise to ``actuarial levels.'' For policyholders in my home 
State of Louisiana, this meant unaffordable levels. It doesn't do any 
good to offer Americans insurance they cannot afford. That is what 
Biggert-Waters did, just like the Affordable Care Act.
  FEMA's mishandling of Biggert-Waters implementation resulted in truly 
inaccurate rate hikes that placed the viability of the entire National 
Flood Insurance Program at risk. I even remember the local news 
stations in Louisiana, like WWL and WBRZ, broadcasting horror stories 
of exponential rate hikes as a result of Biggert-Waters, hitting 
hardest in South Louisiana's middle-class neighborhoods.
  Residents of St. Charles Parish and Lafourche Parish--in my State we 
call our counties parishes. We are the only one in America, only State 
in America, Louisiana, that does it. We do it right. Everybody else 
does it wrong. I remember residents of St. Charles Parish and Lafourche 
Parish sending in copies of their house keys to congressional 
representatives to give to FEMA because they could not afford the flood 
insurance.
  They were required to carry it. Therefore, they were just going to 
turn their home over. This was a sign that the government might as well 
take their homes because the insurance rates were so unaffordable.

[[Page 6284]]

  In this way, Biggert-Waters also made their homes unsalable. Going 
forward with the extension of the National Flood Insurance Program, we 
have to find a way to deal with the solvency of the NFIP that is 
responsible. At the same time, we cannot move the program from red to 
black entirely on the backs of policyholders. It just will not work.
  What do we need to do? We need to examine how FEMA spends every 
single dollar of premiums paid by policyholders into the system--every 
single dollar. We need to find solutions to improve the functionality 
and efficiency of the National Flood Insurance Program and to ensure 
that those who are mandated to carry flood insurance actually purchase 
flood insurance.
  It is clear to the policyholders in Louisiana that the NFIP has to do 
a better job also in one other respect. That is by giving our local 
officials a seat at the table. It is not written in the Constitution 
that flood policy and flood mapping has to originate and end with the 
Federal bureaucracy in Washington, DC.
  In fact, flood mapping and flood policy will benefit from having our 
local officials participate with a seat at the table. Our local levee 
boards and levee districts in Louisiana, along with the families who 
have lived on the land being insured for generations, know every single 
ditch, every single drainage canal from St. Tammany Parish to 
Terrebonne Parish. The NFIP bureaucrats ought to be asking them for 
guidance when rewriting flood maps and flood policy, not the other way 
around.
  Instead, our folks only get invited to the dance after all the 
decisions have been made in Washington, when the cow is already out of 
the barn. I believe this is a commonsense principle that ought to be 
included in legislation to ultimately extend and reform the program: 
give our local officials who know the land best a seat at the table, 
not perfunctory, a real seat at the table, to contribute to flood 
mapping and flood policy. The NFIP will be better for it.
  FEMA's mission, as we all know, is to lead America, to prepare for, 
prevent, respond to, and recover from disaster. That is why FEMA 
exists. The flood program is an extension of that mission. That is why, 
when consultants who work for FEMA--I am talking about contractors, I 
am talking about engineers, I am talking about lawyers, consultants who 
spend taxpayer money and are paid with taxpayer money working for FEMA, 
both contractors and subcontractors, if you wish to call them that, 
with the National Flood Insurance Program's Write Your Own Program, 
lose focus sometimes in helping flood victims.
  Let me say that again. We spend millions of taxpayer dollars through 
the National Flood Insurance Program paying consultants, contractors, 
lawyers, engineers to help administer the program and adjust claims. 
When it works, it is a beautiful thing. When it doesn't work, it is an 
unmitigated disaster and is unfair to every taxpayer who put up his or 
her hard-earned money and every policyholder of the National Flood 
Insurance Program. On occasions it has not worked.
  The vast majority of consultants do a fine job, but some don't. Those 
who have abused the program should be fired. That is why I am 
introducing a bill. It is called the National Flood Insurance Program 
Consultant Accountability Act. It is real simple. It will give the FEMA 
Administrator the authority to fire any consultant, contractor, lawyer, 
engineer, whomever, who engage in conduct detrimental to the mission of 
the National Flood Insurance Program.
  The bill will be fair. It will have an appeals process to ensure that 
good consultants are not penalized for being falsely accused, but this 
is a simple, commonsense reform that frankly should have been put in 
place years ago. If a consultant commits activity that in the opinion 
of the FEMA Administrator is detrimental to a program--for example, if 
he falsifies an engineering report that shows flooding caused the 
insured's damage, if he falsifies a report to say it didn't cause 
damage--then that consultant should be fired. This bill is going to 
give the FEMA Administrator the authority to do it.
  I believe the proper tools are not in place to hold government 
accountants accountable and to throw out bad actors. They are just not. 
During the Sandy recovery, major media reports claimed several firms 
actually altered engineering reports tied to flood insurance claims. 
The altered reports--engineering reports that originally said a flood 
caused the insured's damage and therefore the insured should be paid, 
those engineering reports were altered to say flooding did not 
contribute to the damage.
  These altered reports--intentionally altered--cost families the 
insurance payments they deserved and delayed their recovery. These were 
Americans who did the right thing. They bought flood insurance, and 
because of some consultants working for the NFIP, they were not 
allowed, at least initially, to recover. Only one engineering company 
was actually convicted of wrongdoing, but a number participated. Many 
of those who participated in this tomfoolery are still participating in 
the program and are still receiving taxpayer funding to contract with 
FEMA.
  On March 14, the head of FEMA's National Flood Insurance Program, Mr. 
Roy Wright, testified before the Banking Committee, on which I sit. He 
has testified that he can only fire contractors from participating in 
the National Flood Insurance Program if they are debarred, disbarred, 
or criminally convicted. He can't just pick up the phone and correct 
the situation.
  If he sees a consultant misbehaving, not acting in the best interest 
of the National Flood Insurance Program or the insured or the American 
taxpayer, he can't do a doggone thing about it, according to Mr. 
Wright's testimony, unless they are actually criminally convicted or 
disbarred, if they happen to be a lawyer.
  This bill is going to let the FEMA Administrator do something about 
it. There is nothing like a good firing every now and then to shake up 
an organization.
  The NFIP is responsible for administering insurance payouts for the 
29,600 flood insurance claims--30,000 flood insurance claims--in my 
State submitted for the historic, ``once in a thousand years'' flood 
that occurred in Louisiana last August and last March.
  FEMA and its consultants and its contractors will be aiding in paying 
out, I hope, more than $2.4 billion in taxpayer money. Louisiana's 
insured and the American taxpayers need to know that these consultants 
can be trusted and are highly regarded by their peers.
  As a member of the Senate Banking Committee, I plan to include this 
bill and other types of commonsense reforms during the reauthorization 
process of the National Flood Insurance Program, and I hope to do so on 
a bipartisan basis.
  I encourage my colleagues not to play politics with this legislation. 
I encourage my colleagues not to play politics with the National Flood 
Insurance Program. It is central to the success of the American 
economy.
  Let's try to work to avoid partisan battles and develop a National 
Flood Insurance Program that makes sense for the policyholders and for 
the American taxpayer.
  I am not naive. I know that different coalitions and special interest 
groups, armed with their lobbyists, descend on the Hill. I hope we 
won't forget the people back home--in my hometown and in the Presiding 
Officer's hometown--who will feel the repercussions of our legislative 
actions with respect to this important program.
  I am very much looking forward to working with my colleagues on the 
Banking Committee to make this a successful reauthorization of the 
National Flood Insurance Program for the 5.5 million Americans who rely 
on it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Flake). The Senator from Arkansas.


                        Congressional Review Act

  Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I want to take this opportunity to 
highlight what I consider an unsung achievement of this administration 
and this Congress--the slow but steady rollback of

[[Page 6285]]

the last administration's midnight regulations.
  The numbers are impressive. Using the Congressional Review Act, we 
have repealed 13 regulations so far, which adds up to a $3.6 billion 
reduction in regulatory costs. To put it in more human terms, we have 
saved the American people 4.2 million hours of paperwork, which I can 
tell you is more than welcome news in Arkansas.
  The other thing about these resolutions we have passed is that they 
are permanent. We haven't simply put these regulations on pause for a 
future President to revive them with a pen and phone. No, we have 
outlawed them forever. Any President who wants to reimpose them and 
their huge costs will have to pass a new law to do so, making the rules 
we live under and the people who make them accountable to the voters. 
That is a bit of a foreign concept to the people in Washington these 
days. But the way I see it, that is all the more reason to celebrate 
what we have achieved.
  I know the other side will say: This is a dark day for America. To 
hear them tell it, blotting out all these regulations will leave a dark 
stain on our law books. To them, this rollback is a throwback to a 
dangerous, rough-and-tumble era--one filled with dirty air, dirty 
water, and a frighteningly low quality of life. But it just ain't so.
  Stop and take a look at the regulations we have repealed, and then 
ask yourself: Why should Washington decide how we evaluate our 
teachers? Shouldn't parents, States, and cities do that? Why shouldn't 
States be able to test for drugs before handing out unemployment 
insurance? Is that such an unreasonable request? Why are bureaucrats 
who are sitting in an office thousands of miles away managing our land 
and wildlife? Shouldn't it be the people who live right there?
  Why should Federal bureaucrats be able to override a law duly passed 
by Congress and signed by the President? Do any of these regulations 
add much to our quality of life?
  Is this really about protecting the public interest? Or is it more 
about rewarding special interests? In fact, I can understand why 
liberals are bewildered at the idea that all these rules are hurting 
jobs, because these rules certainly are creating jobs--for lawyers and 
lobbyists. If there had been a bill, it would have been called ``The 
American Bar Association Full Employment Act.''
  That, perhaps, is the real issue here. It is not a question of 
whether we are going to live under rules. We have rules--plenty of 
them. The question is this: What kinds of rules are we going to live 
under? Are we going to pass laws that impose costs on rural America, 
only to add more wealth to urban America? Are we going to kill blue-
collar jobs so we can create more white-collar jobs? Or are we going to 
pass laws that help all Americans in all walks of life, as we should?
  When you look at things this way, I would say we have scored a pretty 
impressive victory, indeed, over these last 3 months.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican whip.


                   Tragedy at the University of Texas

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, first, I would like to offer a brief word 
on some tragic events that occurred in my State over the last few days.
  Yesterday, at the University of Texas in Austin, a man wielding a 
knife began attacking students on campus. He injured three and 
tragically killed another. My prayers are with the entire UT community, 
particularly the friends and families of those injured and the student 
who lost his life.
  This was a senseless act of violence, and it is abhorrent. We don't 
yet know the details for why this deranged individual acted the way he 
did. Local officials are still gathering details about the case.
  I am grateful to the University of Texas police for quickly 
apprehending the suspect and stopping further loss of life and injury. 
I offer them and the rest of the law enforcement community in Austin, 
around the State, and around the Nation my support as they seek justice 
and continue to protect, in this instance, one of the State's flagship 
institutions of higher learning.


                      Deadly Storms in East Texas

  Mr. President, many are aware that major storms ripped through parts 
of East Texas, including Van Zandt, Henderson, Rains, and Hopkins 
Counties, last weekend. On Saturday afternoon and evening, four 
tornadoes tore through the area, leaving a lot of damage in its wake, 
particularly in the town of Canton, in Van Zandt County. Dozens of 
people were injured and taken to the hospital, and, tragically, four 
people died.
  I plan to speak to the mayor of Canton and to Judge Kirkpatrick, the 
Van Zandt County judge, later today to offer them my condolences but 
more importantly, perhaps, to offer our help in addition to our 
prayers.
  I know they are working as hard as they can to continue to assess the 
damage done and to find a way forward to help bring assistance to those 
most in need.
  I am particularly grateful and impressed by the work of local leaders 
across my great State and around the country who step up at a time of 
crisis like this and organizations like the American Red Cross, which 
always seem to show up to offer a helping hand, as well as local 
schools and churches that have come together to lend a hand in this 
area during such a difficult time. Some have lost their own homes, 
vehicles, and, of course, loved ones.
  As I said, my thoughts and prayers are with all of them, and I stand 
ready to work alongside them in this resilient part of my great State 
as they recover from these deadly storms.


                     Government Funding Legislation

  Mr. President, as we all know by now, over the weekend an agreement 
was finally reached on the funding bill to keep the U.S. Government 
open and to provide much needed, long-term funding to our Federal 
agencies.
  I am particularly glad we found a way forward. Now, that is not 
synonymous with saying I like everything in the bill, but a piece of 
legislation like this is inherently a compromise. Compromise means that 
usually people on both ends of the negotiation are not entirely happy 
because they have had to give up something in order to get something. 
This is the process, and we have to build consensus, even on 
controversial topics like this funding bill.
  The agreed to bill consists of the 11 remaining appropriations bills, 
with additional funding set aside for our military, disaster relief, 
and border security. I, for one, have been encouraged to hear folks 
from both sides of the aisle--Republicans and Democrats alike--make 
clear that we actually agree more than we disagree when it comes to 
securing our border.
  President Trump has made no secret of his position. He said from the 
beginning that border security would be a top priority for him. Coming 
from a border State, as does the Presiding Officer, we all understand 
particularly well how important this is to our communities along the 
border but also to our States and to the entire country.
  I have been glad to read press reports and hear the minority leader, 
Senator Schumer, among others, talk about how providing more resources 
to secure our borders is necessary to keep us safe and to stem the tide 
of illegal drugs, illegal immigration, and contraband entering our 
country.
  In fact, last week, the Senator from New York, the minority leader, 
said: ``Democrats have always been for border security.'' Well, I was 
glad to hear him say that.
  Last month during the State work period, I had the chance to speak to 
hundreds of my constituents from all across the State--10 cities in 
all. Part of that time was spent visiting with folks who live and work 
along the U.S.-Mexico border, specifically in Laredo and in the town of 
Mission, near McAllen.
  All along the border, we talked about the significant ties between 
the United States and Mexico, how Mexico is Texas' largest trading 
partner, and how Texas farmers, ranchers, and manufacturers rely 
greatly on trade with our southern neighbor. They pointed out that the 
U.S. Chamber of Commerce has actually issued a chart that documents 
that 5 million American jobs depend on binational trade with Mexico. I

[[Page 6286]]

think most people are unaware of that or don't pay enough attention to 
the fact that our economies are inextricably tied together.
  During my visit to the border, I was fortunate enough to have the 
chance to talk about our mutual security concerns with Governor Cabeza 
de Vaca, the Governor of Tamaulipas, a State that shares its northern 
border with Texas.
  I am grateful to Mexican leaders like the Governor and my friend 
Ambassador Gutierrez, the new Mexican Ambassador to the United States, 
who share our vision for a more secure border and more robust trade at 
the same time. They are not mutually exclusive. It is important that we 
have both--security and trade.
  It goes without saying that free trade has been a cornerstone of the 
economy in Texas, adding billions to our economy annually and 
bolstering our relationship with our partner to the south. In other 
words, free-trade agreements, particularly NAFTA, or the North American 
Free Trade Agreement, are particularly important to many of my State's 
leading industries, such as agriculture and energy.
  As I said, bilateral trade with Mexico supports 5 million jobs across 
our entire country, and this has led to a vibrant border, from El Paso, 
out in West Texas, and all the way to Brownsville in the south. Of 
course, like anything that is 20-plus years old, there is room for it 
to be updated and improved, and NAFTA is no different. I hope in moving 
forward that the President will work with us to modernize NAFTA.
  As we consider this Omnibus appropriations bill and specifically more 
resources to enhance security along the border, I think we can all 
agree that our approach should be twofold: We must devote resources to 
not only enhance border security but also to fix aging infrastructure 
at our ports of entry. Fortunately, this bill does exactly that. It 
contains the most robust border security funding in 10 years, and that 
includes funding for infrastructure upgrades, increasing technology 
along the border, and improving TSA screening at airports too.
  I am glad we found a way to fund the government and to actually 
govern while doing more for our national defense and security, 
particularly security along the border. But let's not lose sight of the 
ultimate aim here: Our country needs long-term, sustainable funding for 
our government, particularly for our national security, so they can 
plan and prepare in the years ahead, and the stop-start and short-term 
continuing resolutions or the threat of a government shutdown does not 
facilitate that sort of planning and preparation. That is how the 
appropriations process was designed to work best, and that is what I 
hope we are all working toward--a restoration of the normal 
appropriations process, with no more of these narratives about 
shutdowns.
  We weren't elected, in my view--certainly not given the majority here 
in the Senate and in the House, as well as the President in the White 
House--to shut down the government; we were elected to govern. Yes, 
governing is hard. It is hard by design. It is hard for anything to 
navigate the maze of the legislature and this legislative process. It 
is hard to get people to agree in the House and then the Senate and 
then to get the signature of the President of the United States. But 
that is the way our Founding Fathers designed our constitutional 
system.
  I think most of our colleagues in this Chamber would agree that we 
want to provide more stability, not less. It is important for our 
economy, if we want to see our economy grow.
  I just heard from folks who visited my office. They said the 
political instability of rules changing from one administration to the 
next with Executive orders and the like really is a deterrent to 
investment because they don't know whether the business model they are 
employing today will be viewed the same way tomorrow with a new 
administration. So we need to provide more stability by getting back to 
the consensus-building process that is legislating, and we need to do 
away with short-term continuing resolutions and funding that actually 
hurts us strategically.
  I know my family and most folks I know take a look at their budget. 
They consider what they want to do with it, including the things they 
absolutely have to pay for, and then from there decide if they have 
anything left for a vacation or if they want to save more or if they 
need to make an improvement in their home down the road. That is how we 
responsibly prepare for tomorrow in our personal lives, and governing 
is no different in that sense. That is how we can do better by the 
generations coming after us in the Senate--by putting our country on a 
budget and sticking to it. This bill, while not perfect, is a step in 
that direction. It complies with the budget caps of the Budget Control 
Act of 2011, which has kept discretionary spending roughly flat since 
2011. That is an amazing accomplishment in many ways.
  But if you look at the rest of what Congress does not appropriate--
the so-called mandatory or entitlement spending--it has been going up, 
and it will go up next year 5.5 percent.
  The fact is, until we have the courage to come to grips with all of 
the money the Federal Government spends so we can prioritize it in a 
fiscally responsible way--we will never adequately fund our military 
and we will never adequately fund our other national priorities as long 
as Congress and the White House are left with 70 percent of that 
spending untouchable because of the politics involved. I hope some day 
we will have the courage to deal with that.
  Mr. President, just a couple other thoughts before I close. I hear 
people from time to time talk about whether a government shutdown is 
one of those tactics or tools one might use in a negotiation to 
actually gain advantage. I happen to think that a government shutdown 
is basically an abdication of our responsibility, particularly if we 
are in the majority.
  On what basis would we argue to voters: Look, elect me, and I will 
shut down the government. Our voters, the people who elected Republican 
majorities in both Houses and elected this President, did not vote for 
us in order to shut down the government; they voted for us to govern, 
as hard as it is. As I said a moment ago, it is hard by design. People 
get frustrated. People don't get everything they want the first time 
they try to get it. Sometimes people just give up, which is what 
shutting down the government is--it is giving up.
  I hear other people talk about things like the filibuster. It is 
important to recognize there are basically two types of things we do 
here in the Senate. One is that we take up the nominations of the 
President's nominees, as we did with Judge Gorsuch to the Supreme 
Court. We do that for his Cabinet and the like. Basically, there are 
two choices there: yes or no.
  We have decided together that all of the President's Cabinet nominees 
and now all of the judges will get an up-or-down vote. So we have 
eliminated the so-called filibuster, or the 60-vote requirement, when 
it comes to nominations because you can't offer an amendment to a 
nomination. You can't shape it in order to try to develop consensus. So 
I think there is a good argument that we should never have headed down 
the road of a filibuster of nominees. They need to get a majority vote, 
and if they do, then they are going to be confirmed.
  Legislation is fundamentally different. We have 535 Members of 
Congress, all of us coming with different experience and different 
points of view. Again, the Founding Fathers made it hard for us to 
build sufficient consensus in order for us to govern this big country 
of ours, some 320 million people. What they understood fundamentally 
was that the only way that happens is when we are forced to govern by 
consensus; that is, to build sufficient votes in order to have some 
stability and durability in the laws we pass. Laws having to do with 
Medicare and Social Security were controversial in their day, but there 
was bipartisan consensus that supported them, and that is why they 
remain durable to this day.
  I have heard people recently--actually since the election and 
actually as

[[Page 6287]]

recently as today--say ``Well, maybe we ought to do away with the 60-
vote cloture requirement,'' which is another way of saying ``Let's do 
away with the filibuster on legislation.'' Well, I think I know how 
Members of the Senate feel about that, by and large. If I am not 
mistaken, the Senator from Maine, our friend Ms. Collins, and others 
led an effort to get 61 signatures from Senators saying they didn't 
believe we should ever do away with the legislative filibuster, and I 
agree with that. It is very important that in a country as big and 
diverse as ours, with 535 Members of Congress, that we be forced or 
strongly encouraged, at least, to build consensus before we pass laws 
that are going to govern this great and vast country of ours. That is 
why the cloture requirement or the filibuster requirement is still 
important. It may be frustrating, it may take longer to get things 
done, but once we get them done by bipartisan consensus, then they are 
durable and they will last even beyond the next President and the next 
administration.
  There is another reason it is important to keep the filibuster 
requirement on legislation. That is because when we are in the 
minority, as Republicans have been from time to time--when the majority 
can't get the 60 votes because there is sufficient dissension and 
different points of view that deny 60 votes, then legislation can't 
pass because we can't cut off debate under the cloture rule.
  I have in my hand a document with 15 examples of bills that our 
Democratic friends, when they were in the majority, supported but that 
failed to reach the 60-vote threshold because Republicans were not 
convinced, and thus cloture was not achieved and the bills were not 
passed. I can think of tax increases. I can think of card check in the 
labor law environment. I can think of measures with regard to climate 
change, which remains politically controversial--not the fact of 
climate change but, rather, what government should do to respond to it. 
There are examples like that and others where Republicans, even when we 
were in the minority, were able to stop and force a more extended 
conversation, to force greater effort at consensus building before we 
passed legislation that might have such a dramatic impact on our great 
country.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this document be printed 
in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.
  Mr. President, we will continue to debate this appropriations bill 
this week. My hope is that we will pass it by Thursday and we will move 
on to our other business. I know the House of Representatives is 
revisiting the healthcare bill that will, once passed the House, come 
to the Senate, and the Senate will have an opportunity to weigh in on 
that, and then the consensus building will continue until we ultimately 
get it to the President for his signature.
  Shortly behind that is going to be a pro-growth tax reform bill, 
which is going to be an important element of what we do this year to 
help get our economy growing and back on track. Again, this is 
something on which no individual has all the good ideas, and we are 
going to have to work together to get it done. I think it is very 
important that we get the funding of the government behind us so we can 
move on to healthcare reform, so we can move on to tax reform.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

        Why the Senate Legislative Filibuster Protects Americans


Fifteen examples of Democratic Bills with Majority Support that failed 
                     to reach the 60-vote threshold

       S. 3036: Climate Security Act (Cap and Trade)--Vote: 48-36 
     (Jun. 6, 2008)
       S. 3044: Consumer-First Energy Act (Increased taxes on 
     energy producers)--Vote: 51-43 (Jun. 10, 2008)
       S. 3268: Stop Excessive Energy Speculation Act (Imposed new 
     regulations on energy trading)--Vote: 50-43 (Jul. 25, 2008)
       S. 3816: Creating American Jobs and Ending Offshoring Act 
     (Protectionist trade policies)--Vote: 53-45 (Sept. 28, 2010)
       S. 1323: Sense of the Senate regarding the budget 
     (Resolution expressing the need to increase taxes)--Vote: 51-
     49 (Jul. 13, 2011)
       S. 1660: American Jobs Act of 2011 (Democratic stimulus 
     bill/Tax Hike)--Vote: 50-49 (Oct. 11 2011)
       S. 2204: Repeal Big Oil Tax Subsidies Act (Raised taxes on 
     energy producers)--Vote: 51-47 (Mar. 29 2012)
       S. 2230: Paying a Fair Share Act of 2012 (``Buffet Rule'' 
     Tax Hike)--Vote: 56-42 (Apr. 16, 2012)
       S. 2237: Small Business Jobs and Tax Relief Act (Democratic 
     stimulus bill/Tax hike)--Vote: 53-44 (Jul. 12, 2012); Vote: 
     57-41 (Jul. 12 2012)
       S. 3369: DISCLOSE Act of 2012 (Political free speech 
     restrictions)--Vote: 51-44 (Jul. 16, 2012); Vote: 53-45 (Jul. 
     17, 2012)
       S. 3364: Bring Home Jobs Act (Raised taxes on American-
     based global businesses)--Vote: 56-42 (Jul. 19, 2012)
       S. 388: American Family Economic Protection Act (Dem. 
     sequester alternative: raised taxes and cut defense 
     spending)--Vote: 51-49 (Feb. 28, 2013)
       S. 1845: Emergency Unemployment Compensation Extension Act 
     (Extend length of unemployment benefits, adding billions to 
     the deficit)--Vote: 52-48 (Jan. 14, 2014); Vote: 55-45 (Jan. 
     14, 2014); Vote: 58-40 (Feb. 6, 2014); Vote: 55-43 (Feb. 6, 
     2014)
       S. 2223: Minimum Wage Fairness Act (Raised the minimum wage 
     to $10.10)--Vote: 54-42 (Apr. 30, 2014)
       S. 2569: Bring Jobs Home Act (Raise taxes on American-based 
     global businesses)--Vote: 54-42 (Jul. 30, 2014)
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Strange). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, when he was running for President, Donald 
Trump laid out a pretty clear vision of how he would deal with Wall 
Street. He said: ``Wall Street has caused tremendous problems for us.'' 
He claimed he wasn't ``going to let Wall Street get away with murder,'' 
and he called out Goldman Sachs as the prime example of a big bank that 
has too much influence over the political process. That was really 
powerful stuff.
  When Candidate Trump became President Trump, he seemed to forget 
every scrap of his tough-on-Wall Street talk. Within weeks of taking 
office, he turned over his administration's economic agenda to none 
other than Goldman Sachs. His senior strategist, Steve Bannon, spent 
half a decade at Goldman Sachs as an investment banker. His National 
Economic Council Director, Gary Cohn, came directly from Goldman Sachs, 
where he spent 25 years and rose to become President of the bank. His 
Secretary of the Treasury, Steve Mnuchin, spent 17 years at Goldman 
Sachs before leaving to start his own hedge fund, which brings us to 
Jay Clayton, President Trump's nominee to run the Securities and 
Exchange Commission. To be fair, Mr. Clayton never worked at Goldman 
Sachs, he just worked for Goldman Sachs, taking their money and 
representing them for years as a lawyer at a major New York City law 
firm.
  So here we are, just over 8 years after Wall Street triggered a 
financial crisis and brought the economy to its knees, and President 
Trump has put the Goldman Sachs gang in charge of holding Wall Street 
accountable. Trump's betrayal of his campaign promises on Wall Street 
is shameful, but it is also dangerous, especially when it comes to 
picking the person to lead the SEC. The SEC is supposed to be the cop 
on the beat for Wall Street. That is why Congress created it in the 
1930s, after fraud and other misconduct on Wall Street led to an 
enormous stock market crash and the Great Depression. Congress gave the 
SEC the authority to oversee financial markets and to hold companies 
and individuals accountable when they defrauded investors.
  When the SEC doesn't do its job, the consequences can be devastating. 
Look at what happened the last time the SEC was under Republican 
control in the years leading up to the 2008 crisis. The SEC was asleep 
at the switch. While Wall Street flooded the market with dangerous 
securities and lied to investors, the SEC heard nothing, saw nothing, 
stopped nothing. The Republican-led SEC did nothing. When the

[[Page 6288]]

whole market blew up, it was ordinary investors and working families 
who got asked to bail out Wall Street.
  So what kind of SEC Chairman would Mr. Clayton be? Let's start by 
looking at how he would lead the SEC's enforcement efforts against Wall 
Street, how he would be as a cop on the beat. Under ethics rules, for 
the first half of his term, Mr. Clayton cannot participate in any 
enforcement action that involves one of his former clients. That means 
he cannot take part in any case against Goldman Sachs. OK. But there is 
more. Goldman Sachs is just one of his former big bank clients. Mr. 
Clayton also can't take action against Deutsche Bank or against UBS or 
against Barclays. These are some of Wall Street's biggest and most 
egregious repeat offenders, and Mr. Clayton would be barred from 
enforcing the law against them.
  That is not all. Ethics rules also prevent Mr. Clayton from 
participating in any enforcement case against a party that is 
represented by his former law firm, Sullivan and Cromwell. Sullivan and 
Cromwell is a premier Wall Street firm, with a long client list that 
includes big banks like JPMorgan Chase and the credit rating agency 
Moody's. That means there will likely be even more cases against top 
Wall Street firms that Mr. Clayton can't work on.
  Here is why that matters so much. For most enforcement actions, it 
takes a majority vote of the five SEC Commissioners. In other words, it 
takes three people to advance an enforcement action. In a number of 
recent cases, the two Democrats have voted for stronger enforcement and 
the two Republicans have voted against it. If the Chairman can't vote--
and Mr. Clayton can't vote if some of the biggest and most disreputable 
banks are involved--then the Commission is likely to come up short of 
the necessary three votes. You know what that means. It means the banks 
walk free. Confirming Mr. Clayton to run the SEC will almost certainly 
result in weaker enforcement against the major players on Wall Street.
  Mr. Clayton is also likely to pursue a Wall Street-friendly agenda 
when it comes to the SEC's rulemaking responsibilities. When he 
testified before me and before other members of the Banking Committee, 
Mr. Clayton refused to commit to completing the rules that Congress 
asked the SEC to write all the way back in 2010 as part of its 
postcrisis financial reforms. Mr. Clayton even refused to commit to 
implementing and enforcing some of the postcrisis rules that the SEC 
has already finalized and put in place.
  I don't have any faith that Mr. Clayton will be the kind of tough, 
independent leader we need at the SEC. His nomination is just one more 
broken promise, one more time that Donald Trump has put Wall Street 
ahead of the interests of the American people. The last time a 
Republican President led us down this path, it resulted in the worst 
financial crash of our lifetime. We can't go down that path again.
  I will be voting against Mr. Clayton's nomination, and I urge my 
colleagues to do the same.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Order of Procedure

  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 5:20 p.m. 
today, all postcloture time on the Clayton nomination be considered 
expired and the Senate proceed to vote on the nomination with no 
intervening action or debate. I further ask that, if confirmed, the 
President be immediately notified of the Senate's action and that the 
Senate proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted 
to speak for up to 10 minutes each.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________