Tom Cotton

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, this week I encourage Arkansans and all Americans to take a moment and enjoy your local national parks as we celebrate National Park Week 2016. This year National Park Week is particularly important because it also happens to be the 100th anniversary of the National Park Service, a milestone we will celebrate all year long. For those of you who don't know, our National Park System began in 1872 with the establishment of Yellowstone National Park. The organization charged with managing these parks, the National Park Service, was established four decades later in 1916. Today we have over 400 national parks and historic sites around the country, all full of wildlife, beautiful landscapes, and rich culture. These sites are all cared for by over 20,000 dedicated employees of the National Park Service, including park rangers who patrol our parks and keep visitors safe. Arkansas is home to several national parks and national historic sites, some of the prettiest and most interesting in the country, in my opinion. For those of you who have not been to Arkansas, I encourage you to visit Hot Springs National Park to see our natural springs and thermal pools. If you are a history buff, you can visit Arkansas Post, the site of the only Revolutionary War activity in the State of Arkansas. If you are into the outdoors, you can float the Buffalo River. The list goes on. Each of the national parks and historic sites in Arkansas and around the country has its own unique appeal and holds its own adventure. So happy National Park Week and happy 100th birthday to the National Park Service. I encourage everyone to take advantage of free admission to all national parks in Arkansas and across the country through this Sunday, April 24. Have a little fun, learn a little bit about your great country, and show your support and thanks for the men and women who serve us in the national parks. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. Reserving the right to object, and I will object. Until just a few weeks ago, I did not object to Mr. Szubin's nomination. I did oppose the nomination in the Banking Committee because he supports a clearly inconsistent interpretation of the Iran threat reduction act because it would hinder the implementation of the Iran nuclear deal. To be fair to Mr. Szubin, he is well respected on both sides of the aisle, having worked in the former Bush administration. I suspect this is not his interpretation. This is the interpretation of the community organizer, the failed novelist, and the political operative who are in charge of implementing these parts of the Iran nuclear deal. However, I couldn't, in good conscience, support the nomination given that clearly flawed interpretation. But just 2 or 3 weeks ago, Secretary Jack Lew gave a speech in which he all but announced that the U.S. Government would allow Iran access to the U.S. dollar. This would truly unravel every last sanction we have against Iran, not just for their nuclear program but for their campaign of aggression and terror throughout the Middle East. This is in direct contradiction to what Secretary Lew said and in direct contradiction to what Mr. Szubin said. In fact, I would note Mr. Szubin's testimony before the Banking Committee last summer: Iranian banks will not be able to clear U.S. dollars through New York, hold correspondent account relationships with U.S. financial institutions, or enter into financing arrangements with U.S. banks. . . . In short, Iran will continue to be denied access to the world's principal financial and commercial market. Further, in another quote, he said: . . . nor will Iran be able to access the U.S. banking sector, even for that momentary transaction to, what we call, dollarize a foreign payment. Yet Secretary Lew has all but announced that the U.S. Government will allow Iran to dollarize their foreign transactions. In fact, Secretary of State John Kerry just this week is meeting with his Iranian counterpart to try to figure out more ways we can heap economic benefits on the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism. So until President Obama, Secretary Kerry, and Secretary Lew publicly and conclusively renounce any intent to allow Iran to dollarize a foreign transaction, I will object to this nomination. If the Senator from Ohio and 41 other Democrats don't like that, they should have considered that before they voted for a deal that gave over $100 billion to the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism. I object.

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, Arkansas lost a political legend today when former Congressman Ray Thornton passed away at the age of 87. Ray Thornton grew up in Sheridan, the child of two teachers. Ray's intellect and quick wit was evident from an early age. He graduated from high school at just 16 years old. He then headed off to the University of Arkansas, eventually winning the Navy Holloway Program scholarship to attend Yale University. After college, Ray heeded what would be the first of several calls to serve his country and joined the U.S. Navy, where he served 3 years with the Pacific Fleet during the Korean war. After leaving the Navy, Ray returned home to Arkansas, earned a law degree from the University of Arkansas, and married Betty Jo, with whom he raised three daughters. Ray began a successful legal career before being elected attorney general in 1970. After one term, Ray was elected to the House of Representatives from Arkansas's Fourth District. Ray served with distinction, including on the Judiciary Committee, where he helped draft the articles of impeachment against President Nixon. In 1978, he narrowly lost an epic Senate primary fight, featuring him, fellow Congressman and later Governor Jim Guy Tucker, and Governor, later Senator, David Pryor. He then returned to the family business of education, becoming the only man to serve as president of both Arkansas State University and the University of Arkansas. Ray returned to politics in 1990, winning election to the House of Representatives again, this time from Arkansas's Second District, serving another three terms. Representing the Little Rock area, Ray was President Clinton's Congressman, yet he voted against the President's signature budget in 1993. Also, around this time, Arkansans passed an amendment to our State's Constitution limiting the terms of Federal officeholders. In the ensuing landmark case, U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, the Supreme Court held that States cannot add additional qualifications to Federal offices, including a limitation on terms. Ray was the named defendant and believed in this constitutional principle. But shortly after the decision, he announced his retirement from Congress, proving that the case was never really about him but rather his devotion to the Constitution. On a personal note, I got to know Ray as he prepared to retire from Congress. Thanks to the recommendation of a family friend who worked for Ray, I interned at Ray's Little Rock office for a few weeks in the summer of 1996. Rather than the usual intern routine of ``clips''--for you pages down front, that is when interns literally clip stories out of the newspaper--I spent days and days at a storage unit in southwest Pulaski County, sorting through more than a quarter century of Ray's public papers and preparing them for the archives under the supervision of his longtime, matchless advisor, Julie Baldridge. It was a fascinating history lesson in Arkansas politics, and it highlighted a common theme of Ray's career: his commitment to do the right thing, as he saw the right, even when it was the tough thing. Whether it was impeachment, that 1993 budget vote, or the term limit case, Ray stood his ground. But Ray did not leave public life after Congress, for he answered another call to service, this time on the Arkansas Supreme Court, where he served until 2005. Now Ray has gone home to his Maker. While we join his family and friends in mourning the loss, we also celebrate his long, well-lived life in service to our country and Arkansas. Rest in peace, Ray Thornton. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, when Obama administration officials sold the President's nuclear deal last summer to the American people, they were clearly sensitive to charges that they gave too much away. They knew that giving Iran $100 billion that we could never get back in exchange for a mere temporary deal that expired in 10 to 15 years would be viewed with deep skepticism. They knew that an inspection system that gives the ayatollahs a 24- day heads-up before an inspection would not pass the laugh test. They knew that granting the ayatollahs massive sanctions relief while still allowing them to develop an industrial-scale nuclear enrichment program would invite accusations that the President was, to put it frankly, swindled. So in their sales pitch, these administration officials sought to blunt these expected criticisms. They repeatedly stated that the United States would maintain certain tough sanctions, even after the deal became effective. They said the United States would hold the line on measures that punish and suppress Iran's nonnuclear malign activities. They emphatically stated that in no way would the U.S. economy be allowed to bolster an Iranian economy that is significantly controlled by the Iranian regime, tainted by illicit financing of terrorism, and used by the ayatollahs to fund domestic oppression and international aggression--including blowing up hundreds of American soldiers in Iraq with roadside bombs. In particular, these administration officials were emphatic that the United States would never, ever, ever grant Iran access to the U.S. financial system and U.S. dollars to facilitate Iran's trade in oil and other goods. For instance, when testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in July, Treasury Secretary Jack Lew stated: Iranian banks will not be able to clear U.S. dollars through New York, hold correspondent account relationships with U.S. financial institutions, or enter into financing arrangements with U.S. banks. Iran, in other words, will continue to be denied access to the world's largest financial and commercial market. Likewise, Adam Szubin, the Acting Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, echoed that sentiment and was even more precise. In September he stated: Iran will not be able to open bank accounts with U.S. banks, nor will Iran be able to access the U.S. banking sector, even for that momentary transaction to, what we call, dollarize a foreign payment. . . . That is not in the cards. That is not part of the relief offered under the JCPOA. So, the U.S. sanctions on Iran, which, of course, had their origins long before Iran had a nuclear program, will remain in place. It is difficult to overstate the importance of these statements uttered just a few months ago. The U.S. dollar is the standard currency in which international trade is conducted. Because the ayatollahs can't deal in dollars, they haven't fully opened their economy to the world-- thankfully. In addition, the U.S. financial system hasn't yet been tainted by Iran's terror financing, its international aggression, and its crackdown on domestic democratic dissent. But now, a mere 7 months into a 15-year agreement, the Obama administration is shedding the resolve its officials tried to so hard to display before Congress. According to numerous reports, the administration intends to backtrack on the statements of Secretary Lew and Adam Szubin. It is looking for some way, somehow to give Iran access to U.S. dollars to boost Iranian trade and investment. I want to be very clear. If the President moves to grant Iran access to the U.S. dollar--whether directly or indirectly--there will be consequences. If there is any statement, guidance, regulation, or Executive action that opens the U.S. banking sector to Iran even a crack, the Senate will hold hearings with each official who assured the American people last summer that the ayatollahs would never access the dollar. We will explore whether they lied back then or whether they intend to resign in protest now. If this policy change moves forward, I will dedicate myself to working with my colleagues to pass legislation blocking the change. If the Obama administration proceeds with this massive concession to the ayatollahs, every Member of the Senate who voted to accept the Iranian deal will have to go home and explain why the U.S. economy is now complicit in Iran's financing of terrorist attacks against Americans and American allies. That the Obama administration would even consider allowing Iran access to the U.S. banking sector is extremely disconcerting, but it is not surprising. It follows a steady pattern that has become increasingly clear since the conclusion of the nuclear deal. Time and again, Iran provokes the United States, commits brazen acts to destabilize its neighbors, and threatens to undo the Iran deal. In response, the United States rushes to grant the ayatollahs more concessions in order to placate them. Iran has tested ballistic missiles, captured U.S. sailors, and fueled conflicts in Syria and Yemen with fresh arms and troops--all while employing ``Death to America'' as a rallying cry. But in the face of Iran's continued aggression, the President has displayed only weakness. Instead of steeling himself for a fight with the ayatollahs, he has laid down and rolled over for them. He has repeatedly refused to designate Iran's tests of ballistic missiles as the violations of U.N. Security Council resolutions they so clearly are. The President also agreed to send an additional $1.7 billion to the ayatollahs, ostensibly to settle outstanding claims. For good measure, that $1.7 billion includes $1.3 billion in gratuitous interest payments. The President granted clemency to seven convicted Iranian criminals and dismissed arrest warrants for 14 Iranian fugitives who faced charges for sanctions violations. Now the President may be on the verge of granting the largest concession yet--dollarizing Iran's international trade and declaring Iran truly open for business. We should call this for what it is--concession creep. In the same manner that no Member of the Senate should trust Iran to abide by its commitments made in the Iranian nuclear deal, we can no longer trust the administration to hold fast to the specific concessions contained in the four corners of that deal. The ink is hardly dry on the deal, and the President has already shown himself all too susceptible to the temptations of appeasement. The ayatollahs reportedly have complained to U.S. officials that it is too hard to transact business without access to U.S. dollars. The answer to that should be ``too bad.'' It should not be easy for the world's worst sponsor of terrorism to do business with the global economy. It should not be easy for industries dominated by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps to trade in financial markets. International business leaders, directors, CEOs, and general counsels should not rush into Iran for fear of the grave reputational, financial, political, and legal consequences of doing business with this outlaw regime. The Iranians know the Obama administration is desperate to preserve the nuclear deal. They hold the possibility of walking away from the agreement as a sword of Damocles over the President's head in order to extract concession after concession. They lord it over him in order to forestall any U.S. action that would meaningfully stop their regional aggression and campaign of terror. So intense is President Obama's fear that the Ayatollah will rip up the nuclear agreement, he has completely upended U.S. strategy in the Middle East to the point where adversaries are allies and allies are becoming adversaries. This parade of concessions must stop, and it must stop now. The administration must fully implement all new sanctions passed by Congress to punish Iran's development of ballistic missiles, its sponsorship of terrorism, and its human rights abuses. It must work with our traditional allies in the Middle East to neutralize Iran's attempt to foment instability throughout the region. The President should issue a very clear order that Iran will not be granted any direct or indirect access to the U.S. banking system and the dollar. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. Madam President, in honor of the National Parks Service's 100th birthday year, I want to recognize Arkansas Post National Memorial and Park. Arkansas Post was established as a trading post by Henri De Tonti in 1686 and was the first permanent European settlement in the lower Mississippi River valley. While the exact location moved several times, the area remained a vital trade center for much of the 17th and 18th centuries. The land was eventually ceded to Spain, who controlled the post for over 40 years. While under Spanish control, Arkansas Post was home to the Battle of Arkansas Post, a Revolutionary War battle between Spanish and British forces fought on April 17, 1783. Also known as the Colbert Raid, this battle was the only Revolutionary War battle to take place in what is today the State of Arkansas. Arkansas Post was briefly ceded back to the French before it was sold to the U.S. Government during the Louisiana Purchase. Today Arkansas Post National Memorial and Park is located in Arkansas County, AR. It was designated a National Memorial and National Historic Landmark in 1960 and was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1966. The National Park Service manages over 650 acres of park land at the site, and there is a State-managed visitors center and museum featuring display of Arkansas Post's rich history. Arkansas Post is a must-visit for any Arkansan looking to get out and enjoy the rich history of our State--especially those interested in the Revolutionary War. I would like to thank the National Park Service for its commitment to maintaining this important part of Arkansas history.

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, 6 months ago, a 12-year-old boy stood before a crowd in a Syrian village not far from Aleppo. This boy was Christian and standing above him were Islamic State terrorists holding knives. In the crowd was the boy's father, a Christian minister. Methodically, the terrorists began cutting off the young boy's fingers. Amidst his screams, they turned to the minister, his father. If he renounced his faith and in their terms returned to Islam, his son's suffering would stop. In the end, however, these ISIS terrorists killed the boy, killed his father, and killed two other Christians solely over the faith they professed. They did so by crucifixion. In the time of Christ, the cross was not just a means of execution but a brutal and public warning to all. Because of Christ's suffering, the cross was transformed into a revered symbol of His sacrifice and promise of salvation, but today it is clear ISIS seeks to turn the cross once again into a message of dread. Eight other Christians in the village that day were also killed. They were executed by public beheading, but not before ISIS barbarians raped the two women among the victims and forced the crowd to witness the atrocity. Today was the deadline set by law for Secretary of State Kerry to present Congress with an evaluation of the persecution of Christians, Yazidis, and other religious minorities in Syria and Iraq. I am heartened Secretary Kerry this morning took the needed step of declaring the systemic murder of religious minorities by ISIS what it plainly is: genocide. The nature of these horrific crimes of ISIS has not been a secret. It is no secret that the story of the torture and death of that 12-year- old Syrian boy, his minister father, and 10 other Christians is repeated many times over in different villages, with different victims of different religions throughout the region. It is no secret that hundreds of thousands of religious minorities in Syria and Iraq have been driven by war and violence from homes and lands they have held for generations. It is no secret ISIS terrorists have destroyed Christian churches, desecrated holy ancient shrines, and dug up Christian graves and smashed their tombstones. It is no secret bishops, priests, and other clerical leaders are being abducted and murdered. It is no secret ISIS terrorists capture Yazidi women and girls and lock them into a life of sexual slavery and repeated rape. Many of these victims choose to take their own lives, seeing suicide as their only escape amidst hopelessness and unimaginable suffering. It is no secret that thousands of Christians and other religious minorities have been systematically raped and tortured, beheaded, crucified, burned alive, and buried in mass graves, if buried at all. It is no secret the word we should use to describe the whole of these atrocities--the word we must use--is ``genocide.'' The plain reality is that the Islamic State is seeking to eradicate Christians, Yazidis, Sabean-Mandeans, Jews, and other religious groups it sees as apostates and infidels. This is part of its fanatical focus on establishing a caliphate first in the Middle East and eventually across the rest of the world. Christians, Yazidis, and others who have managed to find refuge have seen ISIS's genocidal campaign firsthand. They can list name after name of missing family members--wives and daughters kidnapped into sexual slavery, sons and brothers killed, and others spirited away to unknown fates. These victims know the truth of the genocide occurring in Syria and Iraq, and now that truth is recognized officially by the United States of America. There are those who wavered on whether this was genocide. They feared that uttering this truth would compel U.S. action to stop the genocide. My answer is--and? A mortal enemy who wishes to commit mass terrorist atrocities against the United States is also systematically persecuting and exterminating Christians and other religious minorities. When will our national security interests ever overlap more perfectly with our moral sentiment than now? We can and we ought to stop ISIS dead, stop them before they kill more Americans, stop them before they eliminate Christian communities that have existed since the days of Christ himself. Still others argue that while a genocide may be occurring, recognizing it may somehow play into ISIS's propaganda that it is fighting a righteous jihad against a supposed new Crusade. I never understood this argument. To stay silent in the face of ISIS's propaganda is to accommodate that propaganda. To cede any power to ISIS's narrative is to bend the light of truth to the hard darkness of a lie. Standing up for the practitioners of religions born in the Middle East and calling the region home since the beginning of recorded history is not a new Crusade. It is a defense of world order demonstrated through the periods of peaceful coexistence of the many religions in those ancient lands--an existence that today is threatened with extinction by ISIS's barbarism. Today the United States rightly recognizes this genocide, but we must also take action to relieve it. ISIS is a threat to the United States, our allies, and to the stability of the whole Middle East. Destroying ISIS and stopping its malignant expansion is a core national security interest of the United States, but stopping ISIS and the depraved ideology that enables it is also a pursuit that aligns with our highest ideals and humanitarian principles. I and many of my colleagues in the Senate have deep disagreements with the President's policy to defeat ISIS. For 2 years his policy of confusion, delay, and paralysis has failed to stop these terrorists. An entirely new approach that has the United States in the lead of a determined coalition is badly needed, but it is not only President Obama's strategic approach that is ill-considered. His policy on Syrian refugee resettlement is as well. Because the United States unwisely relies on the United Nations for all referrals of refugees seeking resettlement in the United States, Christians and other religious minorities fleeing persecution are the victims of unintentional discrimination when seeking asylum and protection in the United States. Last year, of the 1,790 Syrian refugees resettled in the United States, only 41 were religious minorities. Of that 41, 29 were Christian. That means that while 13 percent of Syria's prewar population consisted of religious minorities, only 2.3 percent of the refugees who make it to the United States are religious minorities. Without doubt, Syrians of all confessions are being victimized by this savage war and are facing unimaginable suffering, but only Christians and other religious minorities are the deliberate targets of systemic persecution and genocide. Their ancient communities are at risk of extermination. Their ancestral homes and religious sites are being erased from the Middle Eastern map. Christians and other minorities should not be shut out from the small number of refugees who find shelter in the United States. We ought to help ensure that these faith communities survive, but why are Christians underrepresented among the refugees? There are a number of factors. Perhaps chief among them is that the United States, for all intents and purposes, relies exclusively on the U.N. refugee agency to identify candidates for resettlement. According to the State Department, less than 1 percent of the thousands of Syrian refugees referred by the U.N. to the United States are religious minorities. Let me stress that this underrepresentation is not the result of intentional discrimination. The U.N. does praiseworthy and hard work in relieving the suffering of refugees around the world and, as a result, improving the security and stability of nations in and near conflict and disaster zones, but it is well established that many religious minorities in Syria are very reluctant to register as refugees with the United Nations because they fear facing even more persecution. The U.N. itself has reported that minority communities ``fear that registration might bring retribution from other refugees'' in camps or other areas in which they sought safe haven. The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom has reported that Christians refrain from registering with the U.N. because they fear being marked for revenge by forces loyal to Bashar al-Assad should he remain in power in Syria. Whether these fears are well-founded or not, the reality is, they exist and they deter Christians from seeking U.N. protection. While the U.N. has sought to educate minority populations on the safety of the registration system, the fact remains that only 1 percent of the millions of Syrian refugees who registered with the U.N. are non- Muslim. The United States ought not to depend solely on the U.N. for refugee resettlement referrals. If we are to do our part in saving ancient faith communities from genocide, we must find alternate ways to identify persecuted people to whom we can grant safe haven. Today I am introducing legislation to create that alternate way. The Religious Persecution Relief Act would grant religious minorities fleeing persecution from groups like ISIS and other groups in Syria priority status so they can apply directly to the U.S. resettlement program, without going through the U.N. first. It will set aside 10,000 resettlement slots annually that must be devoted to religious minorities. The priority status, known as P-2 status, will allow religious minorities to skip the U.N. referral process, and it will fast track the process by which we confirm that they are in fact targets of persecution and genocide. To answer in advance a most urgent and understandable question, those who apply for P-2 status will be subject to the exact same security vetting process as all other refugee applicants. It is my strong position that the United States must work with known religious leaders in the region and pursue other proven vetting methods to ensure that those who enter this country are not threats to the security of the American people. Extending a hand to help persecuted people in this manner is not a new idea. In 1989, the late Senator from New Jersey, Frank Lautenberg, crafted what has been called the Lautenberg amendment, which granted P- 2 priority status to Soviet Jewry, Vietnamese nationals, and other religious minorities seeking refuge. In 2004, the late Senator from Pennsylvania, Arlen Specter, expanded the Lautenberg amendment to cover religious minorities fleeing oppression from the Ayatollahs in Iran. In 2007 the late Senator from Massachusetts, Ted Kennedy, passed a bill that granted priority status to certain Iraqi religious minority members. The bill I am introducing today follows this bipartisan tradition of the Senate and our country. Among the first Americans were Pilgrims from religious persecution in the Old World. That is one reason we have a long tradition of defending religious minorities here and around the world. In the coming weeks, I will discuss this bill with my fellow Senators. My hope is, it will pass and pass soon because each day will bring another Christian child who is tortured, another minister crucified, and another girl raped. Faith communities in the Middle East are slowly being strangled out of existence. We are coming upon Easter, the day of Christ's resurrection. The message of Easter is one for all of humanity; that in times of pain and suffering, trial and tribulation, there can ultimately be salvation, there can ultimately be triumph over death. I try to keep this message in mind, particularly amidst these times when religious conflict and oppression do not seem to be waning but waxing. Today Christianity is the most persecuted religion in the world. Other religions are not far behind in the scope and depth of the oppression they face. While the United States cannot save all those who are suffering from religious persecution, when the persecutors are rabid terrorists who want to kill Americans and we have the means not only to defeat those terrorists but to also protect the innocent, we ought to act. Certainly we have an obligation to stop the unintentional discrimination in our own refugee process that unfairly blocks Christians and other religious minorities from seeking safety in the United States.

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, 6 months ago, a 12-year-old boy stood before a crowd in a Syrian village not far from Aleppo. This boy was Christian and standing above him were Islamic State terrorists holding knives. In the crowd was the boy's father, a Christian minister. Methodically, the terrorists began cutting off the young boy's fingers. Amidst his screams, they turned to the minister, his father. If he renounced his faith and in their terms returned to Islam, his son's suffering would stop. In the end, however, these ISIS terrorists killed the boy, killed his father, and killed two other Christians solely over the faith they professed. They did so by crucifixion. In the time of Christ, the cross was not just a means of execution but a brutal and public warning to all. Because of Christ's suffering, the cross was transformed into a revered symbol of His sacrifice and promise of salvation, but today it is clear ISIS seeks to turn the cross once again into a message of dread. Eight other Christians in the village that day were also killed. They were executed by public beheading, but not before ISIS barbarians raped the two women among the victims and forced the crowd to witness the atrocity. Today was the deadline set by law for Secretary of State Kerry to present Congress with an evaluation of the persecution of Christians, Yazidis, and other religious minorities in Syria and Iraq. I am heartened Secretary Kerry this morning took the needed step of declaring the systemic murder of religious minorities by ISIS what it plainly is: genocide. The nature of these horrific crimes of ISIS has not been a secret. It is no secret that the story of the torture and death of that 12-year- old Syrian boy, his minister father, and 10 other Christians is repeated many times over in different villages, with different victims of different religions throughout the region. It is no secret that hundreds of thousands of religious minorities in Syria and Iraq have been driven by war and violence from homes and lands they have held for generations. It is no secret ISIS terrorists have destroyed Christian churches, desecrated holy ancient shrines, and dug up Christian graves and smashed their tombstones. It is no secret bishops, priests, and other clerical leaders are being abducted and murdered. It is no secret ISIS terrorists capture Yazidi women and girls and lock them into a life of sexual slavery and repeated rape. Many of these victims choose to take their own lives, seeing suicide as their only escape amidst hopelessness and unimaginable suffering. It is no secret that thousands of Christians and other religious minorities have been systematically raped and tortured, beheaded, crucified, burned alive, and buried in mass graves, if buried at all. It is no secret the word we should use to describe the whole of these atrocities--the word we must use--is ``genocide.'' The plain reality is that the Islamic State is seeking to eradicate Christians, Yazidis, Sabean-Mandeans, Jews, and other religious groups it sees as apostates and infidels. This is part of its fanatical focus on establishing a caliphate first in the Middle East and eventually across the rest of the world. Christians, Yazidis, and others who have managed to find refuge have seen ISIS's genocidal campaign firsthand. They can list name after name of missing family members--wives and daughters kidnapped into sexual slavery, sons and brothers killed, and others spirited away to unknown fates. These victims know the truth of the genocide occurring in Syria and Iraq, and now that truth is recognized officially by the United States of America. There are those who wavered on whether this was genocide. They feared that uttering this truth would compel U.S. action to stop the genocide. My answer is--and? A mortal enemy who wishes to commit mass terrorist atrocities against the United States is also systematically persecuting and exterminating Christians and other religious minorities. When will our national security interests ever overlap more perfectly with our moral sentiment than now? We can and we ought to stop ISIS dead, stop them before they kill more Americans, stop them before they eliminate Christian communities that have existed since the days of Christ himself. Still others argue that while a genocide may be occurring, recognizing it may somehow play into ISIS's propaganda that it is fighting a righteous jihad against a supposed new Crusade. I never understood this argument. To stay silent in the face of ISIS's propaganda is to accommodate that propaganda. To cede any power to ISIS's narrative is to bend the light of truth to the hard darkness of a lie. Standing up for the practitioners of religions born in the Middle East and calling the region home since the beginning of recorded history is not a new Crusade. It is a defense of world order demonstrated through the periods of peaceful coexistence of the many religions in those ancient lands--an existence that today is threatened with extinction by ISIS's barbarism. Today the United States rightly recognizes this genocide, but we must also take action to relieve it. ISIS is a threat to the United States, our allies, and to the stability of the whole Middle East. Destroying ISIS and stopping its malignant expansion is a core national security interest of the United States, but stopping ISIS and the depraved ideology that enables it is also a pursuit that aligns with our highest ideals and humanitarian principles. I and many of my colleagues in the Senate have deep disagreements with the President's policy to defeat ISIS. For 2 years his policy of confusion, delay, and paralysis has failed to stop these terrorists. An entirely new approach that has the United States in the lead of a determined coalition is badly needed, but it is not only President Obama's strategic approach that is ill-considered. His policy on Syrian refugee resettlement is as well. Because the United States unwisely relies on the United Nations for all referrals of refugees seeking resettlement in the United States, Christians and other religious minorities fleeing persecution are the victims of unintentional discrimination when seeking asylum and protection in the United States. Last year, of the 1,790 Syrian refugees resettled in the United States, only 41 were religious minorities. Of that 41, 29 were Christian. That means that while 13 percent of Syria's prewar population consisted of religious minorities, only 2.3 percent of the refugees who make it to the United States are religious minorities. Without doubt, Syrians of all confessions are being victimized by this savage war and are facing unimaginable suffering, but only Christians and other religious minorities are the deliberate targets of systemic persecution and genocide. Their ancient communities are at risk of extermination. Their ancestral homes and religious sites are being erased from the Middle Eastern map. Christians and other minorities should not be shut out from the small number of refugees who find shelter in the United States. We ought to help ensure that these faith communities survive, but why are Christians underrepresented among the refugees? There are a number of factors. Perhaps chief among them is that the United States, for all intents and purposes, relies exclusively on the U.N. refugee agency to identify candidates for resettlement. According to the State Department, less than 1 percent of the thousands of Syrian refugees referred by the U.N. to the United States are religious minorities. Let me stress that this underrepresentation is not the result of intentional discrimination. The U.N. does praiseworthy and hard work in relieving the suffering of refugees around the world and, as a result, improving the security and stability of nations in and near conflict and disaster zones, but it is well established that many religious minorities in Syria are very reluctant to register as refugees with the United Nations because they fear facing even more persecution. The U.N. itself has reported that minority communities ``fear that registration might bring retribution from other refugees'' in camps or other areas in which they sought safe haven. The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom has reported that Christians refrain from registering with the U.N. because they fear being marked for revenge by forces loyal to Bashar al-Assad should he remain in power in Syria. Whether these fears are well-founded or not, the reality is, they exist and they deter Christians from seeking U.N. protection. While the U.N. has sought to educate minority populations on the safety of the registration system, the fact remains that only 1 percent of the millions of Syrian refugees who registered with the U.N. are non- Muslim. The United States ought not to depend solely on the U.N. for refugee resettlement referrals. If we are to do our part in saving ancient faith communities from genocide, we must find alternate ways to identify persecuted people to whom we can grant safe haven. Today I am introducing legislation to create that alternate way. The Religious Persecution Relief Act would grant religious minorities fleeing persecution from groups like ISIS and other groups in Syria priority status so they can apply directly to the U.S. resettlement program, without going through the U.N. first. It will set aside 10,000 resettlement slots annually that must be devoted to religious minorities. The priority status, known as P-2 status, will allow religious minorities to skip the U.N. referral process, and it will fast track the process by which we confirm that they are in fact targets of persecution and genocide. To answer in advance a most urgent and understandable question, those who apply for P-2 status will be subject to the exact same security vetting process as all other refugee applicants. It is my strong position that the United States must work with known religious leaders in the region and pursue other proven vetting methods to ensure that those who enter this country are not threats to the security of the American people. Extending a hand to help persecuted people in this manner is not a new idea. In 1989, the late Senator from New Jersey, Frank Lautenberg, crafted what has been called the Lautenberg amendment, which granted P- 2 priority status to Soviet Jewry, Vietnamese nationals, and other religious minorities seeking refuge. In 2004, the late Senator from Pennsylvania, Arlen Specter, expanded the Lautenberg amendment to cover religious minorities fleeing oppression from the Ayatollahs in Iran. In 2007 the late Senator from Massachusetts, Ted Kennedy, passed a bill that granted priority status to certain Iraqi religious minority members. The bill I am introducing today follows this bipartisan tradition of the Senate and our country. Among the first Americans were Pilgrims from religious persecution in the Old World. That is one reason we have a long tradition of defending religious minorities here and around the world. In the coming weeks, I will discuss this bill with my fellow Senators. My hope is, it will pass and pass soon because each day will bring another Christian child who is tortured, another minister crucified, and another girl raped. Faith communities in the Middle East are slowly being strangled out of existence. We are coming upon Easter, the day of Christ's resurrection. The message of Easter is one for all of humanity; that in times of pain and suffering, trial and tribulation, there can ultimately be salvation, there can ultimately be triumph over death. I try to keep this message in mind, particularly amidst these times when religious conflict and oppression do not seem to be waning but waxing. Today Christianity is the most persecuted religion in the world. Other religions are not far behind in the scope and depth of the oppression they face. While the United States cannot save all those who are suffering from religious persecution, when the persecutors are rabid terrorists who want to kill Americans and we have the means not only to defeat those terrorists but to also protect the innocent, we ought to act. Certainly we have an obligation to stop the unintentional discrimination in our own refugee process that unfairly blocks Christians and other religious minorities from seeking safety in the United States.

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. I yield the floor.

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I grew up on a cattle farm in Dardanelle, where I started helping my dad around the farm when I was just a little boy. In fact, I was kicking hay bales off the truck when I was barely bigger than those hay bales. Growing up, most people I knew had some connection to farming, and I am proud to say that in Arkansas, that is still mostly the case today. In honor of National Agricultural Day, I wish to say a few words about Arkansas' agriculture and what it means to our State. Agriculture is Arkansas' largest industry. It accounts for over $20 billion in value added to our State economy each year and contributes to thousands and thousands of jobs. Arkansas is a top 25 producer in 23 different agricultural commodities, and we rank first in the Nation in rice production, producing close to 50 percent of the rice in the United States. It doesn't end there. We are also a major exporter of crops like soybeans, cotton, poultry, and feed grains. Our catfish and timber industries are booming and our cattle inventory exceeds 1.7 million head. Our agriculture industry is also expanding by the day. We have recently become a big player in the peanut industry. For Arkansas, agriculture is more than just a business; it is a passion and a way of life. We have nearly 50,000 farms in Arkansas, and 97 percent of them are owned by families. Neighborly chats in Arkansas often tend to focus on planting seasons and beef prices. And in towns like Dardanelle, kids don't have to worry about farm chores keeping them from playing with their friends on a Saturday because those friends are likely busy helping on their farms too. Agriculture is who we are. I have certainly taken the lessons I learned growing up on a farm with me into the Army, the Congress, and now fatherhood. So, today, and every day, let's remember Arkansas' and America's farmers and ranchers. Happy National Agriculture Day. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. COTTON

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

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. Madam President, last Thursday the Democratic candidates for President had a debate. They made several extremely irresponsible statements about immigration policy. I oppose their calls to reward mass illegal immigration with blanket amnesty, which would undermine the rule of law, cost Americans jobs, drive down wages for working Americans, and invite more illegal immigration. But what must President Obama think? After all, he has attempted to grant amnesty by fiat to over 5 million illegal immigrants, although the courts have blocked most of those amnesties for now. Yet the Senator from Vermont and Hillary Clinton both insisted that the President hadn't gone far enough. They would expand on his actions and go even further. In fact, a debate moderator called President Obama ``the deporter in chief,'' and Hillary Clinton tacitly accepted the characterization, saying she wouldn't deport nearly as many illegal immigrants as President Obama has--which of course isn't a terribly high bar to clear since deportations are down 42 percent since the start of President Obama's second term and last year deportations hit a 10-year low. Still, I can't imagine President Obama is too pleased with his would-be successor. I also can't imagine a more opportunist and irresponsible position than the one taken by Hillary Clinton. As she panders for votes, she limited deportation priorities to violent criminals and terrorists. Apparently, Secretary Clinton will welcome con artists, identity thieves, and other nonviolent criminal illegal immigrants with outstretched arms into our country. Even more astonishing, she stated unequivocally, ``I will not deport children. I would not deport children.'' As I stated, this is pure opportunism. For instance, I imagine this child shown in this poster would have liked Secretary Clinton's policy to have been in effect during her husband's administration. This is the famous picture of Elian Gonzalez, a 6-year-old Cuban boy who reached our shores despite his mother tragically dying at sea. Elian's U.S.-based family pleaded with the Clinton administration to grant him asylum, as was our common custom for refugees from communism, but President Clinton rejected those pleas, siding with the Castros. Federal agents stormed the private residence and apprehended Elian at gunpoint. Where was Secretary Clinton? I guess she didn't have a no-kids policy back then. But we don't have to guess. The then-First Lady was campaigning for Senate in New York. She opposed congressional action to protect Elian and advocated returning the boy to Cuba--contrary to a decades-long bipartisan consensus that we should grant safe harbor to refugees from totalitarian Communist states. Yet, the sad story of Elian Gonzalez isn't the most recent or harmful example of her opportunism. Just two summers ago, our country faced a migrant crisis on our southern border. Nearly 140,000 people--about half of them unaccompanied kids--poured across our border. Notably, most did not flee from the Border Patrol or try to avoid capture; on the contrary, they ran to U.S. border agents. Why would brandnew illegal immigrants, having successfully crossed our border, turn themselves in? The answer is simple: They have been led to believe they would be allowed to stay. From the multiple administration memos instructing agents not to fully enforce immigration law to President Obama's unlawful Executive amnesties, to the Senate's own amnesty legislation, every signal from Washington said our political class lacked the willpower to secure our borders and enforce our immigration laws in the country's interior. Some might say these policies and proposals wouldn't have covered the newly arrived immigrants; that they would have faced deportation. Perhaps, but what they signaled was a complete unwillingness to enforce our immigration laws, just as amnesty granted in 1986 invited another generation of illegal immigrants to migrate to our country and wait for the next amnesty. These policies certainly gave the human traffickers who transported and abused these kids plenty of grounds to tell desperate parents: Send your kid north with me, and he will get a permiso. In the end, they weren't wrong. Nearly 2 years later, only a very tiny minority of unaccompanied children have been deported. In fact, more than 111,000 unaccompanied minors entered the United States illegally from 2011 to 2015, but only 6 percent have been returned to their home countries. Yes, some may have received a deportation order from a court--usually after failing to appear for a hearing. Yet the Obama administration has made little to no effort to locate them. Therefore, it is fair to say the human traffickers, the so-called coyotes, weren't wrong, and many Central American parents took an understandable risk. After all, a life in America in the shadows--as advocates for amnesty and open borders call it--may be preferable to poverty and violence back home. While these factors may have been the push factors in the migrant crisis, there can be no doubt that the pull factors of amnesty, deferred action, nonenforcement, economic opportunity, and safety were just as strong, if not stronger. That is why even the Obama administration tried to address them. President Obama met with leaders of Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador to seek their assistance. Vice President Biden flew to Guatemala and publicly urged parents not to believe the coyotes' promises of amnesty. The Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson wrote an open letter to Central American parents, and, yes, Hillary Clinton got involved too. Secretary Clinton stated in 2014 that these children ``should be sent back as soon as it can be determined who responsible adults in their families are.'' She insisted that ``we have to send a clear message: Just because your child gets across the border, that doesn't mean the child gets to stay.'' That was the right position then, and it is the right position now, even if real action didn't back up the Obama administration's words, but that was then, and this is now, in the middle of another flailing Presidential campaign. Secretary Clinton now says she would not deport children under any circumstances, not even those who just arrived or presumably those who arrive in the future. We have come to expect such opportunism from the ``House of Clinton,'' but even worse is the irresponsibility. Put yourself in the position of a desperate parent in Central America. You live in Third World conditions. Work is scarce. Food and water are a struggle. Power doesn't always come on with the flip of a switch. Gangs control many of the streets. Murder rates are some of the highest in the world. You have every reason to try to escape these conditions or at least get your kid out, but where to go? You just got your answer. Hillary Clinton, one of the most famous people in the world--one of only six people likely to be the next President of the United States--just broadcast new hope to the world: You can come to the United States. Of course, it is a peculiar kind of hope. She didn't say go to our Embassy and seek asylum. She certainly didn't say get on an airplane and fly safely to the United States, nor will she ever take such massively unpopular positions. Indeed, she essentially invited you to take a life-or-death gamble: If you survive the trip, you can stay. How is this moral? How is it compassionate to create incentives for such reckless behavior? Hillary Clinton just created a full employment opportunity for human traffickers. She helped oversell illicit tickets on this train, The Beast, a network of freight trains aboard which migrants from Central America cross Mexico to the United States. The Beast has another name--The Death Train. It is called that because many who ride it don't survive or, if they do, they only escape with grievous injuries or after enduring physical and sexual abuse at the hands of criminal gangs. With her irresponsible pandering, Secretary Clinton's words will help contribute to untold suffering, pain, and death among American families. Her words are equally irresponsible when looked at from the American perspective. Secretary Clinton's promise to deport only violent criminals and no children under any circumstances will badly harm struggling Americans. Decades of mass immigration has contributed to joblessness, stagnant wages, and communities stressed to the breaking point to provide education, housing, emergency services, public safety, and other basic government services. The coming Clinton wave of illegal immigration will only make it harder to secure our borders, enforce our laws, and get immigration under control and working for Americans who are, after all, the people we are supposed to serve. The world is full of violence, oppression, corruption, and injustice. We cannot turn a blind eye to this. It often has a way of arriving at our borders and on our shores. Similar to most Americans, my heart breaks when I imagine the plight of those desperate parents in Central America as they look upon their little ones. That is why I strongly support efforts to assist countries such as Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador to develop stronger institutions and improve living conditions there. Many dedicated professionals in the State Department, FBI, DEA, Southern Command, and other Federal agencies are there serving us--to do just that. At the same time, we cannot solve all the world's ills and our foremost responsibility is to Americans, not foreigners. We can help reduce the push factors in foreign countries driving migrants to our borders, but we are not obligated to accept their citizens into our country. On the contrary, our obligation is to protect and serve Americans. To do so, we must eliminate the pull factors for these migrants here at home. Like any country, we have a right, indeed, we have a duty to control who comes to our country and allow them here only if it is in our national interests. America is a nation of immigrants, but we are also a nation of laws. Secretary Clinton has not only displayed contempt for our immigration laws but also encouraged foreigners to break those laws, to their own grave danger. We must say to these foreigners, loudly and clearly: Do not make this dangerous journey. Do not violate our laws. Do not come here illegally. It is the humane thing to do, and it is the right thing to do. Secretary Clinton should be ashamed of herself for doing otherwise. Madam President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 10, 2016, at 10 a.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 10, 2016, at 10:15 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Nominations.''

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 10, 2016, at 10 a.m., in room SR-428A of the Russell Office Building to conduct a hearing entitled ``Up in the Air: Examining the Commercial Applications of Unmanned Aircraft for Small Business.''

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 10, 2016, at 10 a.m.

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 10, 2016, at 11:30 a.m.

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 10, 2016, at 10 a.m.

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 10, 2016, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Review of the Affordable Care Act Health Insurance CO-OP Program.''

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 10, 2016, at 2 p.m., in room SH-219 of the Hart Senate Office Building.

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. I yield back.

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

Mr. COTTON

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

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, there is a vacancy on the Supreme Court, and this Chamber and the American people must fully understand what is at stake in choosing the person to fill that vacancy. For a generation, Justice Nino Scalia was the conservative heart of the Supreme Court. Whoever takes his seat will not replace him because there is no replacement, but his passing has the potential to dramatically shift the delicate balance of the Court. Should Justice Scalia be replaced by a philosophically liberal Justice, the implications for the rights of Americans and the direction of our Nation would be profound. A liberal Justice may mean that the individual right to keep and bear arms will be nullified and laws that deprive Americans of the means to protect themselves and their families will proliferate. A liberal Justice may mean that the President's extraconstitutional Executive order to grant amnesty to illegal immigrants will be upheld, trampling the separation of powers and the will of the American people. A liberal Justice may mean that President Obama's plan to destroy America's coal industry will survive, destroying thousands of jobs and steady income for American families. A liberal Justice may mean that the government will be empowered to force people of faith to violate their deeply held beliefs to subsidize abortifacients they abhor, and these are only the issues we can foresee. Novel issues that strike at the core of our constitutional order will continue to arise and how they are settled will hinge greatly on the next Justice. Because so much depends on who the next Justice is, we cannot rush into this decision. Because the law may take such a dramatic turn, the Members of this Chamber must first get the input of the American people on what the direction of our country should be, and because the next Justice will guide American law for the next generation, the Senate should not subordinate our constitutional responsibility to advise and consent on a Supreme Court nominee to a lameduck President with a stale mandate. This is the way forward that the majority leader and Chairman Grassley have charted, and it is the right one. After all, we have an election in November. In a few short months, we will have a new President and new Senators who can consider the next Justice with the full faith of the American people. Why would we cut off the national debate about this next Justice? Why would we squelch the voice of the people? Why would we deny the voters a chance to weigh in on the makeup of the Supreme Court? There is absolutely no reason to do so or at least no principled reason to do so. That is why no Congress in our history has confirmed a Supreme Court nominee of a lameduck President of either party for a vacancy that arose in an election year. Abiding by this practice this year is even more pressing. Some of my Democratic colleagues argue that the American people have already weighed in on the Supreme Court by reelecting President Obama in 2012, but I will remind those who make this argument that the Constitution requires two institutions, the President and the Senate, to agree upon a new Justice, and in 2014 the voters overwhelmingly chose to send Republicans to the Senate, making clear their dissatisfaction with this President's cavalier attitude toward the Constitution and his duty to execute the laws as written. If the 2014 election meant anything, it meant that Americans do not want this President to determine alone the course of American law for a generation in the Supreme Court. When Arkansas elected me in 2014 to represent them, they sent me to Washington with the mandate to act as a check on the President, and I will carry out that mandate. Many of my Democratic colleagues have come to this floor to demand that the Senate's longstanding practice of declining to confirm Supreme Court Justices in an election year be discarded and a nominee considered right away. Perhaps the most impassioned of these pleas come from the senior Senator from Nevada; that the minority leader would wish to discard a longstanding practice of the Senate--particularly one related to the judicial nominations--is not a surprise. He was, of course, the person in 2013 who detonated the so-called nuclear option, discarding the 60-vote threshold for appellate and district court judicial nominees that existed in this Chamber for 200 years. He did so in order to steamroll the institutional rights of the minority party and pack the lower courts with as many liberal Obama nominees as possible. In terms of dignity and public esteem, such as he had, that ill- considered move cost the minority leader dearly. He could only exercise the nuclear option if he flip-flopped on his prior vehement opposition to it. In 2005, the minority leader stood steadfastly against the nuclear option when it served his political interests. He called the nuclear option wrong, illegal, and even un-American. He was--to adapt a familiar saying--against the nuclear option before he was for it. In the current debate over filling Justice Scalia's seat, we are seeing the minority leader perform a similarly brazen flip-flop, not that we should be surprised by that. Today the minority leader claimed that the Constitution compels the Senate to immediately take up any nominee President Obama sends our way, but 10 years ago, again, he sang a much different tune. The minority leader came to this very same floor to speak passionately in defense of the constitutional prerogative of the Senate to defer a vote on the President's Supreme Court pick. He forcefully stated that nowhere in the Constitution does it say the Senate has a duty to give Presidential nominees an up-or-down vote. It says appointments shall be made with the advice and consent of the Senate, and that is very different than saying that every nominee receives a vote. What has changed in the 10 years since the minority leader uttered those words? Well, of course, merely the politics of the situation. I ask, if the current President were a Republican, would the minority leader be taking the position he is today? If the current President were not a fellow Democrat, would the minority leader still be inclined to trash the constitutional prerogatives of the Senate and abandon its longstanding customs? In light of what you might call the diversity of the minority leader's views over time, I think it is understandable that questions have been raised about the sincerity of his position. In the quiet moments following the rambling jeremiads that the minority leader directs at Republicans on the Senate floor, I think my colleagues might be forgiven if they entertain the thought that the principled ground on which he claims to stand is slightly less than firm. In the coming months, there is much work for Congress to do. We must pass a bill to fund and rebuild our military. We must continue to improve the conditions for wage growth and the creation of new jobs. We must conduct stringent oversight to rein in the excesses of the President on a quixotic pursuit of a legacy, but with regard to a Supreme Court nomination, the only task for this Senate is to wait passionately and listen to the American people. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the confirmation vote scheduled for 11 a.m. this morning be moved until 12 noon, with all other provisions of the previous order remaining in effect.

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