James Lankford

Mr. LANKFORD

Mr. LANKFORD. I know of no further debate on the bill.

Mr. LANKFORD. I ask unanimous consent that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. LANKFORD

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported amendments be agreed to, and the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time.

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 685, S. 2599.

Mr. LANKFORD

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, there has been a long conversation about Yemen. Yemen is in a civil war. It has been a brutal civil war. There have been a lot of civilians killed and a lot of damage done to the country's interior. Of the 30 million people who are living in Yemen, 22 million, currently, need humanitarian assistance. We have over 8 million people who are what is called ``at risk'' of severe starvation. It has the largest cholera outbreak in the world right now, and its currency has plummeted in value. We have over 2 million people inside the country who have been internally displaced. They, literally, can't live in their homes because the war is around their homes, and they have had to flee from those spots--2 million people. It is a terrible situation. Yet, while this body is arguing about supporting or not supporting the Saudis--should we be around it or should we not be around it?--our Ambassador, the leadership of the U.N., and our U.S. military--which this body is arguing we shouldn't engage to help--are currently putting people at the negotiating table in Sweden. For the past week, our military, which this body is saying shouldn't be engaged, has actually been the prime mover in getting all of the same players to the table to negotiate. In just the last few hours, the Secretary General of the U.N., along with the rebel leadership and the legitimate leadership of Yemen in the civil war, have stepped out to make major announcements. The first major announcement they just released within the last hour was that they have committed to halting fighting around the seaport so that humanitarian assistance can get in. The Houthis have, actually, dominated the seaport and taken all of the income from the seaport to finance their fighters. Their weapons are coming from Iran, and their income is coming from the port because they have taken the port over. Now the U.N. is going to run the port. That is a dramatic shift. Revenues from the seaport will be deposited into a central bank so that the rightful government, when this is all resolved, will actually give the revenue back to the people of Yemen. There will be a release in fighting--a pull-out in the major city around the seaport there. They have agreed that they are going to have a secondary meeting next month in order to work out the final details to actually shut this down. So while this body is arguing about whose side we should take--the Iranians' or the Saudis'--and that is really what the body is arguing about--we are, actually, actively pushing the players to the table to resolve this. This is the worst possible moment for this body to start arguing about whose side we should be on. I am fully aware that the Saudis' humanitarian history is deplorable. The whole world praises them because they now allow women to drive. I mean, we are in that bad of a humanitarian situation and of a human rights situation in Saudi Arabia. I am fully aware of the murder of Khashoggi and am fully aware of what they have done in other areas, but the Saudis have also been the only entity to give humanitarian aid to Yemen in order to help assist this. The United States, by far, is the largest donor to what is going on in the humanitarian crisis in Yemen, but the civil war is not our problem. This is a proxy fight between Saudi Arabia and Iran that is being fought right on Saudi Arabia's southern border in Yemen. We shouldn't take sides in this other than to stand up against Iran's aggression as it has moved into Iraq, as Iran has moved into Syria, and as Iran has moved into Lebanon. We don't want to see Iran dominate the entire region and destabilize the region, but we do want to bring peace to this region. So what should we do in this situation? I think we should speak with a very clear voice about the human rights violations of Saudi Arabia and call Saudi Arabia out to be a part of the civilized world, but I think punishing the innocent civilian casualties in Yemen is the wrong way to do it. We should speak out on the issue of Khashoggi, and we should speak out on human rights in the entire region. We should stand up and ask: What can we do to stop the fighting and protect the civilians there? The best thing we can do is to be engaged with the Saudis but not in selecting targets and not in refueling their jets--we have already stopped all of that--but in being a presence there. As Americans, we forget that most of the world does not try to protect civilians in battles like we do. Most of the world just carpet bombs and destroys and burns down cities. Do you want a good example of where America is not present? Look at Syria right now and at the year after year of barrel bombs, of chemical weapons--Americans are out; we are not advising--and at the destruction that is happening to the civilians. If we want to see even more of that in Yemen, then let's back this out entirely. If we want to give Iran the upper hand in the peace negotiations that are happening right now, then let's tell them through this body that we don't support the Saudis anymore but that we support the Iranians, who started this civil war in Yemen. The best thing we can do is to give the peace negotiations the opportunity to finish and to go well; to support, in every way that we can, the protection of civilians in that region; and to make sure that we are assisting with our advice on how to protect them and how to move forward. That is the best thing we can do--not argue about whether we are going to pull out or not pull out or engage in Yemen or not engage. Let me be clear. Yemen is not our fight. That civil war is not our fight. Yet, in the ungoverned spaces of Yemen, there is a group called al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula. They use those ungoverned spaces and use the cover of the civil war to actively recruit worldwide. The most aggressive part of al-Qaida that is directly pointed at the United States in planning attacks, in orchestrating attacks, in putting out information for lone-wolf individuals all over the world on how to conduct attacks on airlines or in cities or in bus terminals originates from al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula in Yemen. So while the civil war off to the west is not our fight, though we do want to protect civilians and get them humanitarian aid--and we are helping with that--it is absolutely our fight to take it to al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula. Hadi, the rightful leader of Yemen, has given us the authority to take the fight to the terrorists there in his own country because he doesn't want al-Qaida in his country either. As long as we are working with Hadi as the rightful leader--he is giving us the go-head to fight against al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula, and we should for our own security. So I understand the politics of this, and I understand the messaging saying that we shouldn't have all of these things and painting this picture of us pulling out of Yemen for humanitarian reasons. But the fact is, the humanitarian assistance is going in because we are there. The fact is, we are helping reduce civilian casualties in that area, not increasing them. The fact is, the terrorist group al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula--the most aggressive group against us from al-Qaida-- lives right there in Yemen, and we should be able to take the fight to them before they bring it to us again. These are difficult issues. There is no simple solution to any of these, and I get that. It is a very messy civil war. But the last thing we should do is just pretend our disengagement protects civilians. It does not. I have a unanimous consent request that is coming up that is currently in conversation to try to figure how out to bring it to the floor. I see there are some other speakers here on the floor who are ready to speak. I would like to yield the floor to others who want to speak and then speak again in a moment on a unanimous consent request. With that, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. LANKFORD

Mr. LANKFORD. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LANKFORD

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, as our Nation paused just for a little while this week to remember the 41st President of the United States and to honor his legacy and his life, I think it is important that we also pause here in the Senate Chamber, and, quite frankly, I bring that same sense of respect from my State of Oklahoma. President Bush was widely known as our President. Quite frankly, one of the legacies I think he will leave the longest tale on is his commitment to faith and family. His compassion for people ran throughout his lifetime. The conversation during the funeral yesterday in Washington, DC--and it is happening right now in Houston--centered significantly around his relationship with his beautiful wife Barbara. Seventy-three years of marriage is quite a legacy, and it is rare in America. It was a gift to America to see that kind of example set in front of us; it is that kind of commitment to their family and to each other. They met each other at a dance in Greenwich, CT, in 1941, when he was a 17-year-old high school senior and she was 16, and they went out to dance together with Glenn Miller songs playing. Tell me that is not a throwback to a different time and a different age. They were engaged in 1943 at the height of the war. During that same time period, he was engaged in working with the United States to protect our country during World War II. He served as one of the youngest fighter pilots--the youngest during that time period. Some of his letters have survived, and much has been said about what a prolific, personal writer President Bush was in his own life. The letters he wrote to Barbara during that 1943 time period have survived, including a letter he wrote to her on December 12, 1943, when they were still engaged. He said: My darling . . . Bar, you have made my life full of everything I could ever dream of--my complete happiness should be a token of my love for you. Who writes like that, other than a man who is a great personal example to the Nation? They were married on January 6, 1945, and had six children. They were the longest married Presidential couple, married 73 years. In 1994, Barbara Bush described herself and her husband in her memoirs as ``the two luckiest people in the world, and when all the dust is settled and all the crowds are gone, the things that matter are faith, family and friends. We have been inordinately blessed, and we know that.'' In 1994, that same year--he is still writing her decades later--he wrote her on their anniversary with this note: Will you marry me? Oops, I forgot you did that 49 years ago today. I was very happy on that day in 1945. I'm even happier today. You've given me joy that few men know. I've climbed perhaps the highest mountain in the world, but even that cannot hold a candle to being Barbara's husband. Their love story didn't come without some challenges, though. Barbara was open about her struggle with depression in the 1970s. She described those times, saying this: Night after night, George held me weeping in his arms while I tried to explain my feelings. I almost wonder why he didn't leave me. But he didn't. In 1953, their daughter Robin died of leukemia before her fourth birthday. The family struggled significantly with that. In fact, even President Bush 43 referenced it yesterday at the funeral here in Washington, DC, but George Bush wrote about it during that time period as well. He wrote about the loss of their daughter Robin, who died at 3 years old. He wrote to Barbara: There is about our house a need. . . . We need some soft blond hair to offset those crew cuts. We need a doll house to stand firm against our forts and racquets and thousand baseball cards. We need someone who's afraid of frogs. . . . We need a little one who can kiss without leaving an egg or jam or gum. We need a girl. We had one once--she'd fight and cry and play and make her way, just like the rest. But there was about her a certain softness. She was patient--her hugs were just a little less wiggly. But she is still with us. We need her and yet we have her. We can't touch her, and yet we can feel her. We hope she'll stay in our house for a long, long time. In 1953, even in times of personal struggle, their love for each other and their tenacious compassion and passion for their family carried them through. George Bush was at his wife's side when she died earlier this year, on April 12, at age 92. On George Bush's 18th birthday, he enlisted in the Armed Forces. As I mentioned before, he was the youngest pilot in the Navy when he received his wings. He flew 58 combat missions during World War II. He served two terms as a Representative to Congress from Texas and ran unsuccessfully for the Senate--though his dad's desk, when he was in the Senate, was right there when he was a U.S. Senator. President Bush served as the Chief Diplomatic Envoy in China, even before the United States had formally opened the official Beijing Embassy. He became the 11th Director of the Central Intelligence Agency--which was, at that time, called the DCI--from 1976 to 1977. He is the only President who previously held that position. Interesting enough, many people don't know that the CIA headquarters in Langley are actually named for President Bush and have been that way for a long time. It was an interesting season when he was the leader of the CIA in the 1970s. There was a lot of mistrust between U.S. citizens and Central Intelligence. At that time, President Bush did something exceptional as the Director of Central Intelligence. He actually provided transparency--a radical idea--where he would come to the Hill and invite Members of the House and the Senate to his house, and they would have informal dinners to talk about what they were doing. He came to the Hill 51 times to testify before the House and the Senate, a record that is still unsurpassed by any Director of National Intelligence. It is a remarkable record of transparency and of leadership. In 1980, he campaigned for the Presidency but lost. Then he was tapped by the President he lost to in the primary, a gentleman named Ronald Reagan, to be his Vice President. Interestingly enough, at 50 years old, which I am today, the first President I really remember watching was President Reagan--and Vice President Bush--to see how they handled things. It was remarkable leadership during that time period. In 1988, he won the Republican nomination for President and then became President--the first President I ever had the opportunity to vote for. At that time, I was 20 years old. So for my first time ever to vote for President, I had the privilege to vote for President Bush and the honor to sit in the Cathedral yesterday to recognize his life. He was a remarkable President for being a one-term President--pushing back the Sandinistas who were ravaging Nicaragua; transitioning Europe out of the Cold War; finishing the Cold War without a shot being fired; unifying Germany when most of Europe, as the Soviet Union fell and the Berlin Wall fell after Reagan's famous ``Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall''--the wall didn't actually come down at that moment; it came down during the Bush administration, as they led Germany out of that and then into unification, even though most of Europe did not want a unified Germany, remembering still what a unified Germany did during World War II. He led through that. He led, as President, Americans to start thinking about other Americans in a new way, to stop saying so much that the government should provide for every issue, though the government has a role. But he pushed back on something he called the ``thousand points of light'' and challenged Americans to take care of their neighbors in their neighborhoods and for us not to look toward Washington, DC, to solve each problem but for nonprofits and communities and churches and the engagement of neighbor to neighbor to be able to turn around a nation. It was a remarkable calling for us to be called to each other. In 1992, he lost his bid for reelection. But it is interesting that in his speech, just after he lost the election, he made this statement: I hope history will record that the Bush administration has served America well. I am proud of my Cabinet and my staff. America has led the world through an age of global transition; we've made the world safer for our kids. And I believe the real fruits of our global victory are yet to be tasted. If he were seated here today, I would tell him: We are still tasting the fruits of that freedom. He made this statement, as well, at the same time: Ours is a nation that has shed the blood of war and cried the tears of depression. We have stretched the limits of human imagination and seen the technologically miraculous become almost mundane. Always, always, our advantage has been our spirit, a constant confidence, a sense that in America the only things not yet accomplished are the things that have not yet been tried. Then he said this: President-elect Clinton needs all Americans to unite behind him so he can move our nation forward. But, more than that, he will need to draw upon this unique American spirit. Multiple individuals have recently referenced the letter that President Bush left for President Clinton on the desk in the Oval Office so that when the transition occurred, President Clinton would walk into his new office in 1993 and see this letter that ends with this statement, dated January 20, 1993. It is a long note, but it ends with this handwritten statement: You will be our President when you read this note. And he underlined the word ``our.'' I wish you well. I wish your family well. Your success is now our country's success. I am rooting hard for you. That is a pretty remarkable statement for someone who had just been beaten in the campaign to then turn as an American leader and say: America still continues, and we are rooting for your success. He left office and continued to serve, continued to press the ``thousand points of light,'' continued to encourage people to serve their neighbors and to serve each other, and he continued to love his beautiful Barbara. He celebrated watching his kids get elected to office, including President of the United States, but he continued to be who he was--a gentle, compassionate, faith-filled person, who wanted the best for our Nation. He showed us how to lose gracefully and not make enemies of our adversaries, and he turned political foes into lasting friends. Interestingly enough, on June 12 of this year, on his 94th birthday, he wrote a note again to some friends. In that note he wrote earlier this year, he said: I am truly touched and overwhelmed by all the messages I have received today. And although I have seen them all, I can no longer answer them all. My 94-year-old hands would rebel. Just know I appreciated hearing from you. As many of you know, for years I have said the three most important things in life are faith, family, and friends. My faith has never been stronger. I am blessed with the world's most loving family. And thanks to you, I feel the love of the best friends a man ever had. My heart is full on this first day of my 95th year. As I walked out of the funeral yesterday, I turned to the person next to me and said: I think that is the first political funeral or event I have ever been to where I have been able to honor a life where Jesus got equal time. At a lot of funerals, it is all about them. President Bush shaped a funeral where it was as much about his relationship with God as it was about his history and legacy. It is a remarkable reminder of a man who prioritized, as he said, his faith, his family, and his friends, and it sets an example for the Nation. He was around Oklahoma a lot, as well. He popped in and out. He spoke at Oklahoma State University at graduation while he was President. In fact, he made a famous comment about stopping in at Eskimo Joe's, a local restaurant there, and he endorsed the cheese fries in front of thousands of people and across the Nation. He stopped in at a different time at Cattlemen's restaurant in Oklahoma City. He popped in and ate a great steak. He said: If you are ever in Oklahoma, stop in at Cattlemen's. Folks at Cattlemen's still talk about the time President Bush showed up and had a steak. He met everybody in the restaurant, and he even went into the kitchen and met all the cooks. The folks still remember it well. He stopped in at Enid with Don Nickles. In fact, Don Nickles, my predecessor Senator, tells the story that he went to Maine at one point, when he was the whip in the Senate, to have a briefing with President Bush and a small group at his place in Maine. While he was there, the President offered to take him on a quick boat ride to be able to get over, and President Bush was notorious for his speedboat, in which he put people and just rammed the throttle full speed in takeoff, because his boat could go faster than the Secret Service boat that was following them, and he loved to be able to outrun them and take off. Even after his retirement as President, there is the story from one of our staff members who writes about a friend who was a student at Texas A&M University, where the President had his library. He tells the story of this 20-year-old student named Michael, who is serving as a personal aide to the Bush Foundation and how one day in the morning President Bush walked up to this 20-year-old who was working there and said: Are you hungry? To which he replied: I am always hungry. President Bush took him to lunch that day. This was in 2004. The two of them sat, and the President peppered him with questions about his family, about his background, and about his siblings. Michael got to call his family later that day and say: Hey, I just had lunch with the President. What was interesting is Michael's statement, which was this: President Bush made me feel like I was the President. May it be said of all of us: No matter what our title is, no matter what our position is, no matter what our place is, at the end of our life, we would still be talking about our faith, our family, and our friends--that for every person around us, we expect compassion and gratitude for them and to set a good example for them. May it be in our political discourse, and may it be in our homes and our communities. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. LANKFORD

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, on May 5 of this year, NASA launched the InSight rocket. That probe, the InSight probe, has traveled 300 million miles since May of this year and has touched down safely on Mars. It is a remarkable achievement. The United States is the only country in the world that has any probes on Mars. We have several now that are moving around and are stable. The technology behind that--the thought, the design, the engineering, the work--is a remarkable achievement for the science community. The 300 million-plus miles that it has traveled since May and to be able to land safely is a remarkable achievement. I compared that 300- mile journey of the InSight probe and safely landing on Mars to our now two-decades-long conversation trying to solve immigration. As Americans, we have figured out how to travel 300 million miles, but we have not been able to figure out how to manage our own immigration policy. This is the 10th time I have come to this floor to talk about immigration in just the last 3 years. Earlier this year in February, we had a tremendous amount of work that was happening here in the Senate to try to come to a set of agreements about how we can manage the immigration policy in the United States, and those agreements failed. While InSight was traveling 300 million miles, the Senate still did nothing to solve the issue of immigration. We watched today several thousand people in Tijuana living in a soccer stadium after they left from Honduras. They traveled into Guatemala. The Guatemalans deported several thousands of them and said: You didn't cross legally from Honduras into Guatemala. Then they approached the border between Guatemala and Mexico, and Mexico put their law enforcement and their military on the border and said: You can't just cross the border illegally from Guatemala to Mexico. Then they charged the bridge, overran the law enforcement and the military of the Mexican police, went around into the river, and then regrouped again and continued to move forward to Mexico. Mexico offered them asylum, which I thought was incredibly gracious, based on the way they crossed into Mexico. Mexico offered them asylum and the ability to stay in Mexico. They offered them assistance all along the way. They did arrest some troublemakers along the way. Now they have made their way all the way through Mexico, and they are just outside San Diego. A few days ago, the same group rushed our border to see if our border would cave the same way the southern border of Mexico did. Yet we did not. Interestingly enough, that group of several thousand people who rushed the border, who are now parked on that border, are literally living within a few 100 yards of the largest legal border crossing in the world--the San Diego crossing. There are 100,000 people a day who legally cross the border from Mexico into the United States, within feet of where they charged the border and demanded to get entry into the United States. Let me just set that for you again side by side. There are 100,000 people every single day who legally cross the border from Mexico into the United States at the Tijuana-San Diego crossing. Yet the attention is not on the 100,000 who are legally crossing the border. The cameras are turned toward the few thousand who are trying to rush the border illegally. Our perspective is out of whack. We are not a closed country to immigration. We are an open country to immigration. There are 1.1 million people who last year became citizens of the United States--1.1 million--but we are a Nation that has order and structure. We have 1 million people every single day who leave the United States, coming in legally either through Canada or through Mexico or based on flights. Our law enforcement folks who handle all the issues there--Border Patrol, customs, and all of the different folks from ICE--do a tremendous job every single day. I think Secretary Nielsen and her leadership has been stellar in their leadership to help manage through a PR nightmare that has been created because the cameras want to focus on a few people crossing illegally and refuse to turn the cameras just 15 degrees and focus on 100,000 people coming across the border legally. We do have to do something about our immigration policy. We are a Nation that has been open to immigrants our entire history as a nation, and we remain so and should remain so. But the question seems to get spun up on this one issue: What do we do about someone who intentionally breaks the law to come into our country? How do we treat them versus the person who has gone through the process and who is legally coming into the country? Are they to be treated the same if they illegally cross the border at San Diego as someone who legally crosses the border at San Diego, or do we treat them differently? Last year, there were 400,000 people who were arrested for illegally crossing our southern border--400,000. Again, that may seem like an incredibly large number, but let me put that back in perspective. Half a million people--that would be 500,000 people--legally cross our border on the south every day. So we had 400,000 people arrested crossing our southern border illegally--400,000--but yet over the total of an entire year, there are 400,000 people arrested, but every single day 500,000 people legally cross our entire southern border. As I mentioned, 100,000 of those are just at San Diego. We, as Americans, need to make decisions about how we are going to handle immigration. I think we have to get some numbers and some perspective in place because all of the attention seems to be distracting us from the actual facts and numbers. So let me run through some things. There has been a lot of conversation about family units, about what it means for family units to be able to come in and whether family units should be separated. Let me make it very clear. I have been very outspoken to say that family units need to stay together whenever possible. We are Americans. We are very passionate about families. If a family unit crosses the border illegally, as much as possible, we need to keep that family unit together. That may mean we need to have them in a spot in a detention unit or someplace where they can actually stay together as a family as much as possible, but, for whatever reason, the courts have not allowed us to go through that system. I think that is something that this Congress needs to respond to and needs to step up to, but this Congress has been unwilling to have the votes that it takes to make sure family units stay together because the drama of tearing families apart looks so much better on TV. What has been the result of that? The result is a massive increase in the number of children who are coming to our border. This may sound familiar to you, and it should. In 2014, under the time of President Obama, he announced the DACA proposal, or Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, President Obama looked at those individuals who were living in the country here, who had been here for a long time, who came as children. Their parents broke the law by crossing the border, but they were children. In American law, we do not punish children for the actions of their parents. We don't do that. So President Obama looked at these kids and said: You have grown up in our country. Your parents violated the law, but you did not. We are going to give you deferred action. We are going to give you the opportunity to be able to work and to be able to live here. It wasn't citizenship, but it is an opportunity to stay here and to work. As soon as that was announced, within months, the American border started being flooded with unaccompanied minors--kids 17 years old and younger who would cross the border. They showed up in the thousands. They were brought by human smugglers from Central America who make their living moving people from Central America to the United States. That business started traveling all through Central America saying: President Obama is going to allow you to be able to stay in the country. He has just announced this program, and if you will go now with me, you will get to stay in America. So parents were literally surrendering their teenagers, most of them boys, and saying to their boys: Go to America and go find a job and work and send money back. They would send their kids with human smugglers. President Obama then said: Time out. That is not what I said. President Obama was very clear to say: You had to have been here years ago. You are not eligible if you cross the border now. Do not come. Our State Department actively worked to get the message out in Central America, saying: Do not come. You will not be able to stay. But the human smugglers were telling them: They are just kidding. I am going to take you, and we will show you that we can get you in. What happened is that they started bringing kids by the thousands up to the border. When they got there, they were introduced to the border folks. They would go in, and they would get an opportunity to all stay. They would get a piece of paper that said they can't be deported while they go through their paperwork. Those kids then were taking a picture of that piece of paper, saying: I got in. I am legal. They were snapping that picture and sending it back on social media to their friends in Central America. It just accelerated, and it blew up into huge numbers. In my State of Oklahoma, President Obama used one of the military bases there in Watonga, OK. He converted one of the dorms and was moving unaccompanied minors into this military base around a big giant fence in the middle of the base, just as he used other military bases to house unaccompanied minors because they were coming in such large numbers that they couldn't be managed. That was under President Obama's time. It took a long time--several years--to get the message back out to Central America: Stop sending your unaccompanied minors because it is not just an automatic entry. Then the conversation started about family units, saying: If you come as a family unit, you are going to be able to get in. Now, that is not what everybody was saying here, but that is what the smugglers said back in Central America. They said: Hey, the Americans allow you to come in if you come in as a family unit. So bring a child with you, and you can get in. Over the last year, we have watched the number of adults showing up with a child on our southern border dramatically increase by the tens of thousands--an unintended consequence. It is interesting. Some may have noted over the weekend a Washington Post story that was titled: ``For Central Americans, children open a path to the U.S.--and bring a discount.'' The Washington Post story was a story about research they are doing in Central America on these human smugglers and what they are doing now in their business. In the story they detailed that it will cost $10,000 if you travel as an adult, but if you bring a child with you, you and the child can come for $4,500. So it is half price if you bring a kid, and families are so desperate in that area to get some kind of assistance that, literally, adult males, mostly, are going to families and saying: Let me take your child with me. I will get a discount, and then I will send you some cash back, and I will try to enroll this child in an American school or find somebody to take care of them. We have individuals who are now showing up at our southern border who are bringing a child they are not related to because they get a discount on their human smuggling time, and they get more expedited process to be able to actually get across the border to request asylum. Although, they are not actually requesting asylum. They are just getting across the border and trying to find a job. It is economics. Do we not see what is happening? We are encouraging the human trafficking of children from Central America, from unrelated adults, to come here. It has a nickname in Central America now, which the Washington Post story highlighted. It is called ``adoptions.'' That is the new nickname--that I am going to take my child and adopt them out to some unrelated adult so they can get into America cheaper and faster, and, hopefully, things turn out for that kid as well. Our broken immigration system is encouraging this, and we need to address it. Over the last 2 years, Congress has appropriated about $1.7 billion to build 124 miles of new or replacement fencing along the border. This funding is not some tall, concrete tapeworm running along the southern border. It is a fence. In 2006, it wasn't controversial for the Secure Fence Act. The Secure Fence Act built 650 miles of wall--fence--along the southern border. That fence was very effective. For instance, earlier this year, Congress provided funding to replace 14 miles of fencing along the border between San Diego and Tijuana, Mexico. For the last 20 years, the border between Tijuana and San Diego has been actually old metal sheets from the Vietnam era that were used in Vietnam to lay out on the jungle floor to land helicopters on. They took that old sheet metal decades ago when they brought it back, and then they used it as the fencing between San Diego and Tijuana. That fencing is being replaced. Congress provided the funding, and DHS has done 18-foot-high, bollard-style fencing, open fencing that you can see through, not the solid sheet metal that is up there. Although the actual final results haven't been released on it yet, the border agents on the ground have said they used to have 10 illegal crossings a day through that old- style fencing. Now they have one illegal crossing a month through that new fencing. For all of the whining and all of the conversation I hear, which is that if you build a fence, it is just a ladder, it has dropped from 10 a day to 1 a month, just when the fencing changed. It also allows our agents to see a danger or a risk on the other side and respond to it. By the end of the next fiscal year, DHS will have completed about 120 miles of new fencing in California, Nevada, and Texas. They have also installed 100 different video towers because it is not about fencing, it is also about technology and the ability to see what is happening at the border. We don't need fencing in every area of a 2,000-mile border. Just since January 2017 until now, DHS has put up 31 different fixed surveillance towers along the southern border. They have put in 74 different remote video surveillance systems all along our southern border and 7 command and control facilities on the southern border. They put up a tunnel threat program. They have put in what is called a linear ground detection system and a fiber optic detection system across our southern border in many areas to detect the tunnels that are being dug to move illegal narcotics, mostly, in those tunnels, rather than people. They put up mobile surveillance systems. This is not just about fencing, it is also about technology. DHS has done both, and it is making a difference. While the cameras are focused on children coughing from tear gas at our southern border, we need to ask ourselves a question: What are we doing in the policy that is encouraging people to bring children to the border thinking they are going to get faster access if they can illegally cross? Why is this happening? How do we stop it with our policy? This Nation should continue to be open. We should continue to receive immigrants from around the world, including from Central America and from Mexico. I have neighbors and friends all through my community who are from Central America and from Mexico. They are welcome citizens of our country. They are part of the fabric of who we are--people from all over the world--but I have a very difficult time saying that 100,000 people at the San Diego crossing who are crossing legally should be ignored every single day for the sake of a few thousand who want to crash the fence, who crashed the barriers in Southern Mexico and who are working to crash the barriers here. We need to have a more reasoned response to this. Listen, if you have never been to a naturalization service, you ought to go. I have a staff member whom I completely agree with who says: I can't ever go to a naturalization service and not cry. So far, I have never been to a naturalization service where I don't cry. They are exceptionally moving events, to watch a large group of people from all backgrounds, from all languages, standing and raising their right hand and pledging allegiance to a brandnew country. People who have set aside their old path to realize--for many of them this was years in the process, to legally go through all of the right checks and get to that point. For those 1.1 million people who do that every year, we honor those individuals and welcome them openly. Let's honor people who are doing it the right way. Let's fix broken areas of the system that are encouraging people to bring children because they get a discount if they travel with children illegally across our border. Let's find a way to work out work visas. Let's deal with issues like temporary protective status that need to be resolved. Let's deal with the issues of our immigration, but let's not continue to stall. If the Mars InSight probe can travel 300 million miles in 5 months, surely this Congress can sit down and resolve the immigration issue in a few months. I look forward to that in the next Congress and in the days ahead to finally getting this resolved. I yield the floor.

Mr. LANKFORD

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

Mr. LANKFORD

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, earlier this year, Congress created a bipartisan committee--eight Republicans, eight Democrats, half from the House, half from the Senate. Their mission was to reform the budget process. It was an acknowledgement that our debt is climbing, and there is no structure in place to even address that debt, and any time our debt is addressed, it seems to be somewhat haphazard or accidental or some ad hoc committee is formed to go after debt every 10 years or so. This is spiraling, and we need to have something done, and it needs to be built into the structure. Starting in April, these 16 Members of Congress started to meet, with these instructions: ``to significantly reform the budget and appropriations process''--significantly reform the process. The idea was simple. We are getting a bad budget product; we probably need to look at the budget process and be able to find out what is happening with the process. You see, this process that we have was started in 1974. Right after Watergate, Congress created this new process with a budget, with a President's budget, with authorizing bills, with appropriating bills, and they would all work together for great transparency. It was a great plan on paper, but since 1974, it has worked only four times--four times. Year after year, Americans keep saying the same thing: Why isn't the budget working again? Why is everything climbing? And every year, Congress says the same thing: We will fix it next year, next year, next year, next year. At some point, we have to admit it is a bad process, and we are not going to get a better product out of it. We have to fix that process, so we started meeting. Today, we had our first set of votes on how we are going to significantly reform the budget process. We started meeting at about 10:30 this morning, and after 15 amendments and debate, the hearing was suspended at lunch for a week because a few of the Members wanted to fly home early for Thanksgiving, so now we will have to finish that work next week. It signaled me again that we don't seem to be serious in this body about dealing with debt and deficits, that even the groups selected to reform the process couldn't finish debate without breaking early for Thanksgiving. So far, the only agreements to do significant reform--remember, that is the mandate; the only agreements that have been set so far have been to do budgets every 2 years rather than every year but still keep reconciliation and appropriations every year, change the membership of the Senate Budget Committee, and then to add a new, optional, bipartisan budget pathway in case some future Congress has lightning strike and they want to be able to try it. Those are the only agreements we have had so far. I don't know if that sounds like significant budget reform to you, but it doesn't to me. That sounds like just shifting things around. For months we have researched the history of the budget process. We have identified different options that are out there. We have tried to figure out how we have gotten into this unworkable spot of budget deficits that we are in and how to fix it. For months we have worked on this. Then, as we got to this point, suddenly everyone started backing up to the status quo and saying: We will just try harder again. It will not work just to try harder. The process has to change. You see, we met with the leadership of the Congressional Budget Office and asked some very blunt questions about our debt and deficit that Americans inherently know the answer to. They can just feel it. We asked for simple, straightforward numbers. The Congressional Budget Office reported back to us that if we want to get back to the historic levels of debt and deficit that we have had for the past 50 years, if we want to get just to that level, we will have to start cutting or taxing $630 billion every year, starting in 2019, just to get back to the historic levels we have been at. If we want to stay just at this level of debt to GDP, just remain in this position that we are in right now of overwhelming debt, we will have to cut or tax an additional $400 billion every single year just to tread water. The reason for that is our interest rates are continuing to go up, and on $21 trillion in total debt right now, as our interest rates tick back up, we will soon be approaching $1 trillion in interest payments each year. That is more than all of our discretionary spending combined. People ask the question: Why is the debt increasing suddenly? They look at things like the tax bill and ask: Is that the tax bill? No, it is not the tax bill from last year. In fact, after the tax bill from last year and the tax changes that were made for this year, there is actually more revenue coming into the Federal Treasury this year, after the tax changes, than there were last year. Let me run that by you again. Everyone seems to want to blame the tax bill for the increasing debt and deficit. There is more revenue coming into the Treasury this year than last year, even after the tax cuts, because the tax cuts spurred economic activity. More people have jobs, more people are paying taxes, more people are making money, so they are paying additional taxes. So even with the cut, more revenue is coming in. It is not about the tax cut; it is about skyrocketing interest on a $21 trillion debt, and there is nothing we can do about that other than begin to address it seriously. It has been predictable. CBO has seen it for years, and it is here. The simple mandate of the Budget Reform Committee was to bring out a significant reform in the process so that we can address this together, but so far this has been one of the most frustrating processes that I have had in my short time here in the Senate because most don't want to solve it because the decisions will be hard. Let me lay out some of the options I think do fix this. What are some of the hard choices? The first thing I have heard over and over again in this budget reform process is that we need to get to a bipartisan process. I agree. Republicans and Democrats alike are going to have to look at the debt and deficit and say: We have to be able to work together. There seem to be all of these different gimmicks for how we are going to try to work together when we are avoiding the one simple way. There is one simple way to make sure we do things in a bipartisan manner; it is called passing the law. Right now, the budget, as it is done every year, is not law. The Senate writes a budget, the House writes a budget, neither of them are actually passed as law. The President never signs them. The President creates a budget, the House creates a budget, the Senate creates a budget, and then everyone kind of debates for a year, and then we get to appropriations and fight over appropriations at the end of the year because those are actually law. Well, here is the simple solution. If you want to avoid government shutdowns, if you want to end all of the end-of-the-year fighting, if you want to make budgeting an actually bipartisan process, there is a simple solution: Make the budget the law. I know that may sound overly simplistic to people who are outside of this Senate body, and many people may think the budget is already a law, but it is not. It is not a law, because without a law, you can create partisan documents and debate it and hash it around for a full year and then go fight at the very end of the year before the government shutdown happens, when there is lots of pressure. The simple way to resolve this at the beginning is to make the fight about the budget at the beginning of the year--long before there is a discussion of government shutdowns. Make the budget itself a law. Push the House and the Senate and the White House to sit down early in the year--before May 31--resolve how we are going to spend, what we are going to do, what is the plan, what are we going to save, and then pass it as a law. When that happens, then all of the work can happen after that. Then you do all of the appropriations bills. Then you talk about what you are going to save. Then you fight through all the details of it. But you have established the big deal that takes away the fight at the end and moves the fight to the beginning. But, for some reason, most everyone on this committee is fighting with the one simple, obvious answer: Make the budget a law instead of a partisan political document every year. That has not worked. Let's fight it out early. We are going to have budget fights. We have disagreements in this body. Fine, let's have our disagreements, but let's have them early rather than holding the entire country hostage at the end of the year right as we approach a government shutdown. Let's lay out in the budget debt-to-GDP targets. Then we look at the gross domestic product--that is GDP. What do we produce in total as a country? What is the total amount of debt we can handle as a country? Let's create a plan and then, throughout the course of the year, actually execute that plan. That is what every family and what every business does. They look at the revenue that is coming in. If they have debt, such as their mortgage or cars, they plan and allot for that. We don't. The budget is a political document, and then we make up spending as we go through the year without a significant plan. Let's make the budget a law, create our debt-to-GDP targets in it, and then execute those throughout the course of the year. Most Americans have heard something about appropriations bills. They have heard that on some news report or something. The 1921 Budget and Accounting Act requires that we do a certain number of appropriations bills. Right now, 12 bills are required. It breaks up the major parts of government spending into 12 little spots. Basically, we have 12 different bills set aside for spending. We never have a single bill set aside for saving. Let me run that past my colleagues again. There is no plan for a bill that is set aside for savings. So one of the things I have recommended, in addition to making the budget a law to force everyone to actually have the fight early rather than late, is to add a 13th bill, to do our 12 appropriations bills, and the 13th bill will be a bill that is set aside every session of Congress that is focused on what we are going to save, forcing Congress every session to have to stop and have the debate. How are we going to save money? What are we going to do? Each Congress can decide how much they want to save, but every Congress has to work a little bit on this. Currently, every time we fight debt--it may be once a decade that we have a big meeting on debt. We are never going to get ahold of $21 trillion trying to fight it once a decade; we are going to have to do it little by little by little and chip it away. This Congress, just like the last Congress, just like the one before, didn't do significant work on debt reduction because there was no deadline and the work is hard. If I know anything about this Congress from the short time I have been here, it is that it will not do anything until it has to. So if we created in law a requirement that every session of Congress, there has to be this what I call the 13th bill--this bill that is designed to say that Congress has to debate how much they are going to save and where they are going to save--it would at least force that moment where we have to resolve things. There has been no dialogue so far on how we really reform the debt limit. The debt limit is only an American invention. It was designed to control our spending and control our debt, but I can assure you it has not worked since 78 times we have raised the debt limit. The debt limit has become a debt cliff and a big fight rather than something that actually controls our spending. If we would put in place something to actually cause Congress to have a vote on debt, I would be glad to deal with the debt limit--it is drama every time--and substitute it for something that is really going to reduce our debt burden. But that is not the discussion. The discussion in the committee is not about trying to actively reduce our debt or to put into a plan a way to reduce our debt; it is just, what can we do to take out the debt ceiling vote entirely because it is tricky. That doesn't help us. That is not significant reform, just removing something because it is tricky. Significant reform on our budget process is when we replace it with something that is effective. Every year, the President of the United States since 1921 has submitted something called the President's budget. Millions of dollars are spent compiling this big, giant document that no one reads. It becomes a big political document. Every single President has put one out every year since 1921, and not a single one of them has ever passed--not one--but lots of time and attention is spent on the ``President's budget''. There is a simpler way to do this. Have the President turn over their priorities, turn over the agency issues that they see on spending. It is perfectly acceptable for the President to do that. But don't create this big pomp-and-circumstance, expensive process of having this giant President's budget that really means nothing. How about shifting our budgeting and our whole process to the calendar year rather than the fiscal year? Many Americans don't know that Congress runs from October 1 until September 30. Guess what. It is the middle of November right now. Our appropriations are not done for this year. They are not done for last year. We have carried them over on something called a continuing resolution--what we hear people refer to as a CR--just like was done the year before, just like was done the year before, and just like was done the year before. Congress actually functions on the calendar year, but we pretend to function on a fiscal year. That just guarantees that every October, November, and December, we have budget chaos as we try to figure out how to run the system. How about this for a simple solution: Why don't we actually run it on a calendar year, because that is how we actually do it, including this year. That would mean we would actually plan and structure for that. That is significant budget reform. But currently the conversation in the budget reform committee is, no, we will try it again next year, and we will see if we can make September 30 work. It won't, by the way, but no one wants to actually make the shift. There has been a lot of debate about something called reconciliation. Reconciliation is a process that is intensely broken. It was designed by the Budget Act to be something to really focus on debt and deficit, but it has become a fight with our Parliamentarian and with each other about how to stick in something that is not debt and deficit related. Why don't we simplify the language? Why don't we clean up the reconciliation process? Why don't we make it what it was designed to be and make sure it is clear so that reconciliation is used by every Congress to deal with debt and deficit? It is a doable task. We have laid out multiple different proposals for how to do that. So far, they have all been turned down. We have to figure out a way to get better numbers. If we can't get better numbers, we are not going to get better results. We have to get real numbers from the Congressional Budget Office and from Joint Tax. We have to allow Joint Tax and other groups to do dynamic scoring so we get a predictive way to look at the spending and the tax and see what happens. We have to have real consequences if Congress doesn't do a budget. Americans know if Congress doesn't do a budget, they just leave town and say: We didn't get it done this year. How about this for a simple idea that would be effective even today, if we were doing it. There is a set deadline in statute, in law, when the budget has to be completed, when the appropriations bills have to be completed, and when they have to be signed. If those milestones or deadlines are not hit, Congress cannot adjourn, cannot leave town. I don't care if Thanksgiving is approaching--you set a deadline, and if it is not completed by that deadline, Congress has to be in session every day, including weekends, until it is done. That is a simple solution. If Congress is in session every single day, at some point, they will say: I want to go home and see my family, so we need to get this resolved. I would agree. There is not a pressure point better than forcing Congress to stay in town and stay in session until the work is done. We will see if that is actually added to the proposal, but so far, that is trending away from just saying to Congress in the future and now, no, we will try to get that done, but I am not sure we really will. If we want to end government shutdowns, then keep Congress in session. If we want to end long continuing resolutions, keep Congress in session until it is done. It is a pretty straightforward process. It would benefit our economy. It would benefit this Congress. Even simple things--it is fascinating to me. There is an internal process called vote-arama. It is awful. If you are ever here in the Senate watching it or around it, it is terrible. It is around the budget process, and it is an endless debate/vote, but none of the votes actually count. They are all messaging votes. They don't actually do anything. But anyone can bring up anything at any time, and we go through this endless series of messaging votes, trying to make each other look bad politically. It is a terrible process. It is fixable. In fact, we brought up an amendment today in the process--one of those 15 amendments that were debated before people left early for Thanksgiving--we brought up an amendment today to fix the vote-arama, and it failed because folks on the other side wanted to have messaging votes just in case it came up. In the last vote-arama that happened--an all-night, perpetual, meaningless vote series--the last vote in the vote-arama was a messaging vote: Should we end vote-aramas or not? It passed unanimously. Everyone in this Chamber says they hate it, but when there was a real option to get rid of it, they kept it because the status quo is easier than change. Significant budget reform was the mandate. That has not happened so far--not even small budget reform has happened so far. We will come back after Thanksgiving. We will have another series of amendments. We have an opportunity to get this right and to fix a very broken process. I will pray that over Thanksgiving, Members of this body and of the House determine that $21 trillion worth of debt needs significant reform, not just tweaks around the edges, and that when we come back after Thanksgiving, people will actually approach this seriously instead of the flippant way it has been approached so far. We have to get this done. I commend us to get it done. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LANKFORD

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, the American people have walked through Supreme Court nominations many times. There is a normal process of walking through Supreme Court nominations. They are nominated by the President. There are background checks that are done. It is extensive. They then meet with every single Senator or whoever wants to meet with them privately. They turn in documents so that everyone can read through their backgrounds and their writings. They get details, and they get interviews. Anything they have ever written, whether it was writing for their law school journals or writing articles for a sports magazine, is turned in. Everyone goes back through that. Once they go through all 100 Senators or whoever wants to meet with them, the Judiciary Committee meets with them. They do a week of hearings. They do extensive work and talk through everything. Outside witnesses will come in and will talk about their lives. There is a confidential meeting that happens with all the Senators in which they sit down and say there were some private accusations that might have been made or some issues about your finances or things that we saw in your background report that we want to ask you about confidentially. After all of that is done, there is time for questions for the record, and anyone who still has questions can submit them to the nominee. Then it is time for a vote. That is how it is typically done. Quite frankly, that doesn't look like how it was being done this time with Judge Brett Kavanaugh. He was nominated by the President. He turned over documents. Boy, did he turn over documents. There was an enormous number of documents turned over by him that were requested and continue to be requested. Brett Kavanaugh ended up having 480,000 pages of documents turned over to the committee. It was more than the past five Supreme Court nominees combined turned over. There were 57 days from the time he was nominated until the time the first hearing actually began with the Judiciary Committee. That is a longer period of time than it was for Justice Gorsuch, Justice Kagan, or Justice Sotomayor. It was a long period of time between when he was nominated and when he actually came, and there were more documents that were turned over than for any other person. He went through the hearings for 5 days. He went through all of the confidential meetings and those private meetings. He went through every private meeting with every Senator who wanted to meet privately. Then it was time for questions for the record. There were 1,300 questions for the record that were given to him as followup for the hearing. Those are more questions for the record than for all of the Supreme Court Justices combined in the history of the country. After all of that was done, a bombshell was dropped. You see, a month and a half before the end of the hearing, a lady named Dr. Ford had sent a letter to one of the other Senators here, to the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, saying: I have a concern from a memory that I have from high school time. That letter was turned over on July 30, early in the process, while Judge Kavanaugh was still meeting individually with Senators--before the hearings, before the classified meetings, before any of the questions for the record, before any of that. It was turned over early. Apparently, the ranking member's staff reached out to her then and had a phone call, and the ranking member had a phone call. Then that information was held. Apparently, from her own testimony--from Dr. Ford--she was then advised by the ranking member's staff: You need to hire an attorney and prepare yourself. Then nothing was said for a month. Suddenly, 2 days before the hearing, a leak comes out of the Judiciary Committee--from somewhere--and there was a story in the newspaper about this accuser. Then everything began to break loose. What is interesting is that accusations like these are made for a lot of different nominees of all different types and have been for years and years and years. So there is a process by which to handle this. When an accusation is made like that, you give it to the FBI early. It includes it in its background check so as to walk through it early. You sit down in confidential meetings so that accusers don't have to go through all of the public scrutiny. You resolve it in a private setting and bring as many witnesses as you want to talk through it, but you don't want accusers to have to be public, because they don't like to be public. This is something very private and personal to them. Yet that is not what happened with Dr. Ford. It was saved. She was just told: Get an attorney. You are going to need it. Then her story was plopped out into the news, forcing her out, making her sit in front of the American people and dragging the American people through an exceptionally painful season in our country's history. At the end of that, there was a hearing. Many Americans watched. It was riveting to try to figure out who was credible. How do I follow the story? All of this testimony came out from Brett Kavanaugh who adamantly--forcefully--denied anything like this had ever been done with Dr. Ford or any other person. It was unequivocal. Dr. Ford said: I 100 percent remember this, and here are the three people who will also corroborate my story. They were there. There was a push from my Democratic colleagues to say that this investigation had been done by the committee, and they want the investigation done by the FBI, with the unequivocal statement that during the Anita Hill hearings in 1991, the FBI took 3 days to do all of the investigation. We want 3 days. Give the FBI 3 days to do this. Then they came back later: Give them a week. That is all it would take. So a decision was made to pause and give the FBI time to do it. Here were the instructions to the FBI: Research any credible accusation--no boundaries, no limitations on them. Research a credible current accusation. It was not just ``keep adding forever.'' If there were new accusations that were to come in, there would have to be a new conversation. By that time, they had started rolling in. So the FBI was told to just go look at them all, and they were given instructions. No one from the House or the Senate, of either party, was tracking them. They just let the FBI do their task. They have now come back several days later with the report that a lot of American people now know is stored downstairs, and every Senator has the opportunity to go through it. There are pages and pages of testimony. They went through all of the individuals who were claiming to have any kind of alleged firsthand knowledge, all of the individuals Dr. Ford had stated. Those three individuals were there to say they could testify on his behalf. Then there was the list from Brett Kavanaugh's calendar, saying: Here are all of the individuals who went to these parties. The FBI went through and interviewed them all. The FBI also went to Ms. Ramirez, saying: We will take a look at this, even though the New York Times wouldn't take that story when it was offered to them. The New York Times spent a week researching it, calling around, as they said, to dozens of people to find anyone who could corroborate Ms. Ramirez's story, and they couldn't find anyone. So the New York Times walked away from it, but a different periodical printed it anyway. The FBI went to Ms. Ramirez, interviewed her and interviewed anyone she said could corroborate her story. At the end of that investigation, all of those reports came in. We have now read through them, and every single one of those individuals reported back: I don't remember anything like what they are describing. Not only do I not remember anything like what they are describing, I know Brett Kavanaugh, and I can't even imagine that he would do something like that. Instead of agreeing with their story, with the accusation, person after person after person actually agreed with Brett Kavanaugh. What is interesting is Brett Kavanaugh has been through six different FBI background checks in the past. He has now had 150 people in his life who have been interviewed. Interestingly enough, of all 150 people in his life who have been interviewed--even before this time, one of the questions the FBI asks everyone when they are doing a background check is this: Do you know of any issues this person has with alcohol or drug use that would be a problem for them? Do they have a problem with drug or alcohol use? Every single one of those people, from two decades of background checks, six different times in his life--all of them reported: No, he does not have a problem with drugs or alcohol. Over the last couple of weeks, there has been an aggressive move to transform a person into a monster. In fact, some of my colleagues on this floor have labeled him as evil, and anyone who supports him is evil. It is the transformation of a person's reputation for political gain. The other accusations I have seen in the media have been fascinating to me. For the past several weeks, the media has been reporting there is another accuser. The big story will come out that there is another accuser, but the next day they don't ever seem to print when that accuser recanted, as many of them have. A story breaks out one day saying, ``Here is the story I remember,'' and they tell this whole sexually explicit story. The committee then contacts the individual of the story and says, ``Under penalty of perjury, would you be willing to testify in front of us and tell us your story?'' Instead of saying, ``Yes, I would agree to tell my story,'' the response that came back to them was, ``I made a crazy mistake. I apologize. I will recant my story rather than face perjury and testify.'' There was an accusation that came from an anonymous person in Colorado, who said, ``I know I saw Brett Kavanaugh in this year, at this time, slam his girlfriend against the wall in this public place,'' except the problem was the girlfriend that he had at the time came out publicly and said that never ever happened, and she can't imagine Brett Kavanaugh doing that. My favorite one is the accusation that was printed in which another accuser, who ended up being a person who had written in a tip, said: There was a really salacious frat party at Brett Kavanaugh's fraternity after he left Yale. It was a really big party, and it was really out of control. I bet Brett Kavanaugh came back to that party after he was out of college. I bet he came back and went to that party and someone should check. That was the big tip. This has really gotten out of control. This started with a serious accusation from an accuser whom we should take seriously--Dr. Ford. We should have been able to get to the facts and the information, but it suddenly spun out of control into random smear campaigns to try to destroy someone personally. The information that has come out has not corroborated any of the accusations. In fact, it has done the opposite. This has done tremendous damage to a family and to the reputation of someone who has served our country admirably for a long time and who, up until the last 2 weeks, had a stellar reputation, which has now been trashed for political gain. I grieve for the people who have experienced sexual assault in their lives. I have spent 22 years working with students in youth ministry, and I have met lots of families who have had lots of pain in their lives. How we deal with sexual assault in America is very important. People need to be believed, and things need to be taken seriously, but when the facts all come out, we also have to make decisions based on facts, not on accusations. This is a case where we have to be able to deal with the facts. I will vote for Judge Brett Kavanaugh to be on the Supreme Court based on his record for decades, based on now seven FBI backgrounds checks on him, based on 65 ladies who have come forward, who knew him from high school and college and have said: This is the Brett Kavanaugh we knew, and he isn't anything like all of these accusations. Based on 150 different people whom the FBI privately interviewed and asked about his alcohol use over the past 20 years--even reaching back to college, for instance--asking if he was ever out of control in his alcohol use, all of them say no. All of them say no. It is not based on a couple of recent accusations; it is over decades of history. I get that there are people who will disagree on this for political reasons or they may not like Brett Kavanaugh's positions on legal issues. I get that, but let's not smear a man's reputation forever because we don't like his opinions on something. Where do I think we go from here? I think there is something we can gain as a nation from this painful experience. If there is any one piece of advice that I could pass on to the country as a whole and to us as leaders, it is to encourage families to take care of their kids. As I read all of these stories--and I have gone through all of them-- all of them show some markers that I look at and say there is some need for conversation. I think moms and dads should sit down with their daughters and should lovingly say to them: If there is ever anything that happens to you, if any boy ever does something inappropriate to you, if he ever touches you in any way, we want you to know that we love you, we believe in you, and you can come to tell us right away because we want to make it right as soon as possible. Do not be afraid to talk to us about it. We will not blame you. We want to make it right. That conversation that moms and dads can have with their daughters could have great benefit for a lot of daughters for a long time. There is a conversation that moms and dads need to have with their sons and daughters about alcohol use because in all of the stories that I have read, all of them involve teenage drinking--all of them. Dr. Ford admitted drinking even at the party she described. All of them involved drinking and drug use. There is a conversation that moms and dads could have with their kids because, quite frankly, I have met way too many parents who have said: I know my children are going to drink. I just tell them not to drink and drive. If they are going to drink, I tell them just to stay over there or come to our house and drink, and that will be fine. Well, it is not fine. There are an awful lot of 15- and 16-year-olds who do not have the maturity to drink alcohol, and when parents sign off on it and say that it is OK, they need to understand there are very real consequences. I have not asked Judge Kavanaugh about it, but I bet he would love to take back some of his drinking when he was in high school and college, to wait until he was more mature, because he was telling painful stories. I would encourage parents to be parents and to step up and help protect their kids so that they can make better decisions. It may be a good lesson for us as a nation to be able to pass on to our kids. One last lesson: We have to learn how to disagree about political issues without destroying someone personally for the sake of gain on anything in politics. We have to learn this lesson because in the days ahead, no matter what your political party is, no matter who is President, no matter who is nominated, we want the best and brightest of our country to step up. We want them all to be able to serve their country. I have not met a perfect person. What has been interesting to me is the number of times that I have had Democratic colleagues say to me in the last week and a half, ``You know, I really hope they don't go through my high school record like we are going through Judge Kavanaugh's record'' or the number of times I have heard folks say, ``Do you know what I really want said at the committee hearing? I want someone to step up and say that he who is without sin should cast the first stone, but that hasn't been said.'' Maybe an ounce of compassion and a tremendous amount of affection for those who have suffered greatly from assault would be of great benefit to us as a nation, as a community, and as a Senate. I yield back. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. LANKFORD

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, there is a lot going on in the world right now, and obviously there is a lot going on in Washington, DC, but I want to take a global look at what is happening in trade. I want to begin by mentioning what is happening in Indonesia. It is a part of the world where Americans don't travel too often or interact with. It is not in our typical sphere, but right now the people of Indonesia are digging out from a massive earthquake and tsunami that followed. The latest death toll numbers are over 1,400 people they identified right now. Many of the most remote villages that were deeply affected by the earthquake haven't been reached yet. We don't know how high the death toll is going to climb. Our State Department has already engaged, as we should, to help them in any way we can. We have already released some initial aid relief to them. We are offering our help in any way we possibly can to assist the people there as they try to make sense of how to go forward on relief efforts. There are private organizations, such as World Relief, that provide a global response that are already on the ground engaging to help. There are Americans helping the people of Indonesia--and rightfully so that we should. We should keep our focus on what is happening around the world, and where we can help, we should help and engage. So we should continue to pray for and reach out in practical ways to help the people of Indonesia. We will try to keep people updated on that in the days ahead on how people can stay engaged. The President made an announcement earlier this week dealing with international activities with our closer neighbors of Canada and Mexico. This is an issue that has been discussed for quite a while. The President brought it up in his campaign and immediately went to work on trying to reshape the NAFTA agreement. Interestingly, States have different opinions about NAFTA, but in Oklahoma our No. 1 and No. 2 largest export locations are Canada and Mexico. Our manufactured and agricultural products often are moving north and south to our closest neighbors, and NAFTA has been a win for us as far as building our own economy and reaching out to export our products. So I was very attentive when the President said he wanted to revisit NAFTA. Our team quickly engaged with the President and his team to talk about what can be done to help. It is one of the issues I brought up with Robert Lighthizer before he was even appointed to the position of U.S. Trade Representative. We talked about NAFTA; we talked about the importance of trade agreements as well. I met with Gregg Doud, the Chief Agricultural Negotiator, multiple times through this process. I met with the White House to talk numerous times. I met with the President and with the Vice President. I met with different individuals with their team to talk about how important trade is and how essential it is that we get to a good deal. Initially, the focus was on resolving it with Mexico, leaving Canada out. My conversations with the White House have been that I understand the pressure on Canada, but Oklahoma's No. 1 trading partner is Canada. So I encouraged them to finish this out, as well, because it is exceptionally important to us. There is this perception that only the people who border with Canada care about trade with Canada. That is not so. We continue to interact with them in letters, meetings, and phone calls. I was pleased to see a trade agreement that actually came forward this week. There is a lot to resolve. We are still going through the details on it, but the important thing to come through it is locking in some of the things we already have with trade agreements. When I speak with the people in my State about trade, they say: We want to resolve the trade issues with our friends, but the main focus we want to have is reaching out to make new friends internationally. Let's resolve the markets we already have and make sure those are stable. Let's try to find new places to sell our products and establish new trade agreements. It makes sense for our economy. It makes sense, quite frankly, worldwide for us. I was pleased to see the administration step forward, saying that we are resolving the issues with Canada and Mexico and resolving some of the unanswered issues. If you go back to the 1990s, we weren't talking a lot about e- commerce when the NAFTA deal was first done. It was time for an update on that. It was time, quite frankly, for a State like ours that deals with a lot of wheat to have Canada acknowledge that the wheat we grow is quality wheat. Canada had a bad habit; every time we sent quality wheat to them, they would downgrade it as soon as it came across the border and say that American wheat was never the same quality as Canadian wheat. Sorry to say, our wheat is the same quality, so that is finally being resolved, back and forth, between Canada and the United States. There are simple questions, such as what are de minimis products to be able to carry across the border between Canada and Mexico? It might not seem like a big deal, but allowing an individual to cross the border from the United States to Canada--to go back and forth with a small number of goods they have purchased is significant to someone who is a normal consumer crossing back and forth across the border. That has been a problem for a long time that finally will be resolved. Dairy issues have famously been a problem. Opening up their market a little more to dairy products is very significant for us. This preserves and expands access for U.S. poultry and egg producers and makes updates to the areas where we need modern updates. I am pleased to see we are finally moving to resolve this. There are some areas that I think are still unresolved, such as the issue about an expiration date. I have spoken with the administration multiple times about that. I think trade agreements can be revisited at any moment. We don't have to set an expiration date on it. Clearly, they can be revisited because we are revisiting NAFTA right now to renegotiate the deal. I don't think we need to set a future date and say that this whole thing goes away. I think that sets an arbitrary deadline on a trade deal. If it is working, we can renegotiate the areas that need to be tweaked, but leave it in place. It creates greater stability. I look forward to having the debate about some of those issues and trying to resolve some of those things. But in the meantime, I want to thank the Trump administration for doing the work that was required, taking on the trade issues that have needed to be taken on for quite a while, and trying to actually get them resolved. Now that NAFTA is wrapping up, we look forward to seeing the details in the days ahead and coming before Congress for a vote, as we see all of the details, and all of the American people will be able to see this final negotiation. I look forward to the next year. The next year will include the new markets. We have trade issues, for instance, with Japan and U.S. beef. The whole world wants to have our beef. They know the quality of the beef we put out. Japan has arbitrary tariffs that well exceed the norms against American beef coming into Japan, which other countries don't face. That needs to be resolved with Japan. We need to continue to expand our exports into multiple other countries. The Trans-Pacific Partnership that was discussed in the previous administration--this administration set aside it and said: We are going to do bilateral negotiations rather than multilateral negotiations. I understand that. It is time to take on those bilateral negotiations, deal with those trade agreements, and expand into new markets and new places. As the American economy is thriving right now, we are continuing to create greater efficiencies and greater products. The world continues to want our products, and the more we can negotiate those deals and find places to send them and people who want to buy them, let's do it. I would add one more thing. We have a unique relationship with England. As the UK, because of their Brexit vote, breaks away from the EU and from that trading bloc, they are working on negotiating a deal with Europe. We should be aggressively negotiating a deal with the UK to form a trading relationship. There is no reason the United States and the UK shouldn't be the first major trade negotiation that they take on and that we solve. We have a lot of products back and forth. Aerospace is one of those primary areas in which the UK and the United States should be able to cooperate extensively. Let's get that trade agreement going and make sure we can get that locked in. In the days ahead, we will want to continue to have our close alliance with the UK, including a close free trade agreement between us, to make sure we can knock down tariffs. This is a moment when the UK can walk away from Europe's high tariffs and high barriers to trade, and we can actually say: Let's establish a closer relationship with our close allies of the UK. There is a lot to be done in trade. There are a lot of new places to go, and there are some areas that I would tweak and do differently, even in this new deal on NAFTA with the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement. But I am proud of the administration; they have actually taken this on to be able to solve it. As I have jokingly said: They have the ability to break things; now it is time to prove they can fix some things. This is one they are fixing, and it will be good for the American economy in the days ahead to see it done. I yield the floor.

Mr. LANKFORD

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, I have 4 requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority leaders. Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate: Committee on Finance The Committee on Finance is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, September 27, 2018, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing on the following nominations: Gordon Hartogensis, of Connecticut, to be Director of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, and Gail S. Ennis, of Maryland, to be Inspector General, Social Security Administration. Committee on the Judiciary The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, September 27, 2018, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing on the nomination of Honorable Brett M. Kavanaugh. Select Committee on Intelligence The Select Committee on Intelligence is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, September 27, 2018, at 2 p.m., to conduct a closed hearing. Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs and Federal Management The Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs and Federal Management of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, September 27, 2018, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Examination of Regulatory Policy on the Economy and Business Growth.''

Mr. LANKFORD

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess until 4 p.m. this afternoon.

Mr. LANKFORD

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, yesterday Facebook, Google, and Twitter removed hundreds of pages, groups, and accounts of Iranian and Russian individuals who had coordinated attacks to try to influence our election. Earlier this week, conservative think tanks, Republican groups, and Senate official sites were targeted by Russian hackers. Today, the Democratic National Committee just detected and announced what it believes was a sophisticated attack to try to hack into its database system--very similar to the attack Hillary Clinton's campaign had during the 2016 election time period. Today, we postponed in the Senate a committee debating election security. Clearly, states such as Russia, Iran, North Korea, and others are trying to influence our elections. They demonstrated the capability, the willingness, and the intent to come after us to try to influence us. They are looking for vulnerabilities in States, not to necessarily pick one candidate over another but to sow chaos and use information against us. These same nation states are also pursuing independent hackers--not necessarily working for their government at all but just individual hackers who are willing to be hired to do whatever these nation states want them to do or to hack in and get information and then sell that information to a nation state that might be interested in it. Election security is not a partisan issue; it is a democracy issue. We should take the security of our next election seriously, just as we take the security of our infrastructure, our banking system, our power and electrical grid, and our water seriously. Those are areas that need to be secured. I am disappointed that there was yet another delay in working through that on election security. But I do appreciate the work of the Rules Committee and what they are doing to continue to refine this. I do anticipate that in the days ahead, we will have a hearing on this issue, and it will move to this floor for final passage. The bill that is being debated is pretty straightforward. It requires voter-verified paper audit trails. In order to receive any kind of Federal funding, they have to have some way to audit their elections. It requires that all States that take Federal money to help them in their election systems also conduct post-election audits that are determined by the States. It is not a reason for the Federal Government to step in and tell the States how to do that; that is uniquely a role of the States. It requires communication between the States and the Federal Government on election infrastructure breaches. There are ways to do that, to honor the States' authority to run their elections but still understand that we have vulnerability nationwide if any one State is vulnerable. I heard the arguments on the bill and on information sharing, but I would say that it is clear that an attack on any one State, on any one county, could jeopardize the integrity of our Nation's election security system. I have heard that States may not need to conduct their own post- election audits. It has been kind of a ``trust us; things will work out fine.'' The challenge I have with that is that five States in the United States right now and as of this election coming up in November will not be able to even do a post-audit election on their systems. Nine additional States have some counties within their States that cannot do a post-election audit. So the problem with ``trust me'' is that there is no way to be able to verify on the back side. I get ``trust me'' but no verification. The bill that is coming through, the Secure Elections Act that Amy Klobuchar from Minnesota and I are working so hard to work through the system, allows the States to run their own election systems and allows for the flexibility that the States absolutely need in the vendors they choose to use and all the details they choose on that, but it requires the simple ability to audit their systems after it is over so that no nation state, no group of hackers can stand up and say ``We did it'' and there is no way to be able to prove them wrong. Audits are not recounts; audits just give voters confidence that the vote they cast was counted. To be clear, we have advanced a tremendous amount since the 2016 time period. The Department of Homeland Security has done a lot to help protect our system. States have stepped up significantly to protect their systems, but there is more to go. The DHS now has security clearances for election officials or has the capability to have an immediate security conversation with every single State in the United States. That is important because in 2016 that didn't occur, and the threat against the United States could not be communicated to the States sometimes for months, sometimes for over a year. That has been fixed. There has been cyber assistance that has been offered to every single State, and many of those States have taken it. The DHS has been able to work with individual States and to check their systems to make sure they are secure, and it has been able to provide filters so as to filter out malicious hackers on top of their already consistent filters that are there. This is to provide a kind of belt-and-suspenders protection for their election systems. The DHS has already given priority to any requests from any State that asks for election assistance. The DHS will literally take people off of other assignments in order to get those individuals to the election officials of any State that asks for it, and all requests from every State that has asked for additional assistance have been fulfilled. Recently, the DHS also ran what it called the ``Tabletop the Vote 2018.'' It ran a national cyber exercise in order to practice how this would work, what would work, and what vulnerabilities there would be. The DHS received tremendous feedback from the States as it did the exercise. It participated with the States and found out where they could share information. The DHS has set up a tremendous resource for election day itself so as to watch out for malicious attacks during election day and the runup to the election and to make sure it has rapid communication. None of that existed in 2016. That is real progress, but we have to get some of these legislative solutions in place as well. At the end of the day, States are going to control their elections, but I don't expect every State in the United States to protect itself against a foreign attack. It is the Federal Government's responsibility to step in and help protect our systems. We are trying to hit this balance with the Secure Elections Act, wherein the States would run their elections, the Federal Government would do its part, and the American people would do their part by stepping up to vote and have confidence in knowing their votes actually count. Congress needs to pass this legislation. We need to move it across the committee line and across this floor because the election issues that we are facing right now are not going away and are not getting easier, and States could use our help. It is about time we stepped up and did it. I yield the floor.

Mr. LANKFORD

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, today, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by my friend and colleague from Vermont, Senator Leahy. My colleagues have heard me stand at this same desk multiple times and speak on the issues underlying the Secure Elections Act, a piece of authorizing language that it is exceptionally important that we actually get passed. This is a bill that Senator Klobuchar and I, along with Senators Harris, Graham, Collins, Heinrich, Burr, and Warner, have worked on very hard to get done. It is something that is being discussed in the Intelligence Committee hearing that is going on right now. Some of the witnesses spontaneously raised its reforms as some of key steps that we need to take to secure our elections. But what we are talking about today is not the authorizing language that is needed; it is appropriations dollars. Just 4 months ago, this body appropriated $380 million to give to the States to help them in their elections. Ninety percent of those dollars have been transmitted, but most of that money is not out the door. We have $380 million that is in process, but it will be the end of next year before we know how the States have actually spent it. I believe it is far too early to add another one-quarter of a billion dollars, which is what this amendment would provide, to the States when we don't know how the first $380 million has even been spent. The Intelligence Committee did extensive research on how much was needed, and the $380 million amount was what was needed for the moment. I ask us to keep the funding at $380 million and not add another one- quarter of a billion to that amount.

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all votes after the first in this series be 10 minutes.

Mr. LANKFORD

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

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, over the past week, the Senate has debated and amended the financial services and general government appropriations bill. It is the first time that this bill has the potential to cross the floor of this Senate since 2007, when the bill was created. Not one time has it passed the Senate since this appropriations bill was created. Usually, this particular appropriations bill is airdropped into an end-of-the-year spending package or an omnibus without ever being publicly debated, without ever coming to the Senate floor, without a single amendment. This year changed that. This bill has been on this floor this entire week. And it was here last week. And it is being amended. And it is going through a process. That may not seem like a big deal to some. That should be a no-brainer for most Americans, certainly for most Oklahomans. They would think, of course, the bill is being amended and debated. But that has not happened since 2007, and we are changing a process, trying to relearn how to actually pass bills--to debate them and to go through this process. I think countless Americans across the country who complain about the inaction of Congress and all the backroom deals have been justified in their complaints about this bill. But I am telling you, we are at a historic turning point of trying to shift this process around. We have demonstrated that appropriations bills can be debated and amended in an open, orderly, and fair process for all of the country to see. I was grateful to accept the role of chairman of the subcommittee earlier this year because of the agencies and programs that are impacted by this particular appropriations bill. It affects the lives of millions of Americans, plays an important role in supporting the American economy, and promoting private sector growth. The funding for this particular appropriations bill is $23.688 billion. It includes funding for entities across all three branches of government, from the White House to the Supreme Court, to a diverse group of 27 independent agencies and the Treasury. In fact, more than half of this particular appropriations bill, $12.7 billion, funds the Department of the Treasury, the offices of which execute important functions that promote economic growth, combat illicit finance, safeguard our financial system, administer the Internal Revenue Code, and manage the Federal Government's fiscal operations. Last year, the Tax Cut and Jobs Act passed this Congress and is now law. It provided much needed relief to Oklahomans and all Americans by lowering tax rates for the middle class, simplifying tax rates for every American, and dramatically changing how we tax businesses. The tax reform bill has helped small and large businesses and individuals throughout this year. In fact, as a direct result of that bill passing last year, this past quarter, our economy grew at 4.1 percent. Unemployment is down to historic levels. Wages have started to increase again. We have seen some significant growth in our economy, but with that significant growth, from a new Tax Code, there are also significant changes that are happening in tax administration. This particular bill provides the funds necessary for the IRS to be able to complete its work to implement the tax reform bill to ensure that the tax forms and all of the IT systems are ready for the filing system and April 15. We want to make sure that Americans get their questions answered because there will be additional questions coming this next year as they file under a new system--hopefully a simplified system. The bill also provides funding for the taxpayer assistance centers to ensure that local offices in my State--like those in Enid, Lawton, Oklahoma City, and Tulsa--remain open and available for individuals to have face-to-face conversations with someone from the IRS and that there is also the opportunity for them to be able to call directly, if they have questions for the IRS. These important centers help Oklahomans resolve tax issues, change tax account information, arrange payments, as well as get answers to questions regarding the new tax law. This bill also includes $159 million for the Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence. It is at the Treasury Department, but it levies the sanctions against terrorist organizations, international narcotics traffickers, rogue regimes, and individuals and entities involved in the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. It is an incredibly important office that functions in our Treasury. The State of Oklahoma knows firsthand the devastation that can be caused by terrorism, and I am pleased that this terrorism finance entity received a $17.2 million increase in our bill. It increases their capacity to curb terrorist financing and dismantle the financial networks that support them. If you stop the flow of money to terrorism and to cartels, you can stop the flow of drugs and violence and every other evil thing that they bring. This bill also includes $118 million for the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network or what is called FinCEN. It combats money laundering. In 2018, financial institutions in Oklahoma have filed over 12,000 suspicious activity reports that they identified with FinCEN to identify suspicious activities or potentially suspicious activities that helped FinCEN to follow the money and track down drug kingpins, money laundering, human smugglers, and other criminal enterprises. Furthermore, this bill makes critical investments in our Nation's financial markets by providing targeted increases for the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. The SEC--Securities and Exchange Commission--works to ensure that our financial markets are fair, orderly, and efficient. This helps Oklahoma companies have access to the capital they need to get started, to grow, to hire, and to thrive. Over the past year, the SEC has made protection of Main Street investors its top priority. This will help ensure that Wall Street insiders can't manipulate stocks prices for retirees in Norman or give unscrupulous financial advice to investors in Broken Arrow. I am pleased we were able to fund this initiative. Households in Oklahoma have more than $164 billion in mutual fund assets, and the SEC regulates investment companies that issue these securities so that families are not victims of Ponzi schemes or fraud that wipe out their entire life savings. With $164 billion in Oklahoma money invested, it is incredibly important that we get this regulated and get it done right. The bill provides funding, as well, for the CFTC, which ensures that derivatives markets in the United States are free from fraud, manipulation, and abuse of practices while ensuring that they remain globally competitive. Some people may say: Well, the CFTC doesn't affect me directly. Do you know what? If you are a soybean farmer or a rancher or you are involved in oil and gas production in Oklahoma, CFTC markets help these people hedge their risk. It is very important to them and to our economy. I am pleased that the CFTC Chairman, Christopher Giancarlo, is visiting Oklahoma next week to meet with agriculture and energy groups face to face and listen to their needs as the agency implements thoughtful rules and regulations that encourage participation and innovation in the markets. We welcome the CFTC Chairman to Oklahoma. The bill also provides $280 million for the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program, which supports law enforcement agencies operating in major drug trafficking regions and corridors. One of those initiatives in this program is the Texoma HIDTA, which encompasses a handful of counties in North Texas, as well as Cleveland, Comanche, McIntosh, Muskogee, Oklahoma, Pittsburg, Sequoyah, and Tulsa Counties. Those counties are sometimes used as a transnational shipping distribution area for drugs arriving from Mexico that are destined for Oklahoma and other parts of the country. With this funding, the Texoma HIDTA coordinates training, information sharing, and joint task forces that connect 70 different Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies in Oklahoma and North Texas. For example, this week, from Wednesday to Friday, the Texoma HIDTA is hosting a training for local street patrol officers, investigators, and detectives to increase awareness of the trends, methods of operations, and drug activity of the most commonly encountered criminal street gangs. It is important that this program stays in place. The bill includes $99 million for the Office of National Drug Control Policy and the Drug-Free Communities Support Program that supports community coalitions to prevent youth drug use. Many youth have a difficult time navigating junior high and high school and early college, trying to stay away from drugs--and keep away. This program supports grants and nonprofit organizations in towns in my State like Oologah, Lexington, and Hulbert in their efforts to reduce teen substance abuse. The bill also provides funding increases to the U.S. Postal Services inspector general to address the growing concern of narcotics trafficking through the mail. This funding increase will enable the inspector general to address the increase in the number of allegations of postal employees stealing drugs from the mail or postal employees assisting drug trafficking organizations in the delivery of narcotics shipped through the mail. We have thousands and thousands of great employees in the U.S. Postal Service, but, sometimes, if we have a bad apple in the group, the mail itself is used to deliver some of the worst narcotics to Americans. We need to increase for the inspector general to be able to track down a bad actor, even in our U.S. Postal Service. The bill provides full funding to the Federal Communications Commission to help close the digital divide between metropolitan areas and rural areas in Oklahoma. We want to protect consumer and public safety and improve the regulatory process for telecommunications companies throughout the State. This also sets the precedent for increasing cell phone coverage in some of the most rural areas in the country, including rural areas in Oklahoma. Oklahoma receives the second largest allocation of Lifeline funds in the entire country, $128 million. But there is some waste and inefficiency, and there are some individuals even in my State who are getting Lifeline funds but should not. So we have increased the ability to be more efficient and to make sure that Lifeline funds are targeted to people who actually need it the most. Further, this bill provides full funding for the Federal Trade Commission to fulfill its mission to prevent anticompetitive mergers and anticompetitive business practices in the marketplace. Each of the programs that I just mentioned has a real impact on Oklahoma and Oklahoma families. But it is important to note that we are not just sending a check to these entities and agencies, and walking away. Prior to passing the bill, we held open hearings to require agency leaders to publicly defend their budget requests, and we will continue to hold hearings and have conversations with agency heads and senior leaders and budget directors about the use of their funds. In some cases, we have made cuts already, and there will be others that may have to be made in the future. Last year, we provided $150 million for the Technology Modernization Fund at the GSA, the General Services Administration. They came back this year and asked for $210 million. We said no. We have not seen results from that program yet, and we don't have any data on it, and I wasn't going to allocate $210 million to something that we don't know is working. The National Archives and Records Administration does incredibly important work to protect our Nation's history, but we reduced their budget for administrative expenses in this bill. They responded by finding more efficiencies to compensate for that. This can be a model for other agencies and entities. There are ways to help protect Americans' money, and it begins by the government remembering that the money that is allocated in this bill is not our money; it is money that is coming out of the paychecks of hard- working Americans, and they want us to be responsible with it-- rightfully so. Again, this is a historic week for the Appropriations Committee, for this particular subcommittee, and for the Senate. I do applaud the determination of Chairman Shelby and Vice Chairman Leahy as they push these bills through and publicly debate these bills on the floor. I also want to thank the ranking member of the subcommittee, Mr. Coons. He has been a great partner in this effort. Our team and his team have worked very cooperatively together through a lot of difficult issues. I appreciate everyone's engagement on these issues as we try to solve this long term. I look forward to continuing oversight in the months ahead as we pass this bill and then watch over how those dollars are actually spent. We want to make sure that decisions that have been made are best for the American people, best for the agencies, and best for the future of our country. I look forward to seeing this bill completed in just the next few hours or next couple of days and finishing the work and then partnering this bill with what the House has passed to get a final conference report and put it on the President's desk. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. LANKFORD

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

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the Financial Services and General Government appropriations bill for 2019. As chairman of the subcommittee, I have really enjoyed working with the ranking member, Senator Coons, and all of the members of the Appropriations Committee. However, for many Members of this Chamber who are not on the Appropriations Committee, today will be their first close look at an appropriations bill from our subcommittee. It has been months in process, with many oversight hearings, a lot of debate, a lot of amendments, a lot of back and forth with a tremendous amount of input from Members of this body, and it is finally actually on the floor. It has been nearly 7 years since the Financial Services and General Government appropriations bill has actually been considered on the Senate floor. In November of 2011, the Senate began consideration of the combined appropriations package for Energy and Water, Financial Services, and State and Foreign Operations. Unfortunately, the floor consideration of that bill was halted shortly after it began, and Members were not able to offer amendments or have their voices heard. We are looking forward to that changing today. This week's debate will subject the Financial Services and General Government appropriations bill to public scrutiny and an open amendment process on the Senate floor for the first time since the subcommittee was established in 2007. It is too long in coming. I applaud the leadership of Chairman Shelby and Ranking Member Leahy, who were determined to see the committee return to regular order. A little bit of sunshine will help us in this process. I am a firm believer that openness and transparency result in a better legislative product. It is my hope that today starts a trend where the appropriations bills that are seldom seen outside the committee, such as the Financial Services and Interior appropriations bills, can be debated openly and amended on the Senate floor. We have made a concerted effort to make responsible decisions in allocating resources and to be responsive to the requests we have received from Members of both sides of the aisle, and we welcome continued input and proposed amendments from other Members. This Financial Services and General Government bill totals $23,688,000,000. It includes funding for a diverse group of 27 different independent agencies. It includes the Executive Office of the President, the Department of the Treasury, the Federal Judiciary, and the District of Columbia. The bill does not include any budget gimmicks or empty CHIMPS, or changes in mandatory program spending, which are often used as a gimmick by appropriations. It does not include those. The bill provides targeted funding increases for the Treasury Department to combat terrorism financing, for the Federal courts to support their administration of justice, and for the GSA's Federal Buildings Fund, including the acquisition of the headquarters building for the Department of Transportation, rather than continuing to pay $49.4 million in annual rental payments for a building that is their headquarters. We will move back to actually owning that building to save the taxpayers that money. This bill also fully funds GSA's request for basic repairs and major repairs. Basic and major repairs are not glamorous appropriations accounts, but they are exceptionally important to maintain and protect the taxpayers' dollars. The bill also makes critical investments in our Nation's financial markets, by providing targeted increases for the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. After years of flat funding for the CFTC, or the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, including a $1 million cut last year, this bill provides an increase to the CFTC in recognition of their critical role overseeing our swaps, futures, and options markets. Support for the CFTC was a priority for a number of Senators in this Chamber on both sides of the aisle, and I am pleased that we were able to accommodate it this year. The bill provides $11.26 billion to the Internal Revenue Service for the administration of our Nation's tax laws. Of this amount, $77 million is dedicated to implementing the new Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. That bill has been enormously successful in helping to turn around our economy, wherein our GDP growth has grown exponentially over the last year. Yet we have to fully implement that bill, and the additional $77 million is dedicated to that. Aside from tax reform, we are able to provide an increase of $75 million in base funding for the IRS. This increase to the Operations Support account over the fiscal year 2018 enacted level will provide for investments in information technology infrastructure to reduce reliance on legacy systems. The total amount for the IRS includes $2.5 billion for Taxpayer Services and $4.86 billion for Enforcement. We have two critical goals for the IRS--improving taxpayers' access to quality customer service and addressing the tax gap, which is the amount owed but actually not paid. The IRS needs help in the customer service area. It has asked for additional funding, and we have asked it for additional focus on customer service. We have given that this time. We have also asked the IRS to deal with the tax gap, which are taxes owed that individuals do not pay. This is not a change in tax law; it is enforcing existing tax law. Our current tax gap is right at $400 billion a year. Addressing this tax gap is critical to reducing the deficit and restoring our Nation's fiscal health. The bill prioritizes the Federal Government's response to the opioid crisis. Our bill keeps our Nation's focus on the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program, with there being $280 million allocated, and on the Drug-Free Communities Program, with there being $99 million allocated through the Office of National Drug Control Policy. The bill provides a funding increase to the U.S. Postal Service Inspector General to address the growing concern of narcotics trafficking through the mail system. We have to pay attention to that. The bill includes $2 million in new funding for the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency for improvements to the website oversight.gov. If folks have not already gone to oversight.gov to see the work of our inspectors general, I would encourage them to do that if they need some additional help. Their work needs to be highlighted, and we need to actually implement those recommendations. IGs are on the frontlines of efforts to reduce waste, fraud, and abuse in the Federal Government, and their recommendations produce billions of dollars in cost savings. We need to actually see those cost savings and implement them. Oversight.gov has improved the accessibility and prominence of their work, and I am confident this effort will produce even greater savings in the future by maintaining a database of open IG recommendations at oversight.gov. Again, I thank my friend Senator Coons and express my appreciation for the way he and his staff have worked with us this year. As this bill moves forward, I look forward to hearing from all of our colleagues about how we can further address their priorities through the amendment process. We look forward to doing something historic--of actually passing an FSGG bill on the floor of the Senate and of working through this process in an open and transparent way. I yield the floor.

Mr. LANKFORD

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, there has been a lot of conversation again, of late, about election security. It seems to be a frequent conversation in the hallways the last couple of days, and it is an ongoing issue that I think some people have lost track of, but we have not. Amy Klobuchar and I and several others have worked very hard for months on this issue of election security, quietly trying to get the language right and to work through the process of what it takes to secure our elections for 2018, 2020, and beyond, learning the lesson from 2016. I do want to remind this body that the elections are not something that happens this November. It is already ongoing. Many States' primaries have already been conducted. Last night there was a runoff primary that happened in Alabama. Georgia holds their runoff primaries next week, and Tennessee is the week after that. Kansas, Michigan, Missouri, and Washington will be on Tuesday, August 7. It is already ongoing. While we watch the indictments that just came down from the Mueller investigation on GRU officers from Russia who were trying to interfere in our elections in 2016, as we have seen the sanctions and the indictments that have come down on some of the oligarchs from Russia and from the Internet Research Agency for what they were doing in social media, trying to be able to interfere with our election in 2016, I think it may be important for us to do a quick lookback at what has happened and what is still going on and what we are trying to accomplish in the next few weeks. Let me just give a quick look at what is happening in my State of Oklahoma. In Oklahoma, in the 2016 cycle, the FBI and others began to discover that there were issues with the elections and some interference from what they, at that time, called ``bad actors'' in June of 2016. Later that summer, in August of 2016, the FBI issued what they call a nationwide ``flash alert'' to every State dealing with a threat from a ``bad actor.'' The Oklahoma State Cyber Command director received that warning, as did everyone else, but at that time the FBI didn't share any details because no one in my State was given security clearance to be able to have that kind of classified conversation with the FBI. It wasn't until September 22 of 2017, a year and a little bit later, that DHS actually notified my State and our State election authorities that we hadn't just been targeted by a bad actor but that we had been targeted by the Russians--a year later--because no one had clearance and there was no one engaged. DHS told Oklahoma State Election Board secretary Paul Ziriax, who is doing a great job, that there was evidence that the Russians conducted a surveillance scan looking into vulnerabilities in the State computer network, but they didn't get into the election board computer network, and they didn't get into any of our equipment. They basically came and checked to see if the door was locked, and they found out that in Oklahoma the door was locked, and the Russians could not get in. They didn't penetrate into our system, though they tried. But it was a year after the elections before we were even notified that the Russians were trying to penetrate our system. A subtle flash warning is all that we received in the summer of 2016. Oklahoma has a great system for elections. Our system is consistent across every single county. We have optical scanners with a paper ballot backup so that we can verify the computer count with a hand count if needed. We have had a very good system. That system was tested by the Russians when they evaluated the computer networks of our State, and they were also not able to get in, thanks to the leadership of some of the cyber and the technology folks who are in Oklahoma. Not all States have the same practices. In some States, from county to county their election systems are different. From township to township they may have different systems with different companies and different backgrounds. They may not have the same kind of system where they get a chance to protect their cyber systems. We saw that in 2016, when the Russians were able to penetrate some of the States and actually were able to harvest some of their voter register rolls. They weren't able to change any votes. They weren't able to affect the voting that day, but they did a tremendous amount of scanning through systems to be able to see where there were vulnerabilities, what they could learn on our election systems, and how they could engage for a future time. I think we should learn a lesson from that and be aware that the Russians are trying to penetrate that system and learning as much as they could. At the same time that they were hacking into different systems and testing them out to see if they could get in, a different set of folks from the Russian group the Internet Research Agency were trying to put out social media disinformation. Some 200,000 Oklahomans saw Facebook and Twitter posts that Russians put out as false information. They weren't all on one candidate. There were multiple candidates and multiple issues. Sometimes it was on Hillary Clinton, sometimes on Donald Trump, sometimes on Bernie Sanders, sometimes on Jill Stein, and sometimes just on ideological issues. Over 200,000 Oklahomans saw those posts from different Russians, not knowing they were Russian posts at all. They were Russians pretending to be Americans, and they were pushing that information out. What can we learn from this? One is the most simple of those things: You shouldn't believe everything you see on the internet. It is not always an American. It is not always who they post to be, and it is not always true. It should be the most basic information that we should learn about what is happening on the internet and what is online, including Facebook and Twitter. The other lesson that we need to learn is a little more complicated. We have to be able to have better communication between the Federal Government and States, better cybersecurity systems, and the ability to audit that. That is why Senator Klobuchar and I have worked for months on a piece of legislation called the Secure Elections Act. That piece has worked its way through every State looking at it and their election authorities. We have worked it through multiple committee hearings. In fact, recently, just in the last month, there were two different hearings in the Rules Committee. It is now ready to be marked up and finalized to try to bring it to this body. It is a very simple piece. It affirms that States run elections. The Federal Government should not take over elections nationwide. In fact, that would make a bad situation worse. States need to be able to run elections and be able to manage those. But it qualifies several things. One is that it gives a security clearance to a person in every single State. If there is a threat from a hostile actor, there is not some vague warning that comes out. There is an immediate address about what is happening and a communication within the intelligence community here on the Federal level to individuals with a clearance on the State level. Right now, the DHS, in absence of this legislation, has started implementing it anyway. Every single State has at least one person with a security clearance now, including my own. They are working to have at least three in every State to do a backup system. We also need to be able to affirm that every State can audit their elections, that they would do what is called risk-limiting audits after the election just to check and to make sure that the results are correct, but also that they have the ability to audit it as the election is going on so that it is not just counting on a machine but that there is also some way to back it up. States have a variety of ways they can actually do that. If elections are trusting that the electronics are going to work and not be hacked into and not be affected, we should have learned the lesson from 2016 that there are outside entities trying to attack these systems and to find vulnerabilities, and they will. Some way to be able to back it up, to be able to audit the election while it is happening, risk-limiting audits after the fact, security clearances for individuals within States, and rapid communication State to State and State to Federal Government all help to maintain the integrity of our elections. That is what we do in the Secure Elections Act. I think it is so important that we try to resolve this as quickly as possible. I encourage this body to finish the markup in the Rules Committee to be able to bring it to the floor and to have a consistent bipartisan vote to be able to support the work that we need to continue to do to protect our elections in the days ahead. Our Republic is one that maintains its stability based on the integrity of our elections. I have zero doubt that the Russians tried to destabilize our Nation in 2016 by attacking the core of our democracy. Anyone who believes they will not do it again has missed the basic information that is out day after day after day in our intelligence briefings. The Russians have done it the first time. They showed the rest of the world the lesson and what could be done. It could be the North Koreans the next time. It could be the Iranians the next time. It could be a domestic activist group the next time. We should learn that lesson, close that vulnerability, and make sure that we protect our systems in the days ahead. There is more that can be done, but the States seem to take a lead on this. This is something that the Federal Government should do, and we are very close to getting it done. I wanted to be able to tell this body that we are close. Let us work together to get this done in the days ahead. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LANKFORD

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, I, along with the rest of the Senate, look forward to going through the process with Brett Kavanaugh, who is an exceptionally qualified judge. He has been described as a judge of judges. He is one to whom judges look around the country to see what he has written and what his opinions have noted. In fact, historically, the Supreme Court has also looked to his opinions on the circuit court and has taken high notice of those and has quoted several of his opinions verbatim in Supreme Court opinions. This person has had a lot of respect for what he has done and how he has done it in the process. I have enjoyed getting a chance to meet his family and to have been introduced to not only his personal faith but to his passion for people and his work with the homeless and other things that he has done for so many years. This will be an interesting process. Over the next 2 months or so, this body should do as it has done before with Justice Gorsuch and Justice Sotomayor--about 66 days for both of them as we worked through their nomination processes until we actually got to the final votes. We will see how this goes in the days ahead. I look forward to getting a chance to visit with Judge Kavanaugh in my office in the days ahead to ask him specific questions. I am reserving judgment on him until I have the opportunity to visit with him personally and to finish going through all the opinions he has written. He seems like an exceptional candidate. I look forward to walking through this process judiciously.