Joni Ernst

Ms. ERNST

Ms. ERNST. Mr. President, I rise to speak on Russia's ongoing and illegal occupation of Ukraine. Two weeks ago, I had the opportunity to travel to Ukraine where I saw firsthand the effects of nearly 5 years of Russian occupation, aggression, and hostilities suffered by the Ukrainian people. Since Russia's illegal seizure of Crimea in March of 2014 and their subsequent invasion of eastern Ukraine's Donbas region the following month, over 10,000--10,000--people have been killed and many more have been wounded or displaced in the fighting. Hiding behind so-called pro- Russian separatists in eastern Ukraine, the regime of Vladimir Putin has indiscriminately targeted both civilian and military targets, across the line of contact, in flagrant violation of the Minsk ceasefire and the law of war. In fact, shelling was occurring just 1 day prior to my visit to the Eastern Front. The Eastern Front, even saying it now, before my colleagues in the Senate, the phrase seems almost surreal and harkens back to a bygone era in which the Cold War dominated our political landscape. The first time I visited Ukraine was in 1989--1989--as part of an agricultural exchange program. The Soviet Union was on the verge of collapse, and the spirit of independence, freedom, and self- determination was gaining steam. My gracious Ukrainian hosts didn't want to discuss farming. It was an agricultural exchange, but they didn't want to discuss farming. They wanted to know what it was like to be an American. They wanted to know what it was like to have freedom and be independent. Just like the oppressive yoke of authoritarianism dominated Ukraine in 1989, it once again threatens a people who have fought hard to create a nation of laws accountable to its people and as champions of human dignity, free markets, and democratic values. With our help, Ukraine has managed to hold the line against the Russian aggressors. Our security assistance, in the form of intelligence-sharing, special operations capacity-building, and, most recently, the delivery of Javelin anti-tank weapons, has enabled the Ukrainian Armed Forces to deter further Russian advances into free Ukraine and has caused the Russian military forces in occupied Donbas to pull their tanks farther away from the frontline. Unfortunately, Russia has found other ways to attack Ukrainian interests. In November of 2018, just a few months ago, Russian naval vessels opened fire and captured three Ukrainian ships along with 24 sailors in international waters just south of the Kerch Strait. Demonstrating his contempt for the international rules-based order, Vladimir Putin is using his naval supremacy in the region to slowly strangle the Ukrainian economy, which relies, in part, on steel and grain shipping from ports in the Sea of Azov. While our military aid has been successful in assisting Ukrainian efforts along the line of contact in Donbas, future military aid must take into account Ukraine's need for defensive weapons and asymmetric capabilities to counter Russian aggression both on land and at sea. Only then can Ukraine adequately defend its people and sovereignty. In addition to hostile military action, Russian intelligence has been working to undermine the upcoming Ukrainian Presidential and parliamentary elections. Much like the interference in our own elections in 2016, Putin is seeking to sow discord, spread confusion, and undermine the democratic system that has taken root in Ukraine. This is indicative of Russia's global strategy, which seeks to drive a wedge between the United States and our allies, undermine democratic governments, and return to an era of power politics in which brute strength rather than the rule of law governs global interactions. China has adopted a similar, albeit more subtle and increasingly aggressive, strategy in Asia, with an overarching goal of displacing American global leadership. Thus, it is more important than ever for the United States to work by, with, and through our allies around the world to ensure a future in which our values of freedom, the rule of law, human rights, and free markets prevail for generations to come. Today freedom's frontier runs through the line of contact in eastern Ukraine. We must never turn our backs on a people yearning for the same freedoms we enjoy in the United States. Doing so not only legitimizes the actions of thugs--yes, thugs--around the world but will inevitably threaten our own rights and freedoms tomorrow, which many of us take for granted today. We are Americans, and we will always answer the call to preserve freedom while reaching out a hand to those who are fighting to achieve it. I yield the floor.

Ms. ERNST

Ms. ERNST. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined today on the floor by my colleagues to discuss the unprecedented levels of obstruction aimed at President Trump's nominees. This issue plagued the 115th Congress, and it is one I am hopeful we can remedy moving forward in this new session. The Senate is tasked with the critical role of providing advice and consent on many of the President's nominations, including executive branch officials and Federal judges. Vetting these officials is a task that I take extremely seriously, and I have often welcomed discussion regarding these critical appointments with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, as well as my constituents. We can all agree that these positions must be filled by our Nation's most qualified candidates, individuals who are committed to public service and upholding the values and principles that make our Nation so great. We should also be able to agree that these positions should be filled using an expedient and timely process. As any Iowa small business owner can tell you, if you don't have employees, you can't function. Iowans and many others across this Nation expect the Federal Government to run on the same commonsense principle. The recent levels of obstruction for the President's nominees have not only kept the executive branch and our Federal courts from staffing critical positions but have also prevented the Senate from moving forward on other critical legislative priorities and initiatives. In the past, the Senate has been able to disagree on certain nominations and still move forward in a respectful and expedient manner to ensure that the Federal Government operates efficiently. However, during President Trump's first Congress, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have utilized a series of procedural tactics to eat up time on the Senate floor and to stall the President's nominees. To put this in perspective, during President George W. Bush's first Congress, the Senate forced a cloture vote on nominations only 4 times. That was during President Bush's first Congress. So it was 4 times. During President Clinton's first Congress, this increased to a mere 8 cloture votes--8 cloture votes for Clinton. During President Obama's first Congress, the use of this tactic still remained minimal, with only 12 cloture votes on nominations. So it was Bush, 4; Clinton, 8; and President Obama, 12. Compare that to the use of cloture votes during the 115th Congress. My Democratic colleagues forced cloture votes 128 times--128 times. That is 10 times more often than during President Obama's first Congress. Despite that President Trump submitted nearly the same number of nominees as President Obama, 29 percent more Obama nominees than Trump nominees were confirmed during each President's respective first Congress. Yet these delays have often not been used to raise objections to controversial or unqualified nominees. That is just not the case. In fact, nearly half of all recorded cloture votes--48 percent, to be exact--received 60 or more votes to end debate. Furthermore, nearly a third received 70 or more votes to end debate. These nominees were confirmed with widespread bipartisan support. Cloture was not invoked in order to extensively debate the merits or the qualifications of those candidates. Instead, this procedural tactic has been used to run down the clock and prevent the Senate from moving forward with other important business. Many nominees from my home State of Iowa have been fortunate enough to escape some of these political games. I was proud to see the Senate reach an agreement in September to move forward and confirm Judge C.J. Williams to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa by a 79-to-12 vote. I am also glad that multiple U.S. marshals and U.S. attorneys have been able to fill critical Federal law enforcement positions in Iowa after being confirmed by a voice vote in the Senate. However, while many of these positions have been filled back in my home State, Iowans are still greatly harmed when the Senate fails to efficiently fill executive branch positions whose duties do impact the entire Nation. Furthermore, many States across our Nation have faced unnecessary challenges to filling critical positions after cloture was invoked for noncontroversial nominees. Take a State like Alabama, for example. Judge Annemarie Carney Axon received bipartisan support from both of her home State Senators for her nomination to serve on the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. However, Democrats forced a cloture vote on her nomination before confirming her by a vote of 83 to 11. Similarly, Judge Terry Doughty was confirmed to be a judge on the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana by a 98-to-0 vote after a forced cloture vote. These are not isolated examples. Just last year, multiple district judge nominees in Kentucky and Texas received the support of more than 90 Senators, but only after their nomination was first stalled, again, by an unnecessary cloture vote. We cannot continue to allow the Senate to be bogged down by unprecedented obstruction tactics. The American people expect and deserve a fully functioning government with the right personnel in place. That is why I want to thank Leader McConnell for continuing to make nominations such a priority and managing to confirm so many Federal judges, despite these tactics. I also thank my colleagues, Senators Blunt and Lankford, for introducing a proposal that accelerates the nomination process for lower level nominees. This commonsense proposal builds on the previous Reid-Schumer rule affecting Senate considerations of Obama nominees during the 113th Congress--a rule that garnered widespread bipartisan support, including the agreement of 35 of my Democratic colleagues who still serve in the Senate today. I urge my colleagues to support this reasonable proposal that enables us to move forward in a timely manner while still encouraging input and debate on those candidates. It is time for the Senate to put a halt to these delay tactics and get back to fulfilling our commitments to the American people. Again, I urge support of the proposal. I yield the floor.

Ms. ERNST

Ms. ERNST. Mr. President, this evening, as we debate this very important bill, I am hearing two different strategies, two different discussions, about what is actually on the floor in front of us. You see, my colleagues across the aisle are debating a bill that is not in front of us. They are talking about healthcare for women, which is abortion. That is what they are talking about. This bill does not address abortion. It does not address women's healthcare issues. What this bill does is address the healthcare of a baby who is born alive after a botched abortion. We are not talking about abortion, folks. We are talking about the life of a child who is born. So, while my colleagues across the aisle are saying this is about abortion, that this is about a mother's healthcare, that is absolutely incorrect. We are talking about a human life. In recent weeks, we have witnessed the ugly truth about the far- reaching grasp of the abortion industry and its ever-increasingly radicalized political agenda. Some politicians have not only defended aborting a child while a woman is in labor but have gone so far as to support the termination of a child after his birth. This assault on human dignity cannot stand. We can and must do better, and we can as a nation do better to defend and uphold the basic values of compassion and decency that define our very society. I thank the junior Senator from Nebraska for offering this commonsense legislation that addresses this issue in a compassionate manner and provides critical protections for children who are born alive after surviving abortions. Although previous laws were passed that recognize infants born alive during abortion proceedings as legal persons, there still exists a critical loophole that prevents abortionists from being held accountable for failing to follow these very laws. This legislation closes the gap and ensures that there are concrete enforcement measures to protect children who survive abortion attempts. We can all agree that any child who is born alive, whether through a natural birth or a botched abortion, is a living person, a person who is worthy of the utmost dignity, compassion, and respect. This legislation ensures just that by simply requiring healthcare practitioners to treat those babies who survive an abortion attempt with the same degree of care any other baby born at the same gestational age would receive. This legislation is not meant to punish women or mothers during an often heart-wrenching and difficult experience. In fact, this legislation specifically prohibits mothers from being prosecuted. Instead, this bill quite simply imposes penalties for the intentional killing of a baby who has been born alive. Today, we have an opportunity to categorically reject infanticide by ensuring that the laws we have on the books preventing this abhorrent practice are meaningfully enforced and that those who fail to follow such laws can be held accountable. I urge my colleagues to set aside partisanship and support this much needed, compassionate solution. We as a nation can do better. We must protect those babies who are born alive. I yield the floor.

Ms. ERNST

Ms. ERNST. Madam President, during this Valentines Day week, folks around the country are taking a moment to express their love to one another. I have the great fortune to be the junior Senator from the great State of Iowa, so I wanted to take a moment to share just how much I love my home State of Iowa. Iowa truly is where my heart is, from its beautiful farmland to its streams and rolling hills, Boyden to Brandon, Fairview, Farragut, and Fort Madison, and Keokuk to Rock Rapids and all the places in between. Iowa has been so very good to me, and it has so much to offer. Nothing is better to me than grabbing a slice of our hometown Casey's pizza and catching a sunset on a beautiful Iowa day or on a snowy cold one if you happen to be there right now. I could spend hours mentioning the things I love about Iowa, but I wanted to take the time to mention just a few. I love how Iowans are politically engaged. There is a reason why the Iowa caucuses are the heartbeat of America's political scene and why politicians line up to eat corn dogs, fried Oreos, and hot beef sundaes at our impressive Iowa State Fair. Iowans voice their opinions, they show up to vote, and they hold us accountable. I appreciate that spirit and that patriotism. Interacting with fellow Iowans is one of my favorite parts of the 99- county tour that I do every year. I visit every single county, every last one of Iowa's 99. I also want to show love to Iowa's working parents. Moms and dads across Iowa are working hard every single day to make ends meet, put food on their tables, and provide their families with a bright future. The love of their children drives them, and they are doing a great job. Their drive to succeed pushes me to look for tools to help them better achieve their goals. One area is the issue of paid leave. It is an issue that is very important to me because data shows that newborns who have the time to bond with their parents have better health outcomes. As a conservative, I want to see an approach that is voluntary and budget neutral and that preserves jobs and is a win-win not only for the economy but also employees. I think those policy solutions are out there. I do. I have been working with my colleague Senator Mike Lee on this, and we will be vocalizing these initiatives in the coming days. I love, love, love Iowa's small towns and our rural communities. Folks in Iowa's small towns, like my hometown of Red Oak--we stick together. We watch out for each other, and we help each other out when tragedy strikes. I am reminded of a time many years ago when a farmer in one of our local communities was injured when he was out ranching with his cattle. He had row crops that needed to be brought in for the harvest. He was so severely injured, he later succumbed to those injuries, and his widow was left with a standing crop. It only took one phone call to the local radio station to mobilize tractors, wagons, and combines to bring in the harvest for that family. One phone call made a difference. These small towns and small communities rely on each other. They don't rely on the Federal Government to come in and solve their problems. We take care of each other. Our rural communities are home to thousands of amazing and thriving small businesses, our churches giving hope to the world, baseball fields filled with youngsters hoping to hit a home run, families hunting and fishing together, sometimes three generations all at once, motorcycles on long winding roads, and the local post office not only knowing where you live but your name and your kids' names too. These small towns are why I have spent a great deal of time in Washington working to keep government accountable, decrease job-killing regulations, and ensure that small businesses keep rumbling. Rural communities truly are the heart of this Nation and my great State of Iowa. I also love Iowa's veterans. As a veteran myself, I know how difficult it can be to navigate the bureaucracy and other hurdles of the VA system. Unfortunately, we haven't always given our veterans the best care we could, and it has been my mission to change that. Speaking of mission, late last year we passed the VA MISSION Act to help put veterans in the driving seat when it comes to their own care. We still have more to do in that area, particularly in terms of helping those with PTSD and other mental health concerns and reducing suicide rates and veteran homelessness. These folks have sacrificed so much for our country. We owe them a debt of gratitude, and we owe it to them to ensure they are receiving the highest possible care. As I mentioned, I could go on for hours talking about the things I love about Iowa. I only had a few minutes with you today on the floor, but I wanted to express my gratitude to such a great State. Thank you, Iowans, for truly being the best people on Earth to represent and to Iowa for being the greatest place to call home. My heart is with you. Happy Valentine's Day. Thank you. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. ERNST

Ms. ERNST. Mr. President, today I rise to speak on the strength of the U.S. economy, and I would like to thank my colleagues who have joined me here on the floor to address this very important topic. As President Trump said in last night's State of the Union, ``Our economy is thriving like never before.'' Last Friday's January jobs report was a continued good-news story, with 304,000 new jobs added just last month. It is also an example of how Republican pro-growth policies are getting people back to work. Job growth was strong across most sectors, including manufacturing, where 261,000 jobs were created over the last year. Just as important, this economic growth has put upward pressure on wages, with the average hourly pay increasing by 3.2 percent from last year. Lower wage workers saw some of the biggest increases. This means more money in your pockets to put food on the table and provide for growing families. The tight labor market has drawn workers off of the sidelines, and that is a good thing. Folks who have been unemployed or underemployed are finding work, and those seeking to shift to a better paying job or one with better hours that is closer to home are finding those opportunities. Nowhere is the power of this job creation more evident than in my home State of Iowa, where the 2.4-percent unemployment rate is the lowest in the Nation. There are 64,000-plus jobs currently open in Iowa. Over 1.6 million Iowans are employed, which is the most in our State's history. Every time I meet with an employer from my home State, they tell me about the challenges of filling jobs in order to keep their businesses running. They want to hire people, and business is booming. Under Republican pro-growth policies and the leadership of Governor Kim Reynolds, Iowa's economy continues to expand, and wages are increasing across the State. I also agree with the President that ``no one has benefited more from our thriving economy than women, who have filled 58 percent of the new jobs created in the last year.'' Women are also becoming small business owners at increasing rates across Iowa. These ``girl bosses'' are creating jobs and helping Iowa's economy to rumble. Yes, ladies, Iowa is the place to be. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act has allowed Iowa's job creators to invest in their workers and grow their businesses. For example, a business in Dyersville, IA, invested 75 percent of its tax savings last year into its employees, giving $800 bonuses to the 162 full-time workers. One of its employees said she planned to put her bonus into her retirement fund--an investment in her future. Furthermore, cutting redtape and scaling back burdensome regulations have led to a surge in small business optimism. A December survey from the Iowa Association of Business and Industry found that 97 percent of respondents planned to make capital expenditures this quarter, while a majority expected to add new employees and 72 percent expected to see sales growth. Recent achievements--from opioid abuse efforts to criminal justice reform--will help transform our job pool to help fill the needs of today and tomorrow, helping people get back on their feet and back to work. I also know that millions of working mothers, fathers, grandparents, and families across the country struggle with the realities of childbirth and infant care while working hard to raise strong and healthy families. It is long overdue that Congress not just have a conversation on these matters but that we get serious about a path forward on a paid leave approach. I am glad the President highlighted this issue in the State of the Union last night. Some are fortunate enough to have paid benefits provided by their employers, but many families in America do not have that luxury. For the past few months, I have been working on this issue with my colleague, Senator Mike Lee. Helping families is an issue we can all agree on, and I hope we can have a productive dialogue on how Congress can best help in a way that keeps our economy strong. Simply put, when Washington gives power back to Main Street, American families win. Sadly, over the last few weeks, I have heard my Democratic colleagues propose a Green New Deal that would raise energy prices for consumers by as much as $3,800 per family a year and proposals to impose tax rates as high as 70 percent. If allowed to move forward, these proposals would reverse some of the economic progress we have seen. They would change our Nation's direction from freedom, innovation, and job facilitation to more heavyhanded regulation. This far-left agenda offers little for small businesses seeking to grow to bigger ones, families seeking to increase their take-home pay, or workers trying to climb the ladder to full economic success. That is not a future that looks bright to me, and it isn't one that gives Americans a path toward prosperity. I am very proud of our achievements, and I am thankful for the leadership of the President and folks willing to work together to get our economy moving. There is more work yet to be done, and I look forward to seeing our economy continue to achieve new heights. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Ms. ERNST

Ms. ERNST. Mr. President, I rise today very, very disheartened, and I do want to thank the junior Senator from Nebraska for having this very difficult discussion on the floor of the Senate. As my colleague from Nebraska was speaking, I felt a tightness in my chest. I am a mom. I have been through childbirth, and I can't imagine anyone taking my child, setting her aside, and then having a discussion on whether she should live or die. I can't imagine that. I can't imagine, after having such a precious thing as a child brought into the world, having these odious discussions of whether she should live. I can't imagine putting a baby through that. So I am disheartened and I am absolutely appalled by the debate we have in front of us--a debate I would have once considered unfathomable on the floor of the U.S. Senate. Many have often referred to this as the world's greatest deliberative body, but let me be clear, folks. There is nothing great, there is nothing moral or even humane about the discussion we have before us today. Over the past week, we have witnessed the absolutely ugly truth about the far-reaching grasp of the abortion industry and its increasingly radicalized political agenda. Politicians have not only defended aborting a child while a woman is in labor but have gone so far as to support the termination of a child after his or her birth--a child--a baby. Rationality, decency, and basic human compassion have fallen by the wayside. Somehow this conversation has devolved so completely that a bill prohibiting the murder of children who are born alive--a bill that simply prohibits infanticide--has tonight been blocked on the floor of the Senate. We have moved beyond all common sense, and this body can no longer unanimously condemn murder. We face a moral crisis when this body refuses to acknowledge the repugnancy and savagery of infanticide. This assault on human dignity cannot stand. I urge my colleagues to set aside their partisanship and, instead, defend the most basic values of compassion and decency that should define our society. We can and we must do better, folks. Again, I thank the junior Senator from the great State of Nebraska for his leadership on this issue, and I call on my colleagues to bring this commonsense legislation to the Senate floor for a vote. I also implore my colleagues. Thank you. I yield the floor.

Ms. ERNST

Ms. ERNST. Thank you, Mr. President. Today I rise on the 3-year anniversary of the tragic death of a constituent of mine, Sarah Root. On January 31, 2016, the same day as her college graduation, Sarah was killed in nearby Omaha, NE, by an illegal immigrant named Edwin Mejia. He was drag racing with a blood alcohol level more than three times the legal limit. Despite requests by local law enforcement, Immigration and Customs Enforcement failed to detain Mejia because of a nonsensical policy that allows ICE to use discretion when determining whether to detain an illegal immigrant. He posted bond, he was released, and 3 years later remains a fugitive. It has been 3 years, and he is still a fugitive, denying Sarah's loved ones any sense of closure or justice. As a mom, I can't fathom the grief her family and friends continue to feel after such a devastating loss. My own daughter is approaching the age at which Sarah was killed. Just 21 years old, Sarah was bright, she was gifted, she was full of life and ready to take on the world. What a talented young lady. She had just graduated from Bellevue University with a 4.0 GPA. She was dedicated to her community, and she wanted to pursue a career in criminal justice. Sarah had her whole future ahead of her, but her opportunity to make her mark on the world was taken away from her. Her life was tragically cut short. Yet even in death, Sarah touched the lives of others. Sarah saved six different individuals through her organ donation. Sadly, what happened to Sarah Root is not an isolated incident. We have seen this story play out time and again in the 3 years since Sarah's killing--innocent lives taken by criminals who entered the United States illegally through a porous border. Crimes committed by those here illegally are truly among the most heartbreaking and senseless, and that is because these crimes are completely preventable, as the perpetrators should not be in the United States in the first place. Although nothing can bring Sarah back to her family, we can ensure that ICE never makes this same mistake again. That is why I rise today and, again, join with my colleagues from Iowa and Nebraska, including the Presiding Officer; thank you again for joining in this legislation. We are introducing Sarah's Law again in honor of Sarah Root. Sarah's Law would require that ICE take custody of a person who is in the country illegally and who is charged with a crime that seriously injures another person. Sarah's Law would also require better victim notification and amend the law to require that the Federal Government take custody of anyone who enters the United States legally but violated the terms of their immigration status or had their visa revoked and is later charged with a crime that resulted in the death or harm of another person. President Trump implemented parts of Sarah's Law through an Executive order in 2017, and I commend him for that. It included directing the Secretary of Homeland Security to prioritize the removal of criminals who are here illegally. The Executive order also establishes an office to implement notification requirements of Sarah's Law. Despite provisions of Sarah's Law being put into place by President Trump's order, it is critical that the Senate take up this legislation in order to codify these enforcement priorities so that any future administration cannot remove these provisions. No family should ever have to endure such a tragedy, especially one that could have been prevented. The fact remains that Sarah's killer would not have been in our country if it weren't for our country's broken immigration system. Sarah's Law is commonsense reform. It recognizes the simple fact that all criminals should be held accountable for their actions. How much more commonsense can this be, folks? Hold criminals accountable. We should not allow them simply to slip back into the shadows. I recognize that the immigration debate has become a political football. We see that every day here in Washington, DC, but the security of our borders and enforcement of our immigration laws is not a game. We must honor the lives of these innocent victims and do better. We must work to stop future crimes. I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues to fulfill the promise I made to Sarah's loving parents, Michelle Root and Scott Root. I will do everything I can to ensure that not one more parent has to go through what the Roots have faced--the loss of their daughter and the promise of justice. Madam President, I thank you for joining me on this legislation. It means a lot to this family and many others.

Ms. ERNST

Ms. ERNST. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. ERNST

Ms. ERNST. Thank you, Mr. President. Today I rise on the 3-year anniversary of the tragic death of a constituent of mine, Sarah Root. On January 31, 2016, the same day as her college graduation, Sarah was killed in nearby Omaha, NE, by an illegal immigrant named Edwin Mejia. He was drag racing with a blood alcohol level more than three times the legal limit. Despite requests by local law enforcement, Immigration and Customs Enforcement failed to detain Mejia because of a nonsensical policy that allows ICE to use discretion when determining whether to detain an illegal immigrant. He posted bond, he was released, and 3 years later remains a fugitive. It has been 3 years, and he is still a fugitive, denying Sarah's loved ones any sense of closure or justice. As a mom, I can't fathom the grief her family and friends continue to feel after such a devastating loss. My own daughter is approaching the age at which Sarah was killed. Just 21 years old, Sarah was bright, she was gifted, she was full of life and ready to take on the world. What a talented young lady. She had just graduated from Bellevue University with a 4.0 GPA. She was dedicated to her community, and she wanted to pursue a career in criminal justice. Sarah had her whole future ahead of her, but her opportunity to make her mark on the world was taken away from her. Her life was tragically cut short. Yet even in death, Sarah touched the lives of others. Sarah saved six different individuals through her organ donation. Sadly, what happened to Sarah Root is not an isolated incident. We have seen this story play out time and again in the 3 years since Sarah's killing--innocent lives taken by criminals who entered the United States illegally through a porous border. Crimes committed by those here illegally are truly among the most heartbreaking and senseless, and that is because these crimes are completely preventable, as the perpetrators should not be in the United States in the first place. Although nothing can bring Sarah back to her family, we can ensure that ICE never makes this same mistake again. That is why I rise today and, again, join with my colleagues from Iowa and Nebraska, including the Presiding Officer; thank you again for joining in this legislation. We are introducing Sarah's Law again in honor of Sarah Root. Sarah's Law would require that ICE take custody of a person who is in the country illegally and who is charged with a crime that seriously injures another person. Sarah's Law would also require better victim notification and amend the law to require that the Federal Government take custody of anyone who enters the United States legally but violated the terms of their immigration status or had their visa revoked and is later charged with a crime that resulted in the death or harm of another person. President Trump implemented parts of Sarah's Law through an Executive order in 2017, and I commend him for that. It included directing the Secretary of Homeland Security to prioritize the removal of criminals who are here illegally. The Executive order also establishes an office to implement notification requirements of Sarah's Law. Despite provisions of Sarah's Law being put into place by President Trump's order, it is critical that the Senate take up this legislation in order to codify these enforcement priorities so that any future administration cannot remove these provisions. No family should ever have to endure such a tragedy, especially one that could have been prevented. The fact remains that Sarah's killer would not have been in our country if it weren't for our country's broken immigration system. Sarah's Law is commonsense reform. It recognizes the simple fact that all criminals should be held accountable for their actions. How much more commonsense can this be, folks? Hold criminals accountable. We should not allow them simply to slip back into the shadows. I recognize that the immigration debate has become a political football. We see that every day here in Washington, DC, but the security of our borders and enforcement of our immigration laws is not a game. We must honor the lives of these innocent victims and do better. We must work to stop future crimes. I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues to fulfill the promise I made to Sarah's loving parents, Michelle Root and Scott Root. I will do everything I can to ensure that not one more parent has to go through what the Roots have faced--the loss of their daughter and the promise of justice. Madam President, I thank you for joining me on this legislation. It means a lot to this family and many others.

Ms. ERNST

Ms. ERNST. I thank Senator Murkowski and Senator Cardin for their leadership today in organizing this floor colloquy, and I thank the Presiding Officer. I want to join my colleagues in expressing how urgent it is that we not only secure our borders but that we open our government. We really do have to come together. We have two sides of the aisle here, our Democrat and Republican friends. Certainly we can come to a solution. We have to figure out a path forward, folks, and I am glad we are here to do that. We have a duty to provide for our Nation's security, and it is also our job to fund the government. We just voted on a sensible and smart proposal offered by the President that every Democrat and Republican should have supported, but, unfortunately, it was rejected today. Back home, hard-working Iowans and, of course, Americans all across the country are tired of government shutdowns, and they are disappointed in the dysfunction of Washington, DC. The impacts of this government shutdown are tangible for families. They feel it. People are hurting all across this Nation. Most families don't have a rainy day fund. Money lasts only so long when you have zero income. Prolonged periods without a paycheck are unsustainable. I have a friend who works for Federal law enforcement. Fortunately, he is up in seniority, but he told me the other day: Joni, our young Federal workers--they just can't make ends meet. Children don't stop growing; people don't stop getting sick; and the obligations of caring for families don't stop just because we have. Washington has stopped working, folks. We have to get it together. I have heard from businesses on the brink of collapse. I have heard from first-time home buyers who are trapped in limbo right now, and there are serious consequences that I have heard about from our farmers who work every day with the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the USDA. Our food banks, churches, and other charities, which spend their time and resources helping families and communities through these tough times, helping furloughed workers and those who are in need, are running out of resources. They are running out of time. It can last only so long. We need our DOJ working to stop crime and violence. We need our vital government Agencies back up and running. We can do that. I support a stronger border, and I support the President's sensible proposal, which does include a barrier, manpower, ports of entry, technology, and infrastructure. I think it is necessary that these investments be part of an overall deal. Our lack of border security has resulted in a humanitarian crisis at the border. We have tens of thousands of illegal and inadmissible immigrants on our southern border every month. I agree with President Trump and many of my colleagues that securing our southern border is a must-do to discourage illegal immigration, curb human trafficking, stop drugs, stop gun trafficking, in addition to stopping the ability of gangs and terrorists to exploit the holes in our system. The American people expect us to do better. We have an opportunity to step up and do the right thing, and that is to find a solution. We have to do it by working together. I again thank all of my colleagues for coming together today on the floor. Senator Cardin, Senator Murkowski, thank you for organizing the effort. Hopefully, we will come to a solution. Folks, the Nation is watching us. We can do better. I yield the floor.

Ms. ERNST

Ms. ERNST. Thank you very much to my colleagues, the Senator from Nebraska, the Senator from Mississippi, as well as our other colleague, the Senator from Missouri. Thank you for joining us on the floor today to express our support for those who march for life. Thank you so much. As my colleagues can attest, the invaluable message being shared by the pro-life community this week has implications far beyond that of simply the March for Life. As I travel across my home State of Iowa, I see this life-affirming message in our pregnancy resource centers, maternity homes, and adoption agencies. These comprehensive on-the- ground services provide women and families with service options that are changing and saving lives every single day. These life-affirming services are the foundation of the pro-life movement across our Nation, and I sincerely thank those centers and agencies for their critical work to fight for vulnerable lives throughout the year. I see the same message in the remarkable stories of individual families, such as the Pickering family from Newton, IA. I have had the opportunity to share the phenomenal story of Micah Pickering on the Senate floor before. As you may recall, Micah was born at just 20 weeks postfertilization. He was only about the size of a bag of M&M's--the size of the palm of my hand. That was Micah. Yet Micah was also a perfect, fully-formed baby boy, with 10 fingers and 10 toes. In fact, no one makes his case more eloquently than Micah himself. When I first met Micah, I had a picture of him displayed in my office from the day that he was born--again, the size of the palm of my hand. Micah immediately ran up to that picture. He pointed at it, and he said: ``Baby.'' Micah recognized right away that even at just 20 weeks postfertilization, the humanity of the child was undeniable. Micah's parents and the doctors and nurses at the University of Iowa Hospitals & Clinics recognized this humanity, as well, and were dedicated to his survival. Today Micah is a happy, healthy, and energetic 6-year-old boy. Stories like Micah's are extraordinary reminders that the life- affirming services, for which the pro-life community marches, have real and significant impacts on the lives of families across America. Since coming to Congress, I have also tried to do my part to ensure that this message from those in my home State of Iowa and from other communities all across the Nation is taken back and turned into action in Washington. For me, that has meant supporting crucial pro-life initiatives, such as the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, which would prevent abortions after 20 weeks of development--the very same age at which my dear Micah was born. Another critical piece of legislation, the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, would create concrete enforcement provisions to hold abortionists accountable if they do not provide the same degree of care to a baby who survives an abortion as they would any child born naturally premature at that same age. Fighting for commonsense legislation that protects innocent life has been a priority of mine in the Senate. But Congress must also do more to ensure that taxpayers are not forced to subsidize abortion or the abortion industry giants, such as Planned Parenthood. During the 115th Congress, I led the fight in the Senate to pass critical legislation, which was signed into law in 2017, that ensures States are not forced to provide entities like Planned Parenthood, the Nation's single largest provider of abortions, with Federal title X dollars. I am grateful to have worked with former Congresswoman Diane Black, my Senate colleagues, and President Trump to make sure States are not forced to award providers like Planned Parenthood with taxpayer dollars like title X family planning grants. As I have stated time and again, taxpayers should not be forced to foot the bill for roughly one-half billion dollars annually for an organization like Planned Parenthood, which exhibits such disrespect for human life. With that in mind, today I reintroduced legislation that would defund Planned Parenthood while still protecting vital funding for women's healthcare services. Contrary to what they claim, Planned Parenthood is not the Nation's preeminent provider of women's healthcare. In fact, Planned Parenthood facilities do not even perform in-house mammograms; something so simple is not performed by Planned Parenthood. On the other hand, just as my colleague the senior Senator from Nebraska stated, community health centers continue to greatly outnumber Planned Parenthood clinics nationwide and provide more comprehensive preventive and primary health services, including cervical and breast cancer screenings, diagnostic laboratory and radiology services, well childcare, prenatal and postnatal care, immunizations, and so much more. Access to comprehensive health services is absolutely critical to women and families across this Nation, and federally qualified health centers offer such services, regardless of a person's ability to pay. A recent GAO study that I requested, along with many of my colleagues in both the House and the Senate, showed that over a 3-year period, federally qualified health centers served 25 million individuals compared to only 2.4 million individuals that Planned Parenthood served. That is more than 10 times more people served by those healthcare centers. Furthermore, a recent Marist poll shows that 54 percent of Americans do not support taxpayer dollars going toward abortions. While there are Federal regulations that prevent Federal dollars from directly covering abortion, these laws are governed by a complicated patchwork of policies and funding riders that must be reapproved during the appropriations process every single year. Since 1976, the Hyde amendment has been attached to appropriations bills in order to block Federal funds from paying for abortions. However, this policy, which once drew widespread bipartisan support, has recently been under attack. For the first time ever, the Affordable Care Act authorized and appropriated funds that bypassed the Hyde amendment funding restrictions. In 2016, the Democratic Party added the repeal of the Hyde amendment protections to its Presidential platform. The Hyde amendment is a longstanding and critical provision that protects Federal dollars and ensures that taxpayers are not footing the bill for abortion procedures. That is why I support the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act of 2019, which was recently reintroduced in the Senate. This legislation would permanently codify the Hyde amendment, ensuring that funding restrictions remain in place and are applied to all Federal programs. Furthermore, this bill takes important steps to eliminate certain tax benefits related to abortions and improve disclosure requirements related to insurance coverage of abortion. Preventing our taxpayer dollars from paying for abortion procedures-- a position that a majority of Americans agree with--should not be a complicated process vulnerable to partisan attack. Congress must take steps to ensure that permanent protections apply governmentwide. As such, I urge the Senate to consider the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Disclosure Act on the floor in order to protect not only our taxpayer dollars but the innocent lives of our most vulnerable. I appreciate all of the marchers who will be coming to Washington, DC, in the following days and spending their time in a most worthy effort, which is our annual March for Life. God bless them all. Of course, God bless my Iowans for that journey. Thank you very much.

Ms. ERNST

Ms. ERNST. Thank you very much to my colleagues, the Senator from Nebraska, the Senator from Mississippi, as well as our other colleague, the Senator from Missouri. Thank you for joining us on the floor today to express our support for those who march for life. Thank you so much. As my colleagues can attest, the invaluable message being shared by the pro-life community this week has implications far beyond that of simply the March for Life. As I travel across my home State of Iowa, I see this life-affirming message in our pregnancy resource centers, maternity homes, and adoption agencies. These comprehensive on-the- ground services provide women and families with service options that are changing and saving lives every single day. These life-affirming services are the foundation of the pro-life movement across our Nation, and I sincerely thank those centers and agencies for their critical work to fight for vulnerable lives throughout the year. I see the same message in the remarkable stories of individual families, such as the Pickering family from Newton, IA. I have had the opportunity to share the phenomenal story of Micah Pickering on the Senate floor before. As you may recall, Micah was born at just 20 weeks postfertilization. He was only about the size of a bag of M&M's--the size of the palm of my hand. That was Micah. Yet Micah was also a perfect, fully-formed baby boy, with 10 fingers and 10 toes. In fact, no one makes his case more eloquently than Micah himself. When I first met Micah, I had a picture of him displayed in my office from the day that he was born--again, the size of the palm of my hand. Micah immediately ran up to that picture. He pointed at it, and he said: ``Baby.'' Micah recognized right away that even at just 20 weeks postfertilization, the humanity of the child was undeniable. Micah's parents and the doctors and nurses at the University of Iowa Hospitals & Clinics recognized this humanity, as well, and were dedicated to his survival. Today Micah is a happy, healthy, and energetic 6-year-old boy. Stories like Micah's are extraordinary reminders that the life- affirming services, for which the pro-life community marches, have real and significant impacts on the lives of families across America. Since coming to Congress, I have also tried to do my part to ensure that this message from those in my home State of Iowa and from other communities all across the Nation is taken back and turned into action in Washington. For me, that has meant supporting crucial pro-life initiatives, such as the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, which would prevent abortions after 20 weeks of development--the very same age at which my dear Micah was born. Another critical piece of legislation, the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, would create concrete enforcement provisions to hold abortionists accountable if they do not provide the same degree of care to a baby who survives an abortion as they would any child born naturally premature at that same age. Fighting for commonsense legislation that protects innocent life has been a priority of mine in the Senate. But Congress must also do more to ensure that taxpayers are not forced to subsidize abortion or the abortion industry giants, such as Planned Parenthood. During the 115th Congress, I led the fight in the Senate to pass critical legislation, which was signed into law in 2017, that ensures States are not forced to provide entities like Planned Parenthood, the Nation's single largest provider of abortions, with Federal title X dollars. I am grateful to have worked with former Congresswoman Diane Black, my Senate colleagues, and President Trump to make sure States are not forced to award providers like Planned Parenthood with taxpayer dollars like title X family planning grants. As I have stated time and again, taxpayers should not be forced to foot the bill for roughly one-half billion dollars annually for an organization like Planned Parenthood, which exhibits such disrespect for human life. With that in mind, today I reintroduced legislation that would defund Planned Parenthood while still protecting vital funding for women's healthcare services. Contrary to what they claim, Planned Parenthood is not the Nation's preeminent provider of women's healthcare. In fact, Planned Parenthood facilities do not even perform in-house mammograms; something so simple is not performed by Planned Parenthood. On the other hand, just as my colleague the senior Senator from Nebraska stated, community health centers continue to greatly outnumber Planned Parenthood clinics nationwide and provide more comprehensive preventive and primary health services, including cervical and breast cancer screenings, diagnostic laboratory and radiology services, well childcare, prenatal and postnatal care, immunizations, and so much more. Access to comprehensive health services is absolutely critical to women and families across this Nation, and federally qualified health centers offer such services, regardless of a person's ability to pay. A recent GAO study that I requested, along with many of my colleagues in both the House and the Senate, showed that over a 3-year period, federally qualified health centers served 25 million individuals compared to only 2.4 million individuals that Planned Parenthood served. That is more than 10 times more people served by those healthcare centers. Furthermore, a recent Marist poll shows that 54 percent of Americans do not support taxpayer dollars going toward abortions. While there are Federal regulations that prevent Federal dollars from directly covering abortion, these laws are governed by a complicated patchwork of policies and funding riders that must be reapproved during the appropriations process every single year. Since 1976, the Hyde amendment has been attached to appropriations bills in order to block Federal funds from paying for abortions. However, this policy, which once drew widespread bipartisan support, has recently been under attack. For the first time ever, the Affordable Care Act authorized and appropriated funds that bypassed the Hyde amendment funding restrictions. In 2016, the Democratic Party added the repeal of the Hyde amendment protections to its Presidential platform. The Hyde amendment is a longstanding and critical provision that protects Federal dollars and ensures that taxpayers are not footing the bill for abortion procedures. That is why I support the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act of 2019, which was recently reintroduced in the Senate. This legislation would permanently codify the Hyde amendment, ensuring that funding restrictions remain in place and are applied to all Federal programs. Furthermore, this bill takes important steps to eliminate certain tax benefits related to abortions and improve disclosure requirements related to insurance coverage of abortion. Preventing our taxpayer dollars from paying for abortion procedures-- a position that a majority of Americans agree with--should not be a complicated process vulnerable to partisan attack. Congress must take steps to ensure that permanent protections apply governmentwide. As such, I urge the Senate to consider the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Disclosure Act on the floor in order to protect not only our taxpayer dollars but the innocent lives of our most vulnerable. I appreciate all of the marchers who will be coming to Washington, DC, in the following days and spending their time in a most worthy effort, which is our annual March for Life. God bless them all. Of course, God bless my Iowans for that journey. Thank you very much.

Ms. ERNST

Ms. ERNST. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined on the floor by Senator Blunt, Senator Wicker, and Senator Fischer to speak about the importance of protecting and celebrating life. This Friday, Americans from every State in our Nation, from our tiny rural towns to our bustling urban cities, will gather in our Nation's Capital to participate in the 46th annual March for Life. Each year, I am amazed and inspired by the immeasurable strength, compassion, and support demonstrated by the pro-life community, as hundreds of thousands of its members come to Washington, DC, and tirelessly work to protect the most vulnerable in our society--the unborn. As members of the Senate Values Action Team, throughout the year, we are blessed with the opportunity to work with and hear from so many who are committed to protecting human life at all stages. I thank my colleagues for sharing this message of life today, and at this time I would like to yield to the Senator from Missouri.

Ms. ERNST. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. ERNST

Ms. ERNST. Mr. President, I rise to speak on U.S. national defense. In the last couple of years, we have made tremendous progress in strengthening our military and have effectively realigned our global posture and strategy. Under the new national defense strategy, the United States has rightfully recognized the return to great power competition, where our priorities have shifted from low-intensity conflict to posturing against peer and near-peer adversaries. Over the last 17 years of combat in the Middle East, U.S. dominance and deterrence against great power competitors have diminished. Meanwhile, nations like China and Russia have undertaken extraordinary military modernization efforts while engaging in unprecedented and destabilizing aggression. We have seen Russian intrusions in cyberspace, the illegal annexation of Crimea, information attacks on Western democratic institutions, and the spread of lies, half-truths, and slander in order to sow division and chaos between the United States and other partners. These gray-zone activities, which are actions below the level that would provoke an armed conflict, have gone mainly unchecked by the United States, which has set a troubling precedent and only serve to encourage further provocation. From China, we see these gray-zone techniques manifested in their land reclamation in the South China Sea, the construction of their first foreign military installations in Djibouti, and the continuing theft of intellectual property and trade secrets in critical security areas. They have also greatly undermined our supply chain through the Made in China 2025 initiative, which seeks to ensure that the United States and others remain reliant on the Chinese industrial base. Above all, the United States is threatened by Russia's and China's advances in emerging technology. This includes hypersonic weapons, artificial intelligence, space capabilities, quantum computing, and directed energy. Without significant resources and focus, we will lose our technological superiority in these very areas, and both U.S. national security and the global order will be in serious jeopardy. Building off of our successes from the last 2 years, Congress and the executive branch must remain committed to investing in research, development, rapid acquisition, and the deployment of capabilities that provide for deterrence in line with the threats of the 21st century. Just as we rose to the challenge in the two World Wars, the Cold War, and following the attacks on September 11, 2001, we must, once again, evaluate our current posture and chart a course that best protects our national security and our interests. While the national defense strategy correctly prioritizes a return to great power competition, we still have great national security threats in the low-intensity domain, particularly in the Middle East and in North Africa. The success of our missions in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, and Africa are important. They can be seen in our ability to prevent extremist groups from projecting attacks into the U.S. homeland. Through the heroic and dedicated service of our men and women in uniform, we have put unyielding pressure on foreign terrorists and, in turn, we have prevented another massive attack like we saw on 9/11. While we have seen tremendous battlefield success against groups like the Islamic State, counterterrorism and stability operations require a sustained commitment of presence and resources in order to consolidate gains and promote good governance and the rule of law. In the absence of the latter, ungoverned spaces quickly transform into breeding grounds for terror groups, and that is why we are in Iraq. That is why we are in Afghanistan, and that is why we should remain in Syria. We must do that until our objectives are met. Balancing our approach toward both low- and high-intensity threats will require us to rely on our allies and our partners more than we have had to rely on them in the past decades, as we have a limited supply of resources for our national defense. However, if we are able to leverage the resources of our friends, we will assume less risk as we move to more resources toward countering great power threats. Likewise, as we seek to bolster our defense posture toward peer competitors, we will greatly benefit from increased contributions and commitments from our allies and our partners. That means insisting that our treaty allies contribute their fair share to the international security burden and also ensuring that our allies and partners are investing in weapons systems and military platforms that interoperate with ours while effectively deterring our common adversaries. We cannot and should not abandon those who share our values of democracy and freedom but, rather, work with them to increase defense contributions and build necessary capabilities and capacities. Unlike Russia and China, our network of allies and friends, who have stood shoulder to shoulder with us in the defense of freedom and democratic values, are a source of great strength, as well as an integral part of promoting global security. I would be remiss if I did not take this opportunity to once again acknowledge the most detrimental adversary of our national defense; that is, poor fiscal policy. As then-Secretary Mattis stated when he announced the National Defense Strategy, continuing resolutions and sequestration have hindered our security more than any foe. These wasteful applications of taxpayer dollars prevent long-term planning, stymie research and development, delay critical procurement, and prevent necessary training and readiness investments. What we do in this Chamber has consequences that reverberate far beyond Washington. When we fail to do our job, we put our warfighters at higher risk and cripple our strategic posture, ultimately endangering our national security. That is why I have come to the floor today to urge bipartisanship and collaboration amongst both Houses of Congress on defense spending policy. The political climate of today will assuredly prevent progress in some areas of Congress's work, but I encourage my colleagues to set those differences aside when we consider policies and appropriations for our national defense. We have a lot of work ahead in order to protect our security and interests, but I am confident we can come together to solve these issues of critical importance. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Ms. ERNST

Ms. ERNST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that privileges of the floor be granted to the following member of my staff: Heidi Steele, a fellow in my office, during the pendency of the 116th Congress.

Mrs. ERNST

Mrs. ERNST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the concurrent resolution be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mrs. ERNST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Con. Res. 49, submitted earlier today.

Mrs. ERNST. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. ERNST

Mrs. ERNST. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mrs. ERNST

Mrs. ERNST. Mr. President, I rise today disappointed and frustrated. Once again, we passed an ill-advised continuing resolution to fund much of our government. Once again, folks, we have passed the buck. Once again, we have failed to do our job. One of Congress's most essential roles is to fund a responsible government that runs efficiently and effectively. We have a duty to taxpayers to not just simply give a thumbs-up on spending their money but to debate and consider whether programs are working to serve their needs. Unfortunately, we have been negligent in this solemn duty. Like myself, Americans are tired of this shortsighted habit of kicking the can down the road. How did we get to this point, you might be asking yourself. After all, we worked across the aisle in an open and collaborative way and found a path forward to fund our national defense and the vital Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education. We recently passed a similar bill related to Energy and Water, Legislative Branch, Military Construction, and Veterans Affairs. As we have seen, a continuing resolution was attached to this legislation for the rest of the government, including our vital Department of Homeland Security. Worse, this continuing resolution doesn't fund the government fully until the end of the fiscal year. No, it simply punts the ball to December 7. That is it. We will be back here before Christmas, and if experience is any sort of guide, multiple times after that before we can get the government fully funded. I ultimately chose to vote yes on this continuing resolution because of what it means for our national security and our servicemembers who risk their lives every day for our security. Also, the continuing resolution included the Violence Against Women Act, a bill I could not allow to lapse given that this bill provides services for our most vulnerable. VAWA addresses the scourge of domestic violence that is so prevalent in our communities--crimes that often hurt women and children the most, often requiring them to be displaced from the only homes they know. I believe we can strengthen this act in several ways by addressing changing circumstances since its last reauthorization 5 years ago by tailoring its language to better fit the needs of our communities. There are provisions we need to change and to work on, but we are not afforded that opportunity. Tying our Nation's security and the Violence Against Women Act to the CR made it both the carrot and the stick. We are leaving services and programs that the American people rely upon open to partisan delay and political gerrymandering. The people of Iowa elected me to come to Washington to be their voice and to instill much needed fiscal responsibility. Rather than pushing, procrastinating, and postponing for another 3 months, we should buckle down and build upon the great progress we have made this year by getting the remaining appropriations bills across the finish line. We should debate the Violence Against Women Act in regular order so we can strengthen it and provide protections for those who need it the most. There are items I support in this continuing resolution, but we need to do our job. We need to fund the government. If we don't take action now, we will be back here month after month, year after year, doing the exact same thing. Thank you. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. ERNST

Mrs. ERNST. Mr. President, today I rise to honor a dear friend of the Senate and a dear friend to me. This weekend many of us had the honor of joining the family of John Sidney McCain III as we walked through his life and shared memories of such a wonderful man, a true patriot, an American hero, a wonderful Senator, a father, and a wonderful friend. The first time I met Senator McCain was in 2014, and he was larger than life. I was engaged in my primary for the Senate, and I had the opportunity to visit Washington, DC, and sit down with Senator McCain in his office and visited and talked with him about what it was like to be a U.S. Senator. Immediately, I felt that bond with John McCain as a fellow veteran. It was one thing that he was truly interested in. He had been through the political stuff with a lot of other folks running for the Senate-- what it is like to engage in a campaign. That is all good and fine, but what he really took an interest in was my experience in the war in Iraq. He asked me about my service. I talked to him about the National Guard--all of those things he truly understood and connected with. He really enjoyed that aspect of our discussion. It was that first meeting--again, meeting with somebody that to me was larger than life, someone who truly had served his country--and we felt that connection. The months progressed, and I got through the primary campaign and moved on into the general election cycle. During that time, a number of Senators came to Iowa. They would hop on my bus, which we fondly called the ``squeal mobile,'' and we would travel around the State of Iowa. John McCain is so well known for his codels, or his congressional delegation visits to other countries. I have heard many of my colleagues refer to those codels as the ``McCain death marches'' because he is going from sunup to sundown--no resting, no stopping. He was visiting with world leaders all over, furthering our American interests. My bus tour was a lot like that in the fall of 2014. John graciously agreed to come out and spend a day on the road with me in the ``squeal mobile.'' That day we were doing eight different events in eight different counties in Iowa. We were going from sunup, literally, to sundown, and we were traveling in this big RV. I remember having a conversation with him. We were sitting at a little table. I was facing the rear of the bus. He was facing the front. It was late at night. It was dark. The sun had already gone down. We were approaching Bloomfield, IA, which was the last stop for the day. All of a sudden and out of nowhere, as we were having this conversation, boom, and we hit something. The bus did. John McCain, in true John McCainism, said: What the ``fill in the blank'' was that? I didn't even have to turn around. I knew immediately. Again, it is Iowa. It is the fall. It is after dark. I said: John, we hit a deer. That deer took out the front end of the bus. The bus was going no further. Immediately, John was up. He was at the front of the bus, ready to get out the door, and he said: I have to see this. There was the enthusiasm and the energy that man had. It was a unique experience for him to be in the ``squeal mobile,'' and it was the eighth stop of the night. John was used to the ``go, go, go,'' not just in campaign cycles but in anything he did. He was committed to finishing out that last stop of the night. We got out of the bus, which was incapacitated from that deer, and we hopped in a car that had been following us from one event to the next and went on to Bloomfield, to the diner, where he talked about service and commitment to country. We did a lot of veterans stops that day. I will always fondly remember that and how many Iowans' lives he had touched, sharing his stories and his thoughts about how we should do better for American service men and women. After that incident, I made sure anytime somebody supplied me with deer jerky from Iowa that John got a little of it, and he always loved that. When I was elected and I entered the Senate at the end of 2015, one of the very first things Senator McCain did for me and for several others who were freshmen was to make sure we secured seats on the Senate Armed Services Committee. This is one of the most important committees, in my estimation, of the U.S. Senate. Again, because I am a veteran and because I grew up as a soldier, it is very important to me. He took the time to make sure that Senator Tom Cotton, Senator Dan Sullivan, and I each had a seat on that committee. He thought of us as the new era veterans--those that could really bring real world experience to the table from our time in Iraq and for Tom and Dan, their time in Afghanistan. Again, this was under the mentorship of a wonderful American, a patriot, and a true warrior--John McCain. He valued our input. He valued our time, and he encouraged us to get involved and stay involved, and I loved that. Going back to the McCain death marches and the congressional delegations that John would plan for those of us who served on the Armed Services Committee, there was a trip I took in 2015 that was very important to me, and that was a trip I did with Senator McCain and Senator Dan Sullivan to Vietnam. Senator McCain took many Senators to Vietnam. To me, it was such an incredible trip and probably one of the most treasured times I had with John McCain in the Senate. During that trip to Vietnam, of course, one of the usual stops for him was a trip to Hanoi, where he took us to the Hanoi Hilton, where he had been imprisoned so many years ago by the North Vietnamese. I found this time very sad, thinking about the pain and the agony Senator McCain had gone through at the hands of his North Vietnamese captors. At the same time, what I experienced from John was something that I will never forget; that is, a sense of forgiveness. Having endured so many years of torture and hardship in Vietnam, what I found truly remarkable about Senator McCain was the fact that so many years later he had spearheaded the efforts to normalize relations between the United States and Vietnam. He forgave. He forgave. There we were in Hanoi, walking through the very place I estimated had been so evil to him, and yet in those moments, he found his sense of humor. If anybody spent time around Senator John McCain, they know of his sharp wit and his humor. As we walked through the museum portion of the Hanoi Hilton, he would stop in front of a picture. He would look at it, and we would all look at it. Dan and I would look at it with John, and there would be a picture of American servicemen standing around a Christmas tree with smiles on their faces. He would look at it. He would look it up and down, and he would say: Bull ``bleep''-- fill in the bleep. Then, he would laugh, and he would move to the next picture. In the next picture, there were American servicemen playing sand volleyball, having a great time at the Hanoi Hilton. He would look at it, and he would shake his head and would say: Bull ``fill in the blank.'' Then, we would move to the end of the room, and in this glass case with a plaque, there was a naval flight suit and flight helmet. On the plaque it said: John McCain's flight suit and helmet. He looked it up and looked it down, and he said again: Bull ``fill in the blank.'' He said: That is not my flight suit. That is not my helmet. This grand display at the Hanoi Hilton was to show what a wonderful experience it was for our service men and women, and we know that it wasn't. But through all of that, John McCain forgave. He forgave, and he helped bring our countries closer together. We still have a long journey ahead to totally repair relations between Vietnam and the United States, but because John McCain found it within himself to dig deep and forgive, we are on that path. We are on that path. Later that evening, after having been to the infamous Hilton, John took us all to supper, and we were able to share traditional Vietnamese dishes. He shared a lot of stories with those of us who were on that delegation trip--stories that you will not find written in books, but things that were very personal and intimate to him and his experience. He knew that Dan Sullivan and I, also being veterans, would understand the thoughts and the experiences that he had had in Vietnam. I will treasure that time with John McCain forever. A little over a year ago, John was diagnosed with brain cancer, and I know, for me personally, that was very hard, and I think a lot of other folks were shocked, again, because John's persona was so big, larger than life. He had lived through so much in his lifetime, only to be diagnosed with something that we knew would be very difficult to overcome. John stayed the course, though, working very hard here in the U.S. Senate, and I do remember there were times he would take votes that I totally disagreed with, and we got into a heated argument over one of those votes. As many of us have experienced with John and his temper, man, he got after me. I took a vote that he didn't agree with. He yelled at me. He was all over me, and I wouldn't let it go. He knew my personality. I wasn't going to let it go. So after he had gotten on me, I would try to explain my position to him, and he would just walk away. For days after that incident, he would avoid me. I would be tracking him down, and he would avoid me. He would go down a hallway or try to get away from me. I finally caught up with him, and I said: John, I love you. We need to talk about this. And he said: Oh, Joni, I can't stay mad at you. Then life went on as normal. He was just a great man--a great man--and we knew that we could disagree, but we would get beyond it. We would get beyond it. In the Senate Armed Services Committee, we always teased each other. He would call me colonel, and I would call him admiral. The funny thing is, he served in the Navy and retired as a captain. He did not achieve the rank of admiral. I served in the Iowa Army National Guard. I retired as a lieutenant colonel; I did not achieve the rank of colonel. But we would tease each other. He would call me Colonel Ernst, and I would call him Admiral McCain, and we would have a good chuckle over it. He loved his time as a naval aviator. It was very significant to him--a very important part of his life. I had the wonderful experience in November of 2017, having gone to Oceana, down to Norfolk, and I was able to go through swimming physiology and then take my first flight ever in an F-18 with a naval aviator, and I was able to ``bag some traps'' out on the Abraham Lincoln. After that weekend, I had a number of photos from that time. It was a great experience. I had been working on some issues with physiological episodes with some of our naval aviators, and I came back and was in votes that next week. I sat down with John here on the floor, and I pulled out those pictures, and he ate them up. He just continued flipping through those pictures, flipping through them, and I could just see the light in his eyes. I could tell that John was reliving some of the memories that he had in the cockpit--the times that he had, the times that he loved, the times that he enjoyed doing what he did as a naval aviator, fighting for the United States of America, doing what he believed to be true and worthy. That was a precious time to share my tiny, tiny experience in the air with Senator John McCain. So, again, I just wanted to share with everyone, with my colleagues, with my constituents the fact that I value the time that I spent in the U.S. Senate with Senator McCain. He taught us all a lot about love of country, duty, honor, commitment, service, leadership, patriotism, forgiveness, and how to love your brother and your sister, regardless of who you are and where you come from. I will treasure that time; I will treasure the man. To his family--they have my deepest sympathies in the loss of their husband, their father, their brother, their son, their uncle. I think we will all feel the hurt of the loss for a long time. His spirit will live on with us in this Chamber. Every time I walk into an Armed Services Committee meeting, I will always think of John McCain and how he strove to be a great leader for all of us, the mentorship that he provided. John, I know you are with us, and it is my turn to say thank you for everything that you have done for your great State of Arizona, for all of us who have served in the U.S. Senate, and of course for these great United States of America. We honor you, John; we thank you. God bless you. Thanks so much, John. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. ERNST

Mrs. ERNST. Mr. President, I rise today to voice my support for the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court of the United States. As the final arbiter of the Constitution, the Supreme Court has a sacred duty of ensuring equal justice under the law to the American people. The Supreme Court wields the immense power of judicial review. Alexis de Tocqueville described this power of the Supreme Court when he called it ``a more imposing judicial power than was ever constituted by any other people.'' As Members of the Senate, it is not often that we get the opportunity to give our advice and consent on the confirmation of Supreme Court Justices. It is even rarer that we get the opportunity to confirm someone as highly qualified and well-respected as Brett Kavanaugh. I am especially impressed by Judge Kavanaugh's interpretation of the Constitution as it applies to the ever-encroaching power of Federal agencies. Even before the people of Iowa sent me to Washington, I was horrified by the impact increasingly burdensome regulations imposed on hard-working men, women, and businesses. This was imposed by unleashed Federal bureaucrats. An excellent example of this is the infamous waters of the United States rule promulgated by the Obama EPA. The Obama administration's bloated definition of the waters of the United States would have put 97 percent--97 percent--of Iowa under EPA jurisdiction. Even a tire track filled with water on an Iowa farm would have been subject to Federal regulation. Federal agencies have been allowed to implement such destructive regulations in part due to the Supreme Court giving them deference. While a certain degree of deference is needed, I am concerned that a too-broad deferential standard separates the people of the United States from Washington bureaucrats. It fails to place an adequate check on executive and administrative power. Throughout his career as both a highly respected legal scholar and a judge on the esteemed DC Circuit Court of Appeals, Judge Kavanaugh has written critically of widening the scope of this already far-reaching deferential standard. He wrote in part that this deference ``encourages the Executive Branch to be extremely aggressive in seeking to squeeze its policy goals into ill-fitting statutory authorizations and restraints.'' This could not have been what the Founders intended when they developed our Constitution and our government. I could not agree more with Judge Kavanaugh's concerns. I look forward to the Judge's levelheaded leadership and thinking on the Supreme Court. In addition, I was proud to hear that Judge Kavanaugh has had the chance to work with Iowans. State Representative Mary Ann Hanusa, who represents the city of Council Bluffs, had the opportunity to work with Judge Kavanaugh when he served as Staff Secretary in the White House. Representative Hanusa describes Judge Kavanaugh as hard-working, dedicated, and impartial in his duties--all traits that I require in a Supreme Court Justice. Under Chairman Grassley's leadership, I believe that we will have a thorough, timely, and successful confirmation process, just as we did with Neil Gorsuch. I urge my colleagues to put aside partisan gimmicks and games and support the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mrs. ERNST

Mrs. ERNST. Mr. President, today I rise to voice my support for the brave men and women of America's Immigration and Customs Enforcement, also known as ICE. Unfortunately, a resolution that would have shown this body's unanimous support for these courageous individuals was blocked. While the Border Patrol has the important mission of maintaining security at our borders, ICE agents have the critical mission of enforcing immigration laws inside the United States. These two work hand in hand. Our Nation cannot have border security without enforcing our laws inside communities, and we cannot have secure communities without enforcing our laws at our borders. The critical mission of ICE goes far beyond just immigration enforcement. These folks are on the frontlines of our homeland security. Here is just a short list of the types of activities ICE is involved in: one, investigating and combating drug smuggling, pretty important; stopping human trafficking; preventing gang-related crimes; and working with other law enforcement entities to stop criminal and terrorist networks from operating. Iowa, along with the rest of the country, has been gripped by an opioid crisis that puts our people and our safety at risk. Additionally, we continue to have a very grave methamphetamine issue that threatens the core of many of our already struggling rural communities. We need ICE to help stop the flow of these drugs into Iowa's communities, our schools, our workplaces, and to our children and our families. In 2017 alone, ICE enforcement and removal operations seized nearly 1 million pounds of narcotics--1 million pounds of narcotics seized by ICE. Abolishing ICE would turn the flow of illegal drugs across the border from a stream into a monsoon. I also implore anyone challenging the need for ICE to look at the horrendous toll of human trafficking: young and innocent women and men, boys and girls used as human pawns, smuggled across the border with hopes of a better life, forced into prostitution or worse--raped, beaten, subjected to sexual diseases and stripped of all innocence and dignity. Sadly, human trafficking is a major issue in Iowa. In 2016, for instance, Des Moines was identified as one of the country's top 100 human trafficking locations. That information came to us from our good friends at Polaris, which is an anti-trafficking organization. Human traffickers often exploit our immigration laws to transport their victims, and our ICE agents are the ones who help to stop them and to stop their illicit activities. Every day, 24/7, 365 days a year, ICE agents are on the frontlines. They are working to dismantle human trafficking networks and protect our most vulnerable. I urge my colleagues to reconsider their objections and to support not only the resolution but to support those officers and personnel who carry out the vital mission of Immigration and Customs Enforcement in order to ensure the safety and security of all Americans. I suggest the absence of a quorum.