Kevin Cramer

Mr. CRAMER

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. President, I want to honor the half century of distinguished Federal service of a remarkable North Dakota man who is retiring at the end of May. Myron Lepp has been the administrative program director for the North Dakota office of USDA Rural Development for the past 13 years. He took this position after 37 years in the military, retiring as a full colonel. In these 50 years of service, Myron has brought knowledge, intelligence and dedication to everything he has undertaken. He began his military service in 1971 and became a commissioned officer in 1976. Myron served in the North Dakota National Guard as director of information management for 12 years and later held other positions such as chief of staff for the adjutant general, State director of maintenance, and joint forces logistics director. In his final 2 years in the military, he was the national command logistics inspector for the National Guard Readiness Center in Washington, DC, traveling every other week to conduct combat readiness inspections at all State Army National Guard units Myron brought this invaluable background to the USDA Rural Development office, giving exemplary guidance to the crucial work this agency does to support our rural communities in North Dakota. His lifelong background in farming and ranching enhanced this work. Myron has raised crops such as wheat, oats, and corn, and he has a cow/calf operation near his hometown of Lehr. I came to appreciate Myron's dedication and professional expertise when we worked together on North Dakota's Roughrider Honor Flight program. As president of this program, Myron oversaw the work of many dedicated volunteers who organized five flights for 500 veterans to visit the National World War II Memorial in Washington, DC. The profound impact Myron Lepp has made over these 50 years to enhance the military and agricultural strength of North Dakota will never be adequately measured. We can only thank him for this service, which I want to do here on behalf of all North Dakotans. I congratulate him on his well-earned retirement and wish him many years of health and happiness in the future.

Mr. CRAMER

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. President, I want to honor a very special North Dakota resident who is turning 100 years old on May 26. William Godman, Jr., now resides at the Haaland Estates Assisted Living Center in Rugby, ND, after living on the family farm north of the community of Churchs Ferry for 98 and a half years. To say this lifelong farmer is one of North Dakota's great stewards of the land would not be an understatement. At his father's urging, he did not leave the farm to fight in World War II because his brother had enlisted. He stayed behind to raise the food to feed a hungry nation and world during those difficult years. On his farm, William has raised crops including wheat, barley, flax, corn, and canola. Throughout the decades of his life across the past century, William has experienced great moments in North Dakota's history. He and his late wife, Elaine, raised five children and instilled in them the necessity of hard work and self reliance. He gave back to his community in many ways, including being a longtime 4-H leader, church volunteer, and Men's Club member. Although his birthday will not bring together as planned all his children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren, I hope he will be able to celebrate this great milestone with friends and family at other opportunities throughout the year. North Dakota is home to more than 200 centenarians, and we consider them among our most treasured residents. Their pioneer spirit, dignity, and hard work have brought them through many challenges and personal achievements. On behalf of all North Dakotans, I wish William a happy 100th birthday and hope this is the start of a year filled with happiness and joy.

Mr. CRAMER

Mr. CRAMER. Madam President, I rise today on behalf of the 74 fallen Vietnam veterans our government has forgotten known as the Lost 74. On June 3 of 1969, the USS Frank E. Evans was participating in a training mission 100 miles from the Vietnam war combat zone, having been sent there in between combat missions; that is to say, neither coming nor going. During the night, the ship collided with an Allied aircraft carrier and sank, killing 74 sailors. Remember, this is just outside of the combat zone, between combat missions. These 74 Vietnam veterans died in service to our country. The ship had served on several combat tours and had many more scheduled. The Vietnam Veterans Memorial on the National Mall here in Washington, DC, memorializes over 58,000 military members who paid the ultimate sacrifice during the Vietnam war by displaying their names on its wall. People from around the world come to see the memorial and pay their respects to those who fought and died for the freedoms we all hold dear. Yet, because of a technicality, the names of the Lost 74 sailors are excluded from the Vietnam Veterans Memorial. As requirements now stand, veterans must have perished in or on their way to a combat zone. Since the Frank E. Evans was participating in a practice exercise in between stints in fighting off the Vietnam coast, the names of these sailors have been left off of the wall. Imagine that. These sailors, deployed overseas in the service of our Nation--they left their homes, their families, their friends, and their loved ones on behalf of our Nation. They paid the ultimate sacrifice, like every other man and woman who was lost. Yet their names have been left off the iconic memorial constructed in their honor. As a parent, I can't imagine the pain that some of these families must have felt. I first learned of this injustice during a talk radio townhall in 2018, when a family member of Fargo resident and Frank E. Evans survivor Dick Grant called in to the program. After hearing his story, I learned about one of his shipmates, Robert Searle, a fellow North Dakotan from Grand Forks, who was also on board the ship and perished in the accident. Robert enlisted in the Navy Reserves in 1967 and reported to the Frank E. Evans in May of 1968. Later that year, he married his wife, Thelma. Robert was on watch in the forward fire room with three other men when the collision occurred. All four were killed. His twin sons were just 4 months old. North Dakota paid a great price when the USS Frank E. Evans sunk. Yet my State does not grieve alone. The Lost 74 encompasses sailors from 29 different States, and the bill before us today represents that diversity, spanning the political aisle. Before I ask for unanimous consent, I would like to yield some time to the distinguished Senator from New York, the Democratic leader.

Mr. CRAMER. Madam President, whether North Dakotans, Granite Staters, or New Yorkers, these stories are very moving. When I first heard from Mr. Grant's family, I was a Member of the House of Representatives. I looked into his request and introduced an amendment to the 2018 National Defense Authorization Act to inscribe the names of the Lost 74. While the measure unanimously passed the House, it was blocked here in the Senate. So, when I came to the Senate last year, introducing this legislation was one of my very first actions and high priorities. And I have had some success. We have 20 cosponsors--10 Republicans and 10 Democrats--including the chairman and the ranking Democrat on the subcommittee that has jurisdiction. When Members from Montana to Maine, North Dakota to New Hampshire, and New York can come together on an issue as important as honoring the fallen sailors, I would hope this would garner some attention--and it has. It has. Last summer, the U.S.S. Frank E. Evans Act received its first-ever hearing before a Senate Energy Subcommittee. I thank the chairman and my colleague from Alaska for providing the opportunity for the story of these sailors to be heard. It was there when I first heard opposition to the bill, however. I have yet to hear any real opposition to the legislation voiced by anyone except the bureaucrats and special interests that would actually be charged with carrying it out. In other words, nobody objects to this except the people who would have to do something about it, and that is a common theme in this town, I have noticed. For example, the Acting Director of the National Park Service said of the bill: ``If passed, it would necessitate substantial modification of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial wall as it exists today.'' No kidding. Of course it does. That is the point of the bill. The idea that we should continue to turn a blind eye to forgotten veterans because the work would be substantial is offensive. It is certainly offensive to the shipmates and the families and the survivors of the Lost 74. Forgive my lack of sympathy for bureaucrats who feel inconvenienced by the death of 74 war heroes. The country that landed man on the Moon the very same year that this accident happened certainly can figure out how to fix a wall to honor these war dead. More to the point, shouldn't we be looking for more ways to honor our fallen rather than fewer? The opposition's argument simply does not add up. Since the wall was built, hundreds of names have been added, and more work still needs to be done. According to the Washington Post, one soldier's name was etched three times. Thirteen soldiers had their names etched twice. While the wall bears 58,390 names, they represent 58,276 different people. The Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund, which is responsible for the wall, conducted a study which showed that flaws exist with names etched in the memorial. To think that we would not add the names of the Lost 74 when we know corrections already need to be made seems counterintuitive, if not downright lazy. Yet, despite all of this, despite the veterans being forgotten, despite this legislation being sent here twice by the House, despite a successful hearing on the bill, progress in the Senate has stalled. That is why my colleagues and I have asked the Department of Defense to address this issue as well. The Department has a mixed, if not negative, record with this issue. They tell you what you want to hear until you go away and hope you never come back. Similar to this body, we have been met with complete silence--not a yes, not a no, not a maybe, not a suggestion to make the proposal better. We find their silence unacceptable; therefore, I am going to ask for unanimous consent to pass the Frank E. Evans Act. The Lost 74, their loved ones, and their shipmates have waited long enough. No matter how it can be spun, the choice before this Chamber is to give the veterans the recognition they deserve or to stand in their way. Madam President, with that, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be discharged from further consideration of S. 849 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. President, if I might address a couple of things, first of all, we are here to change legal objections. That is why we are the legislative branch. We are the policymaking branch. The Department of Defense, with as much respect as I have for them and particularly for the Secretary--they work for us. We don't work for them. I appreciate the commitment of the chairman. I look forward to working with her and the committee on getting to a markup and passing the legislation so that we don't have to submit ourselves to the bureaucracy but, rather, can get things turned around to where the bureaucracy submits itself to the legislative branch. I thank the President, and I thank my colleagues from New York and New Hampshire and certainly the chairwoman of the Energy Committee and look forward to working on a resolution soon. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CRAMER

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

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that, at 4:15 p.m. today, the Senate vote in relation to the Lee amendment, if offered.

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CRAMER

Mr. CRAMER. Madam President, I want to honor a remarkable woman who has retired after three decades at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. In her 30 years at NASA, Karen Nyberg spent 20 of them as an astronaut, including 180 days in space on two spaceflights. Along with other Americans, I enjoyed following her space shuttle mission in 2008 and the International Space Station's 6-month expedition in 2013. During her space shuttle mission, she became the 50th woman in space. While on the International Space Station, she shared unique personal messages, including videos on how to wash hair in space, make a stuffed animal, and work on a quilt. I have since become acquainted with her as an alumna of the University of North Dakota, where she earned a mechanical engineering degree in 1994. A native of Vining, MN, she is one of 11 NASA astronauts who have ties to the Dakotas and Minnesota. Karen has given back to her alma mater, where she has served on the foundation board of the UND School of Aerospace Sciences. There students from across the globe in the Department of Space Studies learn about cutting-edge technologies and scientific breakthroughs in space exploration. Their coursework includes studying future space trips, including a mission to Mars. Last July, our Nation observed the 50th anniversary of the Apollo 11 mission to the Moon. I recall as an 8-year-old watching history unfold on our black-and-white television, joining millions around the world in the exhilaration of this technological feat. In the half-century since the first moon landing, space exploration has had phenomnal impact on the world, which I believe is underappreciated by the average citizen. Karen's contributions to space exploration during 30 of those years have added to our greater understanding of our world and universe. There is a bright future for America to lead the world with commercial, technological, and military space missions. The work of astronauts like Karen and the future impact of current students at institutions like the University of North Dakota inspire us to move forward with these vital endeavors. On behalf of all North Dakotans, I send my sincere congratulations to Karen Nyberg on her distinguished career at NASA and for all she has brought to this new frontier. Best wishes on your well-earned retirement, Karen, and I hope our paths will cross often. We will join in wishing godspeed at the end of this month to your husband, Doug Hurley, and his space shuttle crew on their historic flight from Florida to the International Space Station.

Mr. CRAMER

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. President, I would like to congratulate and honor four North Dakota students who have been recognized for their remarkable volunteer service by the Prudential Spirit of Community Awards program. This year's State honoress are Micah Schilittenhardt and Alexis Thompson of Bismarck. Distinguished finalists are Teagen Nicholes of Minot and Amorelle Upton of Fargo. Micah, a student at Legacy High School, has spent more than 150 hours raising awareness across North Dakota about the benefits of dance for people with Parkinson's disease, while also raising funds for dance lessons, support groups, and research. Alexis, who attends Horizon Middle School, started an annual toy drive which has provided gifts for more than 400 adolescent hospital patients, launched a campaign to increase scoliosis awareness and screening, and organized a support group for girls with curvature of the spine. Teagen established a food pantry at Erik Ramstad Middle School, along with contacting local businesses for financial support, spreading awareness about food insecurity and organized schoolwide activities to raise funds and donations. Amorelle, who attends Davies High School, has raised money to benefit the Rape and Abuse Crisis Center, has secured donations from local businesses, hosted several fundraising events, and sent more than 300 letters soliciting support from her local community. The Prudential Spirit of Community Awards were created by Prudential Financial in partnership with the National Association of Secondary School Principals in 1995. Their purpose is to impress upon all youth volunteers their contributions are critically important and highly valued and to inspire other young people to follow their example. Over the past 25 years, the program has become the Nation's largest youth recognition effort based solely on community service. It has honored more than 130,000 young volunteers at the local, State, and national level. These young volunteers inspire all of us and are among our brightest hopes for a better tomorrow. I heartily applaud them for their dedication to making their communities better places to live and for the positive impact they have had on the lives of others. Their actions show that young Americans can and do play important roles in their communities and that America's community spirit continues to hold tremendous promise for the future. Again, congratulations to Micah, Alesis, Teagen, and Amorelle. I fully expect to hear much more from each of them as they emerge as leaders of our next generation.

Mr. CRAMER

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. President, I want to recognize the 50th anniversary this month of FirstLink, a vital North Dakota organization which provides free and confidential mental health, suicide prevention, and other services 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. FirstLink offers listening and support, resource referrals and crisis intervention. Across the entire State of North Dakota and parts of Minnesota, FirstLink answers calls for 17 agencies, notably the 211 helpline and the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline. Those reaching out for help now have the ability to also communicate by text messaging at 898-211. Last year, FirstLink answered 60,148 calls. Of those, 13,446 were related to suicide. Its Caring Contacts service receives referrals from hospitals and clinics across North Dakota in addition to the phone calls that come in. Caring Contacts offers informal resources and coping strategies, encourages mental health treatment, and provides nonjudgmental listening and support. These calls are offered around the schedules of the individuals in need. Additional training is also offered to staff and volunteers from other State organizations working with people of all ages. FirstLink began as a grassroots volunteer organization in the Fargo area, first taking calls 6 hours a day. It has grown in hours and scope, thanks to private and public support, a staff of 20, a 12-member board, and many volunteers. The profound impact of the work FirstLink has done over these past 50 years can never be adequately measured. On behalf of all North Dakotans, I congratulate and sincerely thank executive director Cindy Miller and all staff and volunteers for the difference their commitment has made to the quality of life in our State. May your next 50 years be just as meaningful.

Mr. CRAMER

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. President, one of the outstanding programs offered in the U.S. Senate recognizes the best of America's high school juniors and seniors. Since 1963, the U.S. Senate Youth Program has selected two students from each State who rank high academically, excel in leadership and volunteerism, and have a passion for public service. They also receive a $10,000 college scholarship. These young delegates have come to Washington, DC, every spring for a week of education and tours highlighting all three branches of government. Unfortunately, like so many other programs and events, this year's trip to Washington was cancelled as our Nation faces the coronavirus threat. This is only the second time in the program's nearly 60 years that the delegates have not gathered in Washington for this memorable week. As one of the eight Senators serving on the Senate Youth Program's Advisory Committee, I want to congratulate all who were selected to be delegates this year and assure them we share their disappointment they could not be with us this month. I also want to recognize North Dakota's two delegates, Megha Bharadwaj and Rachel Goven. Megha is a junior at St. Mary's Central High School in Bismarck. Her leadership positions include being the State treasurer for the North Dakota Future Business Leaders of America and a board member and publicity director for AchieveWE. Megha has received top honors participating in school, district, and State competitions in Voices of Democracy, debate, speech, and Science Olympiad. In addition, she reports for her school newspaper, sings in the jazz choir, and speaks at community events. She plans to attend law school and enter the world of politics. Rachel is a senior at Turtle Lake Mercer High School, where she is the vice president of her senior class and involved in Student Council and National Honor Society. She attended North Dakota Girls State and is a North Dakota rural electric cooperative youth leader. Rachel enjoys band and choir, yearbook, cheerleading, and basketball. In her church, she is a youth band member and camp counselor and is a willing volunteer for other community events. I congratulate both Megha and Rachel for receiving this honor and welcome them to an alumni group of Senate Youth Program delegates who are 5,500 individuals strong. Many of them have gone on to distinguish themselves in every area of public service, including two of my colleagues, Senator Susan Collins of Maine and Senator Cory Gardner of Colorado. I fully expect that I will meet up with Megha and Rachel in the future as they continue to excel in academic and professional arenas throughout their lives.

Mr. CRAMER

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. President, I want to honor a very special North Dakota woman who is turning 100 years old on Friday. Inez Mittleider of Bismarck was born on March 27, 1920, in South Dakota and at a young age moved with her family to southwestern North Dakota. Living thorough the Dirty Thirties and the Great Depression, she had to leave home and live with family friends while she completed high school. She was one of very few women of her generation to earn a college degree. Inez lived in the communities of Heil and Mott and taught in one-room schoolhouses for nearly 10 years. Inez and her husband raised four children and instilled in them the necessity of hard work and self reliance. Today, Inez is the grandmother of seven, great-grandmother of nine, and continues to live on her own in Bismarck. Her many family members plan to gather to celebrate this centennial milestone with Inez later in the year. Mr. President, North Dakota is home to more than 200 centenarians, and we consider them among our most treasured residents. They have witnessed great moments in North Dakota's history and their pioneer spirit, dignity, and hard work have brought them through many challenges and personal achievements. On behalf of all North Dakotans, I want to wish Inez a happy 100th birthday, and hope this is the start of a year filled with happiness and joy.

Mr. CRAMER

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. President: ``This is a tremendous opportunity to restructure things to fit our vision.'' This is an opportunity to fit our vision. That is a quote--not from some Communist activist leader somewhere in the United States, not from some Third World general. No, that is from the third ranking Democrat in the House of Representatives. Let that sink in for a minute. Read it again: ``This is a tremendous opportunity to restructure things to fit our vision.'' I thought a bogus impeachment was shameful enough but clearly not. People in this country are dying. They are dying, literally. People are losing their jobs every day, literally. More and more people are getting sick every day. And that is why Senators rushed back here. We rushed back here to pass the House bipartisan legislation that was negotiated between the President and Speaker Pelosi. Then we let both sides work on the next steps. We passed that bill within less than 24 hours of receiving it from the House. As imperfect as it was, we passed it with 90 Senators voting for it. That is how bipartisanship works. We worked around the clock to craft a plan, and we succeeded. Here we sit, listening to our Democratic colleagues pretend this is a partisan plan, as if they weren't sitting in the room as it was being negotiated, and many of their ideas are in this bill. Why are they doing that? I will tell you why they are doing it. When we see a rising body count, they see a political opportunity. Shame on them. The Trump derangement syndrome is accelerating the coronavirus. They should be ashamed of themselves. They see a chance to impose their vision--their leftwing, radical vision on our country because they think they can force it past us during this crisis. Their extreme partisan obstruction has blinded them. What has happened to this place? Why are they even here? Attempts to work across the aisle--honest attempts, attempts by rank- and-file Republicans and rank-and-file Democrats--have resulted in our Democratic colleagues having created a revisionist view of what we have been doing, and it has resulted in blind, political opportunism just to advance their extreme leftwing agenda--an agenda that includes things like the Green New Deal, which is something that actually had a vote on the floor of the U.S. Senate. Guess how many of them voted for it-- none. It was that nutty--none. Yet, now, that is the agenda. That is their vision. That is the opportunity they see. How about socialism for the entire economy? It was not enough just for the energy sector. It was not enough just for the healthcare sector. It was not enough just for the manufacturing sector. Let's just have socialism. Let's debate which Democratic Presidential candidate is the best Socialist. How about hurting our farmers, our ranchers, our oil workers, our truckdrivers, our restaurant owners, our manufacturers, or our welders--everybody? We are not even asking them to vote on this plan. The vote last night was not on the bill, and the vote this afternoon was not on the bill. It was simply a procedural vote to begin the debate, to continue the negotiations on the bill. Not one moment would have been lost. Guess what. Now over a day has been lost while we have dithered. We are asking--when we do finally agree to help the American people--that instead of killing the economy and the jobs, as they have been doing, that we be ready to act on the bill. No, that is not good enough for them. Many of my colleagues have talked about what is in the bill. There is $4 billion for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Do you think it could use it? How about $9 billion for child nutrition? Do you care, Democrats, about child nutrition? We have often heard you talk about it. Where is it now? How about $20 billion for veterans? Do they not care about that? How about $50 billion for our farmers? I spoke about it. How about $75 billion for our healthcare providers? Do you think your healthcare providers could use a little more assistance, Democrats? I think they could, and they need it now. They needed it yesterday. How about $350 billion for the small businesses that employ all of those people who are now getting fired because they can't keep their doors open? Yet that is not even worth a debate to our Democratic colleagues. Oh, no. Apparently, it is now all back open for debate. The reports today are that the minority leader is holding the $50 billion for farmers hostage so they can get more of the opportunity to restructure things to fit their vision. Apparently, the majority leader either forgot or he never knew that food doesn't come from the deli. Mr. Minority Leader, food comes from the farmer. There is no sandwich in the New York deli without the farmers' growing the grain. There is no meat in that sandwich without the ranchers' raising the livestock. No, they don't make that food in the deli, Mr. Minority Leader. Who started all of this? It was not he. He tried to be helpful for a while or at least it appeared so. No, it was not he. It was not even an uprising of the rank-and-file Democrats who have been filing in, occasionally, into this Chamber. It wasn't even the breakdown in negotiations between the Republicans and the Democrats. It was the House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, who flew in here on an airplane that was powered by fossil fuels. Maybe those fossil fuels were even made by some oil from Alaska or North Dakota or Texas. She demanded an expansion of--what?--the renewable energy tax credits and other parts of her extreme leftwing, radical, partisan agenda. What in the hell does that have to do with the coronavirus? The absurdity of it speaks for itself. That is what we have learned to expect from the majority of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle and in the other Chamber of Congress--ever since the freshman Democrat from New York became the de facto Speaker of the House. That is the House. We are not the House. We are the Senate. We are supposed to be the adults in the room. Some of our colleagues are here, acting like petulant children when there are people who are suffering and who don't know what to do or where to turn for help. They are turning to us. We are it. We are the help. We are driving the ambulance. All the while, the Speaker of the House tries to steer us into the ditch while the minority leader of the Senate hangs on for dear life in the passenger's seat. Why would those people come to us for help anymore? The House Speaker doesn't care about them. For crying out loud, she cares about renewable fuel tax credits. Where is rural America supposed to go? The Democratic leader sees them as, simply, political pawns. Being held hostage is $50 billion for farmers. Let's hold that one up. Maybe we could get more of what fits our vision, our radical agenda. Apparently, helping these people doesn't matter to them. Well, I have news for him. I have news for the minority leader. While the Democrats dither, Americans are dying. That is a real fact. Let's get back in here tonight, and let's pass this legislation. Let's get it done and get the money to the people who need it the most I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAMER

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

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues in offering support for improving the way our government runs. What we are doing is we are fighting for a government that is led in an open, transparent way by elected leaders--elected leaders--who are accountable to the people who elect us. Reining in a bureaucracy that has run rampant has been a top priority of mine ever since coming to Congress. In fact, last year when I outlined my vision for serving in the Senate in my maiden speech, I vowed to take on the bureaucracy. Since coming to Washington, it has become abundantly clear to me that the bureaucracy has evolved into an unelected, unaccountable creature. When constituents back home reach out to my office for help, there is a good chance it has to do with an intransigent, unresponsive, or even an aggressive--an aggressive--confrontational bureaucrat who has forgotten that a public servant is actually supposed to serve the public; that is, the public made up of people--people who elect officials. In many cases, the Federal Government has codified the corruption, transforming from a group of civil servants carrying out our laws into a rogue body consumed with defending and in many cases expanding their power. This bureaucracy has turned internal guidance documents into infallible law, placing the creation and implementation of their policies and processes above the American people's needs--in fact, in many cases, changing the actual laws they are supposed to be enforcing. This is something I look to address at every given opportunity because it is a problem I discover in almost every issue we seek to solve. I am going to start by talking a little bit about the Army Corps of Engineers. My efforts to take on this bureaucracy began almost immediately when I came to the Senate. President Trump, in fulfilling his promise to secure our border and keep America safe, declared a national emergency in order to expedite the construction of physical barriers along our southern border. Unfortunately, the agency charged with executing the building of this wall--that is, the Army Corps of Engineers--is not known for expediency or responsiveness. As a member of the Armed Services Committee and the Environment and Public Works Committee, both of which have direct jurisdiction over the Corps of Engineers, I exercised my congressional oversight responsibilities and role by conducting a study of the Army Corps' procurement process: how it awards contracts, how those companies have performed since being selected, what they are paid for in their bidding or RFP process. My findings, simply, were horrifying. In a letter to President Trump, I detailed how the Corps' procurement process fails to foster competition--particularly when it comes to price and schedule--and disfavors new entrants and innovators into their process. As I was conducting the investigation that led to these findings, I was met with bureaucratic obstruction at almost every step, from bad- faith promises, to empty vows of cooperation, to bureaucrats actually leaking my personal--my personal--emails to the media. Army Corps bureaucrats failed to meet even the most basic standards of good faith and cooperation in dealing with a Senator who sits on the committees that oversee them, as though their agency runs us instead of our having oversight over them. The correspondence they leaked was not even salacious or informative, really. It said nothing that I wasn't already saying out loud. But I think that was what bothered them the most, is that I was saying it out loud. This was a coordinated attempt to discourage me from continuing to dig into the bureaucracy. As I told them then, if you are counting on 99 out of 100 people to walk away exasperated because of your delays, consider me the other 1. Such intimidation and such a breakdown in proper government action should be infuriating and horrifying to any civically minded person who believes in checks and balances and the ability to hold the bureaucracy accountable. It is not my first encounter with bureaucratic overreach, with an executive agency dipping its foot into the water of activism. During my time in the House of Representatives under the previous administration, the conservation advocacy group Ducks Unlimited was providing staff to the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Natural Resources Conservation Service, embedded right in their offices. This meant that taxpayer funds were supporting the work of advocacy staffers campaigning for a State ballot measure to establish a slush fund that would benefit their organization. The Federal Government was funding political activists while those activists worked to pass a measure that would give them further funding. If that is not corruption, then nothing is, whether or not it is intended. If not for our efforts to shine light on such obvious corruption, their abuse would have gone unchecked, and their power would have only grown. Somehow, the issue with the Natural Resources Conservation Services is not the most obvious example of bureaucratic abuse that North Dakotans have experienced. Over the years, the Fish and Wildlife Service has increasingly encroached on the rights of landowners who have perpetual wetland easements on their property. One particularly egregious case is the story of Mike Johansen, a farmer from Hope, ND. After a heavy rainfall year, the land flooded, leaving him unable to harvest and seed for the next planting season. He asked the Service for help, but due to poor guidance and enforcement, the Service offered him nothing. In fact, after he dug a drain, the Service cited him and dragged him to court. The legal fees and fines caused by these vague regulations written without clarity, oversight, or an appeals process forced Mike to quit farming, sell his equipment, and borrow money just to get the funds he needed to defend himself in court against his government. Thankfully, he won in court. He proved his case against the government. But the cost was bankruptcy-- bankruptcy. I had the privilege of hosting Interior Secretary Bernhardt so he could meet with Mike and North Dakota landowners who have experienced similar abuse. Since then, the Interior Department has begun issuing updated guidance to give our landowners clarity and a right to appeal overzealous bureaucratic action. I appreciate the Secretary's timely action and his emphasis on being a better neighbor, but this will only be successful if Fish and Wildlife Service employees follow the spirit of the Secretary's actions to actually work with landowners versus ruling over them. We are working closely with the Department to make sure these regulations work for our constituents, and I am hopeful this example concludes with a positive ending. But after every election, there is a new set of leaders. Frankly, I have been appalled at the reaction the bureaucracy has had to the Trump administration's moving of the Bureau of Land Management from Washington, DC, to Grand Junction, CO, or a couple of USDA agencies moving from Washington, DC, to Kansas City, only so they can be closer to the resources they manage and the people they are supposed to be serving. The backlash has been incredible; the outcry, unbelievable. It is as though the bureaucracy is entitled to whatever they think is important as opposed to the people they work for being entitled to good service. Sadly, there is one glaring example to me that is far from reaching a conclusion or a positive ending anytime soon, although I will never give up. I will never give up. Over 50 years ago, during the Vietnam war, the USS Frank E. Evans battleship collided with an allied aircraft carrier and sank, killing 74 deployed sailors. The USS Frank E. Evans had served multiple tours off the Vietnam coast and was scheduled to return after completing this exercise about 100 miles outside of the official combat zone. They were exercising with other American ships, as well as other allied ships, during the Vietnam war. Because of a geographic technicality, the names of those ``Lost 74'' sailors are not memorialized on the Vietnam Veterans Memorial wall, as if they didn't die in the service of our Nation's effort in Vietnam. The honor and gratitude owed to them is long overdue, but the only objections I have ever heard--remember, this was just about 51 years ago now--the only objections I have ever heard are from the people whose job it would be to add their names to the wall. In other words, I can't find anybody who opposes adding the 74 names to the wall except the people whose job it would be to carry out this task. We are working on sending a man to Mars, but somehow it is too much to add 74 heroes' names to the Vietnam Memorial wall. It is inexplicable to me that bureaucrats in Washington could determine that these sailors' ultimate sacrifice is unworthy of being memorialized simply because they were on the wrong side of an arbitrary line. The exclusion of these veterans is a disservice to those who gave their lives for our country. A technicality is not an excuse for inaction, a previously issued memo is not a reason to express disapproval, and an objection from Washington's bureaucracy should not stop us from honoring these heroes, these veterans. Last year, a bipartisan group of Senators introduced a bill to force the bureaucracy to make this a reality. Yet it remains stuck here in the Senate. Let me repeat that. The bureaucracy's excuses have found welcoming ears here, and the bill remains stuck, with no explanation or reasoning. It has equal bipartisan support. Yet it remains stuck in the bureaucracy of this body. If we do not see movement soon, I am going to return to the Senate floor to attempt to pass the bill by unanimous consent. I have spoken to the chairmen of the two committees of jurisdiction. They see no objection. Yet, somewhere in this big place, objection clearly exists. I hope that between now and then, we are able to see real progress on this important issue. The people fighting to have these fallen soldiers memorialized are also heroes. They are their shipmates. They are the survivors, the spouses, and the children of these heroes. I am not going to join the bureaucracy by standing in the way, and I hope none of my colleagues do either. These are just a few of the many examples of what I call bureaucratic abuse, obstruction, and overreach that I have witnessed since coming to Congress just 7 years ago, and I think we should call them out. The opinion of Federal career staff is not sacrosanct; it is advice. It is counsel, but it is not a decision. Without further action, complacency will only empower the bureaucracy. People elected us to have their power, the people's power. So now is the time to remind this city who holds that constitutional responsibility and authority. The people hold it. Our constituents elected us, the President, and every elected official, but they have no say in the bureaucracy except through us. That is our job as elected officials--to give the people we work for their voice in the bureaucracy. We must dedicate ourselves to doing so, so that we can define this era as a time that we, the elected representatives, stood up to the bureaucracy and reclaimed the true power of the Federal Government for the people, not the bureaucracy. With that, I yield my time. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CRAMER

Mr. CRAMER. Madam President, I rise today to recognize the city of Minot. It has been 60 years since the U.S. Air Force and Minot began working together to establish the Minot Air Force Base in northwestern North Dakota. This was in the late 1950s, when Minot leaders stepped up to buy the land where the air base now stands. Throughout the ensuing decades of growth and change in the Minot community and the base itself, this cooperation has continued. This year, the Air Force Global Strike Command has recognized this solid partnership by awarding its Barksdale Trophy to the city of Minot. This honor is given to the community providing the most outstanding support to one of its bases. Minot Air Force Base's 5th Bomb Wing and 91st Missile Wing support the Air Force Global Strike Command. The trophy is awarded by Shreveport and Bossier, LA, which are home to the command and the Barksdale Air Force Base. The Minot Area Chamber of Commerce submitted the city's nomination for this award and in it detailed many notable projects and partnerships over the years. This includes a community auction, which for 30 years has raised $800,000-plus for programs supporting the morale of those at the base. Another 30-year event is a Military Ball, bringing airmen and their spouses and area residents together for a special evening. A favorite holiday tradition is the thousands of home- baked cookies delivered to airmen who are spending their first year in Minot and are unable to be home for Christmas. Those stationed at the base and their families reciprocate by volunteering to help with Minot's many programs and annual events, including the North Dakota State Fair and the Norsk Hostfest. In North Dakota, we take pride in the two Air Force bases within our borders that help to safeguard world peace. The support we give to those who call North Dakota home while stationed at these bases is not done for recognition nor awards. Yet, receiving the Barksdale Trophy is a well-deserved nod to North Dakota's legendary hospitality and its steadfast support of the Minot Air Force Base. Mr. President, I congratulate the residents of the Minot area for being awarded this prestigious Barksdale Trophy. On behalf of all North Dakotans, I thank them for their support of our Nation's military and for welcoming those who are called to serve in this noble mission.

Mr. CRAMER

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. President, the students on the robotics team in the small northwestern North Dakota town of Alexander set a goal at the beginning of this school year to win their State competition. Their determination and hard work paid off in February, and now the Alexander High School FIRST Tech Challenge Team #9963 team is preparing to represent North Dakota in the world championship competition. FIRST is the acronym for the For Inspiration and Recognition of Science and Technology organization, which plans the annual competitions between schools. There, the students build and program robots to perform challenging tasks and then compete with other teams. Robotics competition is growing in popularity in schools because it provides an ideal opportunity for young people to apply their knowledge of STEM subjects. It also teaches valuable life skills like communication, creativity, and collaboration and opens up countless doors of opportunity for the future. While new to some schools, the Alexander students have participated in the North Dakota championship competition for the past 5 years. Each year, they have brought home a trophy from one of the categories. For this year's competition, these future engineers built and programmed a robot they nicknamed ``Spiderbot,'' which competed against other robots, doing tasks like maneuvering under bridges and stacking blocks on a plate. This progressive small town of less than 500 residents is preparing its students for 21st century careers by offering robotics as a career and technical education course for credit at the school. The success of this program is due in large part to the support and encouragement from many, including school administrators, teachers, volunteers, and parents. To the students on the Alexander Robotics Team, their adviser Cathy White, and all who support them, I send my congratualations on becoming State champions. They are an inspiration to so many with their knowledge and passion. North Dakota will be watching as they compete in the world championships in Detroit in late April. I have a feeling we will be hearing much more from all of them in future careers as successful engineers and entrepreneurs.

Mr. CRAMER

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. President, I seek recognition today regarding the recent impeachment trial of President Donald Trump. This was a rare moment in our young Nation's history. We had little to guide us other than the Founding Fathers' collective wisdom and sparse precedent. The process may seem daunting, and the debate over even the most basic mechanics of the trial could leave the future Members of this body susceptible to deception or misinformation. I therefore want to offer my thoughts for future Senators when this issue inevitably rises again. The impeachment trial proceedings are unique. It is an inherently political process analogous to a legal trial. There is a prosecution, represented by the House managers, as well as a defense, representing the President. There is also a presiding judge, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. As in a courtroom, the prosecution and defense take opposite sides of the judge as they make their arguments. The burden of proof is on the prosecutors, who must present their evidence, and it is the job of the defense to refute the arguments. There is also a jury, the U.S. Senate. Like a courtroom jury, we sit in silence throughout the trial listening to the arguments of both sides and are asked to render a verdict at the conclusion. However, unlike a courtroom but as instructed by the Constitution, we are not jurors subject to peremptory challenge; we are elected officials instructed to offer impartial justice based on the evidence presented to us. We are not expected to check our knowledge or our existing relationships at the door. If this were a true trial, all Senators would have to recuse themselves for the inherent bias connected to the election certificate they earned. As Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist Paper 65, ``In many cases, it [impeachment] will connect itself with the pre-existing factions, and will enlist all their animosities, partialities, influence, and interest on one side or on the other.'' Rather, we are asked to follow our conscience, to hear the arguments of both sides with an open mind and deliver a verdict. We also differ from courtroom jurors in that we establish the rules for the proceedings. This is done through organizing resolutions we debate and pass. Before considering the merits of this particular case, it is important to discuss the idea of impeachment itself in light of the present context. During President Trump's hearing, the President's legal team alluded to the idea that a President can do essentially whatever he or she wants, and it will not be considered an impeachable offense as long as that President's interests in doing so align with the interests of the United States. ``If a President does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment,'' said Alan Dershowitz, a member of the President's legal team, during the trial. I feel that particular statement is wrong. The Constitution grants no President absolute power. There is a threshold that can be reached. Thankfully, this was later clarified by Mr. Dershowitz in an opinion piece he wrote for The Hill entitled ``I never said the President could do anything to get re-elected.'' In it, he said: Any action by a politician motivated in part by a desire to be reelected was, by its nature, corrupt. Moving to my response, I listed three broad categories of relevant motives, which are pure national interest to help the military, pure corrupt motive to obtain a kickback, and mixed-motive to help the national interest in a way that can also help a reelection effort. I said the third motive was often the reality of politics, and helping your own reelection effort cannot by itself necessarily be deemed corrupt. In the end, it is the duty of every Senator to determine whether the President acted in a purely self-interested manner without any regard for the national interest. Given the full context of his actions, it is clear President Trump did not act in a purely selfish, boundless manner. While the question of whether a President can commit a crime and therefore be impeached is firmly settled, there arises another question this impeachment trial did not sufficiently answer but must be addressed in the future. The Constitution says it is the job of the House of Representatives to impeach a President whose trial is held before the Senate. According to current Senate rules, our body must move forward with impeachment proceedings, but is that according to the Constitution? Article I, section 3 of the Constitution states: The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two-thirds of the Members present. With this impeachment behind us, now is the time we as a body need to evaluate the constitutionality and wisdom of our rules requiring the Senate to move forward with any impeachment articles. We must reaffirm our right to dictate what is considered on the Senate floor and when it is considered, which is not without precedent. Article II, section 2 of the Constitution says: He [the President] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States. In 2016, after the passing of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, President Barack Obama appointed a Supreme Court nominee to replace him. However, with the election of a new President just months away, the Senate declared it would not consider this particular nominee and would instead let the people decide whom they would like to nominate a Supreme Court Justice. The Senate was well within its right to decide the timing and consideration, or lack thereof, of this constitutional obligation to consider judicial nominations, and the same should be true of impeachment trials. This is a question in need of an answer for future impeachment proceedings because impeachment articles brought by the House completely derail Senate legislative activity. We are unable to consider legislation, nominations, or conduct any floor activity. While I agree such an enormous responsibility should elicit our undivided attention, it seems illogical to automatically grant primacy to impeachment articles, especially those as flawed as the ones presented by House Democrats. The House's impeachment process was entirely partisan. Since the moment he was sworn in, Democrats schemed to remove Donald Trump from office. By May of 2017, 26 Democratic Members of Congress had called for the impeachment of President Trump. Speaker Pelosi herself said impeachment was 2\1/2\ years in the making. When House Democrats finally agreed on a reason to impeach the President, their vote to begin the process received no Republican votes, and multiple Democrats voted against it. It does not seem unreasonable to me that a vote to begin an impeachment inquiry which has only partisan support and bipartisan opposition--as this one did-- is not what the Founders had in mind and is what they firmly rejected and cautioned us against. ``Complaints are everywhere heard from our most considerate and virtuous citizens, equally the friends of public and private faith, and of public and personal liberty, that our governments are too unstable, that the public good is disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties, and that measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority,'' Founding Father James Madison wrote in Federalist Paper 10. ``However anxiously we may wish that these complaints had no foundation, the evidence, of known facts will not permit us to deny that they are in some degree true.'' When it came time for the House to vote on impeaching the President, the same ``overbearing majority'' outcome occurred. No minds were changed, but the country was further torn apart and the process strayed beyond the original intent of the Founding Fathers. The two Articles of Impeachment before this body were, in my view, without merit. They were an affront to this institution and to our Constitution, representing the very same partisan derangement that worried our Founding Fathers so much that they made the threshold for impeachment so high. I think it would be universally agreeable that Impeachment Articles passed by a majority of one party and opposed by members of both parties at the very least fail the spirit of the Constitution. To this point, detractors could say the partisan nature of this impeachment proceeding is the fault of Republicans who blindly follow President Trump, rather than Democrats whose hatred for this President compels them to act more than the facts in front of them. Such an argument quickly falls apart when you read the statements of Republicans who found the President's actions inappropriate but did not believe they rose to the level of impeachment. That argument further corrodes when you consider the content of the Impeachment Articles and the partisan and secretive process House Democrats followed in writing them. Fundamentally, the Articles of Impeachment were incomplete. Democrats did not complete their own investigation before drafting and ultimately passing the articles, which is why Senate Democrats spent most of their time demanding witnesses and more documents. The House also did not provide due process to the President, nor to the minority during the House investigation. In October of 2019, as the House began formally considering impeachment in earnest, Senator Lindsey Graham led several Senators in introducing S. Res. 378. It laid out specific issues we had with the House process in hopes it would remedy the situation before sending the articles to the Senate. In it, we mentioned five rights President Trump was being denied, although the House had provided similar due process to Presidents Nixon and Clinton during their impeachments. The denied rights included allowing the President to be represented by counsel, permitting the President's counsel to be present at all hearings and depositions, permitting the President's counsel to present evidence and object to the admission of evidence, allowing the President's counsel to call and cross-examine witnesses; and giving the President's counsel access to and the ability to respond to the evidence offered by the Committee. The impeachment process against President Trump had been nothing more than secretive hearings and selective leaks designed to sway public opinion and hurt the President politically. It was a hyper-partisan process completely void of due process, and that never changed until it reached the Senate. In our resolution, we also highlighted the fact that ``the main allegations against President Trump are based on assertions and testimony from witnesses whom he is unable to confront, as part of a process in which he is not able to offer witnesses in his defense or have a basic understanding of the allegations lodged against him.'' The issue of evidence, both its origin and the lack of compelling proof from the House managers, became the foundation of this impeachment. This investigation began because an anonymous national security official approached Democratic chairman Adam Schiff with a secondhand claim that President Trump sought to withhold aid to a foreign country to force it to announce it would launch an investigation into one of the President's political rivals. President Trump was quick to offer the transcript of the phone call where this allegedly occurred. He did, and it showed there was, in fact, no quid pro quo, and House Democrats in their investigation were never able to produce a firsthand witness to testify otherwise. Future Senators should be sure to note the eagerness or reluctance of an accused President to share clarifying information. President Trump took unprecedented action to release the transcript of the conversation Democrats called into question--an action he was not legally required to take and most of his predecessors have never done. Contrast that with President Nixon, who fought until the end to hide his recorded conversations because he knew the contents were damning. Contrast President Trump's actions even further with the House Democrats who pursued a secretive, one-sided process to craft the narrative they wanted. Despite several pieces of information demonstrating the President's innocence and none to the contrary, House Democrats continued this crusade. Their fixation on his removal was a conclusion in search of a justification. They manufactured criminality from a simple phone conversation between world leaders, leaked by one of the many career bureaucrats who seem to have forgotten they work for the elected leaders in this country, not the other way around. Motives matter. In the future, Senators should be vigilant in figuring out an accuser's intention. There is a common narrative that career bureaucrats are simply righteous, opinion-less civil servants. This impeachment and the actions leading up to it prove the exact opposite. By no means are all of them evil or ill-willed, but this proceeding showed they are far from unbiased, and they are capable of weaponizing the tools and access they are given. Unsurprisingly, this led to two Impeachment Articles being sent to the Senate on a party-line vote that were without merit. They were an affront to this institution and to our Constitution, representing the very same partisan derangement that worried our Founding Fathers so much they made the threshold for impeachment this high. The Founders created the Senate for moments just like this. When Impeachment Articles are sent to the Senate, it is not our job to fix the mistakes made by the House, and it is not our job to finish an investigation it admittedly did not complete. It is the Senate's solemn duty to set aside the heat of the moment, prevent short-term stress from leading to long-term decay, and deliver impartial justice. As James Madison said at the Constitutional Convention, ``The Senate is to consist in its proceeding with more coolness, with more system, and with more wisdom, than the popular branch.'' That is why, even under the cloud of purely partisan politics of the House of Representatives, the Senate conducted a complete, comprehensive trial. The obvious result of which was the conclusion that the Democratic-led House of Representatives failed to meet the most basic standards of proof and dramatically lowered the bar for impeachment in the future to unacceptable levels. With all of this established, we as a Congress and as a nation must unite around some commonsense changes, both to institutional rules and to our understanding of the impeachment process. Lowering the bar for impeachment undermines our shared democratic principles. Impeachment must be a tool employed only when the evidence is overwhelming and well-founded. We must discourage future House actions like what we just witnessed from ever occurring again. We must also find ways to take on a bureaucracy run rampant. President Trump was impeached because an unelected bureaucrat provided falsehoods to an overly receptive Democratic House chairman's office with a directive to remove President Trump. The opinion of Federal career staff is not sacrosanct. Without further action, these impeachment proceedings will be interpreted as empowering to them, rather than a reminder of who holds constitutional power. Finally, as we seek to apply the lessons learned from this historic time, I was reminded of the words Chaplain Black offered to us during his daily opening prayer. ``We must pray for God's will to be done.'' There is a higher power than any of us, and our country would benefit from remembering that more often.

Mr. CRAMER

Mr. CRAMER. Madam President, the West Fargo, ND, dance team, the Packatahnas, has returned home from the National Dance Team Competition in Florida as national high kick champions. This comes after winning championship titles competing this year with the Class A Large Varsity schools in North Dakota. It is always cause for celebration when students bring home a championship title, but this year's award is one of several the team has won. After more than eight high kick first place finishes at the State level in the past 25 years, the Packatahnas were back-to-back national champions in 2006 and 2007. Now 14 years later and after finishing ahead of 22 other national teams, it has been especially meaningful for these teammates to place another trophy in the school's award case. The passion, dedication, and time the Packatahnas devote to their dance team season rival that of other high school student athletes. For several hours every day, they first work to develop their routines. Then it is practice, practice, and more practice until they are ready for competition. At their side throughout this year was their coach, Shayla Pennick, whom they credit for her commitment to them in this successful season. Shayla knows the thrill they feel as champions because she competed with the team when the Packatahnas finished at the top 14 years ago. She deserves recognition and thanks for sharing her time and talents to help another team go as far as her high school team did. Madam President, I join the West Fargo High School, the city of West Fargo, and the rest of North Dakota in congratulating these talented Packatahnas for finishing their season as champions. They are an inspiration to all of us by demonstrating the good that can come from combining a passion for excellence with plenty of hard work.

Mr. CRAMER

Mr. CRAMER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that for the nominations just confirmed, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Mr. CRAMER

Mr. CRAMER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to legislative session for a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. CRAMER

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the only first-degree amendments in order to S. J. Res. 68 be the following: 1301, 1322, 1305, 1314, 1320, and 1319; I further ask that no second- degree amendments be in order to the amendments listed, with the exception of amendment No. 1319; that the Senate vote in relation to the amendments in the order listed at 10:30 a.m. tomorrow; and that there be 2 minutes of debate, equally divided, prior to each vote. Further, I ask unanimous consent that all debate time on S.J. Res. 68 expire at 1:45 p.m. tomorrow, with the last 40 minutes, equally divided, under the control of Senators Risch, Inhofe, Menendez, and Kaine; and finally, that upon use or yielding back of that time, the joint resolution be read a third time and the Senate vote on passage of the joint resolution, as amended, if amended, with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendments listed be called up by number en bloc.

Mr. CRAMER

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate be in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.