James Lankford

Mr. LANKFORD

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, today, Wednesday, is day 83,723 since the Senate first achieved a quorum and started work. No grand celebration there. That is 229 years, 2 months, and 22 days. In that time, this body has deliberated over some of the most difficult issues of our time--of any time--slavery, war, voting rights. They have all been difficult issues that our Nation has debated in this building. But lately it seems we have less and less debate and more and more empty-Chamber quorum calls. For the people who watch the debate in this room and watch an empty room and think ``Where is the debate happening in the Senate?'' I can assure you there is work being done. There is a lot happening in committee hearings right now. There is a lot happening in different offices on trying to work through the issues. Our days are busy and full, but for some reason, we are not getting to some of the biggest debates of the moment that need to be done and completed. We had a real push in the nomination process. We spent 100 days in the last 18 months just on a quorum call waiting for a nomination to come up. That didn't happened in the last five Presidents combined. There have only been 25 requests for additional time for any nominee in five Presidents. This time, in 18 months, there have been 100. It is slowing down the body. We have to fix that. We have to fix our budget process. Our appropriations process is working a little better this year, and that is good. We moved three bills last week. That is the first time that has happened in a decade in the Senate. That is good progress, but we have to complete the process so we don't end up with omnibus bills. That is going to take some reform. There are 16 of us--8 Republicans and 8 Democrats--who are meeting consistently to work on how to reform the process of our budgeting to make sure that we can fix that. So there is some work that needs to be done. There is also some reform that needs to be done. But as we deal with things like the farm bill this week--so far, we have not had amendments and votes on it--we have to reform the process on how we get through the farm bill, how we get through our appropriations process, and how we get through nominations. We also need to work through things that are difficult, things like immigration. I have been in this body multiple times to talk about this issue, and I will continue to come back to this body to raise it. The challenge we have with immigration is that there seems to be no deadline to solve it, so Congress just delays actually working on immigration. When a deadline comes, Congress finds a way to get around it, or the courts step in and make some change and say: We are going to make some ruling, which delays a decision here, and it just gets delayed again. The Nation is once again looking at the issue of immigration because of what we are watching happen with families on the border. Americans are people of great compassion. We do not want to see families separated. But we also understand the basics of the law. So how do we deal with all these things together? I would say first, this body has to learn how to focus on solving the issue of immigration rather than just complaining about the issue of immigration. We can't have it come up every once in a while when it is in the news and then work on something else when the news stops focusing on it. We have to solve this issue. Last February, we had four different bipartisan bills that came before the Senate. All four of them failed. You would think that there would have been work to say: Let's combine them. Let's find the common ground between the four different bills, form a final bill, and pass it in the Senate. Instead, the Senate got distracted with something else and walked away. We have to solve the issues on immigration. What is currently separating families is not a new issue. Some people believe it might be, but it is not new. This comes out of the Flores decision from 1997. Every single President has struggled under this Flores decision from a court in California. That court said that you can only detain children for 20 days. Well, it takes 35 days to do a hearing. So the court set up an impossible situation where it takes 35 days to do a hearing and you can only hold children for 20 days. So every administration has had the same problem: Do I release people into the country and tell them to show up for what is called a notice to appear at a future court date so their family can stay together, or do I separate families? Previous administrations have said: I will just release people into the country and will tell them to show up at a hearing at a future date. Well, there are a couple of problems with that. One is that thousands upon thousands of those individuals never show up for their first hearing, the notice to appear. The vast majority beyond that, after they show up for their first hearing, are given what is called a notice of removal, which says: You don't qualify to be in the country legally, so you need to leave. The problem is that 98 percent of those individuals then don't leave. Once they get that notice of removal, they find a way to disappear into the country. They move to a new city, and they are gone. This administration is struggling with that, saying: Well, what we have created is an incentive to come into the country illegally. If you cross the border and bring your family, you will be released into the country, and then you can just disappear, and no one will ever try to find you. That is a problem with the legal system, period. I am not cold to immigration. Quite frankly, I am grateful we are one of the most open immigration countries in the world. We have 1.1 million people a year who become legal citizens of the United States, going through the process the right way. I just spoke at a naturalization ceremony in Oklahoma City. If you ever come to one--and I encourage every American to go to one of the naturalization ceremonies, but take Kleenex with you. They are incredibly moving events--watching people from all over the world stand and raise their right hand and take their oath to become an American citizen, say the Pledge of Allegiance for the first time as an American, hold the little American flag and wave it, and seeing their family cheer them from the audience, saying: We are Americans together. It is incredibly moving to see that. There are 1.1 million people a year who do it the right way. Let me add one more number. Half a million people a day legally cross our southern border. Let me run that past this body again. Half a million people a day legally cross our southern border. We are not a nation that is closed to immigration. We are a nation that is open to immigration. Half a million people a day legally go through that process of crossing the border back and forth. That is just coming from the south to the north; that is not counting the people going from the north back to the south, back into Mexico. We are an open nation for immigration, but we have real issues that need to be resolved. Let me run through a couple of these. We have to solve the Flores issue. We shouldn't have an impossible situation to say: You can either release people into the country whom we know, by and large, will never show up for a court hearing or detain them and separate families. That is intolerable. This body can fix that, but no one has since 1997. It is time for us to be able to take ownership of that and to be able to fix that. We should not separate families, but neither should we just release them into the country and give them a notice to appear. Many people in this body may not know, but right now, if you called our Department of Justice and DHS and asked them: In the regions of the country, when is the next available court date for an immigration hearing for a notice to appear? They will tell you--because we have just checked--that the next available court date--if you are crossing the southern border right now, they will hand you a notice to appear for August of 2022--August of 2022. They will release you into the country on your own recognizance, hoping you will show up 4 years and 2 months from now at the next available court hearing. That is intolerable. So what do we do? Let's start with some basics. Can we agree that we should add more immigration judges? We have 350 immigration judges in the country. Last year, this body agreed and voted to add another 150. It is still not close to what is needed. We have a backlog of 700,000 immigration cases right now. It is not possible for that group of immigration judges to actually get through all of that. Can we agree to add more immigration judges so individuals get due process but don't have to wait 4 years to get due process? We should be able to agree on that. We should be able to agree on reforms to the process. It takes over 700 days to hire a new immigration judge. That is a broken process for hiring. Can we agree that process needs to be fixed? Can we agree on basic southern border security? That used to not be a controversial thing. In 2006, this body passed something called the Secure Fence Act. It added 650 miles of fence and border onto our southern border. That vote passed with overwhelming support from this body, Republican and Democratic. Outspoken conservatives, such as Chuck Schumer, Joe Biden, and Senator Barack Obama, voted for the Secure Fence Act in 2006. This used to not be a partisan issue that we would just have basic border security. So 650 miles of fencing is now on our southern border today because of the bipartisan Secure Fence Act that passed with overwhelming support from this body in 2006. Can we still agree that securing our southern border is a good thing or is that still a partisan issue? I hope it will not be. That should be a basic principle of trying to secure our southern border. Every Nation just wants to know who is coming in and out of our borders. Even for asylum seekers--there has been much in the news about asylum. Asylum seekers who go to the port of entry have not violated any law. They are going to a port of entry and saying: I request asylum. What is interesting from that is even if I go back to, let's say, 2016, the last year of the Obama administration, of the people who came to the border requesting asylum, after they got into the country, only 40 percent of them actually filed paperwork for asylum. Of that 40 percent who actually filed paperwork for asylum, only 13 percent of them actually received asylum, and that is in the last year of the Obama administration. We should allow for asylum, but they should come to the ports of entry. That is the right spot to do it, not skip around the ports of entry, and when they are arrested for coming between the ports of entry, then claim: Now I want asylum. Those folks, the vast majority of them who claim they want asylum, never actually file the paperwork to get it. Once they are released into the country, they never follow through with the actual request. We should be able to fix some of those issues. We should also be able to fix the DACA issue. I have raised this in this body multiple times, and I have talked about it often at home. We have a couple of million kids who have grown up in this country whose parents illegally crossed the border when they were infants and children at the time and who have grown up in this country. They don't know another country. Now, their parents violated the law. Those kids did not violate the law. What do we do with them? The most simple principle, and that is what I hope we can agree on common ground is, let's secure the border. Let's take a couple years to make sure we secure the border, but let's also give a shot to those kids who are here with the DACA Program to be naturalized, to become citizens of the United States in the only country they have ever known. This shouldn't be that controversial either. Quite frankly, that opinion is agreed upon by President Obama and by President Trump. Back in February, over 70 Members of this body voted for a bill that allowed for naturalization of individuals in the DACA Program. We had four bills we voted on. None of them got 60 votes, but if you count up each of the people who voted for them on a bill that included naturalization of those kids, over 70 people voted for that in this body on some level. We have common agreement that we should do that. We can't seem to finish the work to actually do it though. We should be able to resolve it. We should be able to fix the issues of family separation. We should be able to solve basic border security issues. This is doable stuff, but we need this body to focus and to actually get it done. Every issue we debate is controversial. Some of them are louder and more controversial than others--I get that--but that is our job, to go through the difficult issues, read the Constitution, and talk to the people at home to deal with the issue and make a decision. I encourage this body to finish the work. We should be able to secure our border. We should deal with this issue of family migration. We should keep families together but actually go through the legal process, not just release them into the country for a hearing 4 years from now, for which they probably will not show up. We should do this and find that common ground. Let's work together. Let's finish the task that needs to be done on this and actually get this resolved. With that, I yield the floor. 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, I ask unanimous consent that the following individuals with the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry be granted floor privileges for the duration of debate on the farm bill: detailee Chu-Yuan Hwang and interns Lane Coberly, Hannah Taylor, and Clara Wicoff.

Mr. LANKFORD

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it stand adjourned under the previous order.

Mr. LANKFORD

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, earlier this year, this Chamber was full of conversation about immigration. We had four bipartisan proposals that all came to this floor. All four of them had votes. All four of them had some engagement from different Members. All four of them failed. While we didn't succeed in getting something passed and resolved on immigration, I will note that over 70 Senators voted for at least 1 of the 4 options that included wall funding, increased border security, and naturalization for those students who are in DACA or DACA-eligible. At least 70-plus Senators voted for those three options. They were written in different ways in each bill, but they all had the same basis. I was one of those. Like many of my friends on both sides of the aisle, during the debate, I said that Americans don't hold children accountable for the actions of their parents. It has been a basic principle we have held for a long time. We believe in the protection of children and the unity of families. That is what we have been about. We have some debate about that because some of this body believes a child is not a child until you can see them, and some believe a child is a child even when they are in the womb. But we do have unity about those individuals--that when we can see them and know them as a child, that we keep them as a family. Although you could strongly put me on the side of saying I think a child is a child even when they are in the womb. It is right for us to focus on families. Quite frankly, it is also right for us focus on immigration law and to believe that we are a nation of laws. We have a great dilemma at this point happening around our border. Let me set some context for this that I think is important, and I want to make sure people understand. We are a very open nation for immigration. We have been before, and we are now. Last Friday, I had the wonderful opportunity to speak at a naturalization ceremony in Oklahoma City and watch people from all over the world take the oath, set aside their old country and become citizens of the United States. I dare anyone to go to one of those events and try to keep a dry eye. It is incredibly moving to watch people have this event happen in their life that they will never forget--they become an American. They didn't just come to America; they are Americans. They have the exact same rights as anyone else in this Chamber and live under the same law. Now, 1.1 million people a year become naturalized citizens of the United States. Each day, 500,000 people legally cross the border from Mexico into the United States. We still have a debate on what happens with those other individuals who aren't the 1.1 million who legally go through the process to become U.S. citizens or the half a million people a day who legally cross into the United States. What do we do with those individuals who choose not to do it legally? It is a much smaller number, but it is exceptionally contentious for us because we are a compassionate nation, but we are also a nation that believes in following the law--rightfully so. In fact, many people are fleeing from countries where the law is ignored to come to a country like ours. How did we get here? When a family is detained for illegally crossing the border, the Department of Homeland Security has a longstanding policy. It is not just for this administration; it is longstanding policy not to separate children from their parents unless there is one of three things that occur: DHS can't establish that the adult traveling with the child is actually the guardian of the child or the parent of the child. The second one is that they believe the child is in danger--for instance, if there is a belief that the child has been trafficked or abused. The third one is that the individual who is traveling with the child--parent or guardian assumed--is being prosecuted for a crime. Those are the three instances in which you separate children from their families. Throughout the last administration to this one, those individuals were prosecuted, but the difference is, this administration has now determined that they are going to prosecute more individuals when they cross the border. The previous administrations would look the other way. They would see individuals crossing the border, and they would say: If they haven't committed some other crime besides crossing the border--they would look the other way and allow them to come in, or they would say: Here is what is called a notice to appear, and you can go into the interior of the country and live in the United States, but show up for a court hearing a year or two from now in someplace that you want to go to. The problem is, as the Trump Administration has noted, that the vast majority of those individuals who were given a notice to appear at a future court date never show up for that court date and they live illegally in the United States. Again, they are not one of the half a million people who each day cross legally into the country; they are the small group of individuals who chose to illegally cross into the country. They are given the notice to appear and then don't appear. The Trump administration is struggling with this right now and trying to figure out what to do in that situation. Well, their decision was to say: Zero tolerance. We are going to prosecute those individuals who come. Rather than just give them a ticket to, in the future, come to a court date, let's do the date right now. The problem with that is, as soon as you press charges on that individual, you get one of those three criteria that kicks in immediately. As soon as charges are filed on the adult--not on the child but on the adult--the adult is taken to have charges filed on them and start going through the legal process. There is a requirement to separate the children then, and the children go to what is called the least restrictive environment. Usually that is with a family member somewhere in the country, but it is usually 2 months or so before we can get that child to someone else in order to help them go with a family member. That is a mess. It is something that occurred based on the decision of the adult who brought the child and the decision of the adult to illegally cross the border, but it is still a mess. We as compassionate Americans absolutely detest watching families being pulled apart. As I have said, the Department of Homeland Security--our default every time should be to keep families together unless there is absolutely no way to do it. Families should stay together. These are individuals who are fleeing from whatever country or are coming for economic benefit. They should face the consequences of illegally crossing the border rather than doing it the right way--legally--as hundreds of thousands of people do every single day, doing it the right way. But we should try to keep families together if at all possible. The question becomes, Now what? Since the policy change of May 5, there are about 2,200 families who have crossed the border since May 5 who have been picked up. About 2,200 adults have been taken one way, and their children taken the other way. It is very difficult for our Nation to watch. As a father, I absolutely believe in every fiber of my being that children should be safe and kept with their own families in a loving and healthy environment. Yet now we are in a tough spot so let me try to review and make some recommendations of what we can do about this. In 1997, there was an agreement called the Flores settlement. The Flores settlement was an agreement between the Department of Justice and a group of immigrant minors. It stated the Federal Government must release to their parents or guardians, without unnecessary delay, migrant children who are being held in Federal custody. In this case, the parent or guardian is under criminal prosecution, so the Federal Government can't do that. The next thing they have to do is to find the least restrictive environment in which to release this child, which is based on this 1997 agreement. This is not a new issue. Every administration since 1997 has tried to figure out what to do with it. The previous administration, as I mentioned, just released people--adults and children--into the interior of the country because it didn't know what to do with this agreement. There is a way to resolve this and help keep families together no matter what their statuses are as they are working through this process. In fact, I believe in it enough that in one of the proposals I brought to this body to vote on in February, when we were dealing with immigration as a whole, there was an agreement to resolve Flores. We have voted on this already. I had folks as recently as today say to bring a piece of legislation to fix this. I smiled at them and said I did 4 months ago and that we voted on it as a body. This is not a new issue. It has not just popped up since May 5, as the Trump administration has focused on prosecution. This has been an issue for a couple of decades. Solving the Flores loophole is exceptionally important to us in our immigration conversation because there are no simple answers to it until we resolve this issue. When the Court requires us to separate children from families while they are under prosecution and to find the least restrictive environment to ship children, it makes for this convoluted, bureaucratic, painful separation of families. I don't think that was the Court's intention, but it has clearly been the result of that since 1997, and now it is happening more. It has happened before in the past, and it will continue to happen until we solve this. In February, we brought up the need to continue to debate and get this done. We have tried this before. Let's keep focusing on solving this. In the meantime, it is my recommendation to this administration that before there is prosecution, it offer to families the opportunity to do volunteer returns. Currently, if you are from Mexico or if you are from Canada and you illegally cross the border, you have the opportunity to have what is called a voluntary return, meaning that you don't go through all of the prosecution. You know you are in the country illegally, but you are not quite at the point of having charges filed against you. You have that opportunity, and you take that opportunity. I think, before it files charges, the administration should offer to every family who comes across the border the opportunity to keep its family together instead of going through this painful separation from any kind of prosecution that would happen regardless of that prosecution occurring. Give families the opportunity to stay together, make a decision on what they are going to do together, and get this done. That is something the administration can do. Short of that, I absolutely believe Kirstjen Nielsen, who is our Secretary of Homeland Security, is exactly correct when she says this is Congress's fault. Congress has had the opportunity for a couple of decades now to fix this, and Congress, for a couple of decades, has said that it is not a problem, it is not a problem, it is not a problem. I and several other Senators and quite a few House Members have continued to weigh this issue and say it is a problem no matter how it is used. Whether it has been used with heavy prosecution or light prosecution in previous administrations, it has always been a problem. Congress has had the ability to fix it, but Congress has been unwilling to do it. It is time for Congress to step up and do the job it is supposed to do--take the votes it is supposed to take. I am very aware these issues are difficult and technical and emotional, but these are real lives that are mixed into this-- individuals who were created in the image of God. They have value and worth. Families are affected by this. Congress needs to step up, take the votes, and actually do the task that needs to be done. The administration is right in that this is Congress's problem and that it is Congress's responsibility to fix it. We shouldn't leave the administration hanging out there. I also say to the administration: You have other options and other tools, in the meantime, to keep families together. Use them. For the sake of all of those kids and all of those families, use them. In the meantime, in the middle of this intolerable position, let's step up, and let's take the votes. We all know we need border security. In this body, border security was an overwhelming bipartisan-supported measure in 2006, when the Secure Fence Act was passed. We believe there needs to be border security. Let's vote for it. Let's get it done. Let's not just talk about doing it someday. Let's actually do it. Let's add more immigration judges. Our backlog of a year and a half before one can get to an immigration court is absurd. Catch and release is absurd. No one would do that or should do that. We have ways to fix that. I have stated over and over in this body that I think it is absurd we have individuals who are in this country, due to no fault of their own, and have grown up in this country whom we have just ignored and pretended have not been there. Those people who are in DACA or who are DACA-eligible deserve an answer. This Congress should vote on it rather than just keep them in limbo. Publically, I believe they should have a shot at naturalization. The reasonable thing is to give us 10 years to get the border security done. At the same time, those individuals in DACA will have a 10-year path headed toward their naturalization. That should not be unreasonable. In the meantime, give those individuals the opportunity to travel and work and go to school and be full participants in our society. I think the diversity lottery is absurd. Other than salvation in Christ, I think one of the greatest gifts you can possibly have on this Earth is American citizenship. We just put it out there and say: You don't have to have any qualifications. If you want to come, come. I think we should actually extend it to people who are going to engage in the economy and be productive parts of our society, who have gifts and abilities that will help us as a culture. Let's make that the extension. Let's keep the diversity lottery. I am grateful to have people here who are from all over the world. Let's just make sure they are bringing the skills we need. I don't think it is that unreasonable. There are things we can do that we agree on and that we should move on rather than just say: Someday, let's do. Someday is today. Someday is right now. It is time for Congress to step up and take the lead and stop blaming everybody else. It is time for us to do our job and vote on this for a result. I yield the floor.

Mr. LANKFORD

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10 a.m., Tuesday, June 19; further, that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and morning business be closed. I further ask that following leader remarks, the Senate resume consideration of H.R. 5895. Finally, I ask that the Senate recess from 12:30 p.m. until 2:15 p.m. to allow for the weekly conference meetings.

Mr. LANKFORD

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 550, submitted earlier today.

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. LANKFORD

Mr. LANKFORD. Madam President, I have talked to a lot of Oklahomans who say they would love to hear some good news every once in a while, so let me just pause for a moment and read a couple of headlines and give some good news. One piece of good news came out of the Oklahoma legislature and out of our research branch. It deals with our finances. Oklahoma's revenues are up 20 percent higher than what was expected. For folks in this Chamber who don't know what is happening in Oklahoma, our economy has been down for a couple of years. We have been struggling through some serious issues in the budget. For our revenues to be up 20 percent higher than what was expected is a surprise but a welcomed surprise. It is a real sign of the turnaround in the Oklahoma economy, and it is very good news for a lot of people. I am grateful to say that it is not isolated news, that this is happening nationwide with there being a real turnaround in the Nation's economy. I don't often come to this floor and quote the New York Times, but let me do that today. Just a couple of days ago, the New York Times ran the headline: ``We Ran Out of Words to Describe How Good the Jobs Numbers Are.'' In just the first couple of paragraphs of its story, it read that the real question in analyzing the May jobs numbers released that week was whether there were enough synonyms for ``good'' in an online thesaurus to describe them adequately. For example, ``splendid'' and ``excellent'' fit the bill. These are the kinds of terms that are appropriate when the U.S. economy adds 223,000 jobs in a month, despite its having been 9 years into an expansion, and when the unemployment rate falls to 3.8 percent--a new 18-year low. That was from the New York Times. They ran out of words to describe how good the economy is nationwide. This is from CNN: There are now more job openings than workers to fill them. Want more evidence that America's economy needs more workers? For the first time in at least 20 years, there are now more job openings than there are people looking for work. That came from CNN. The strong economy that we are facing shows that we have a 44-year low of people right now who are applying for unemployment insurance, of people who are out there who have lost jobs and are looking for jobs--a 44-year low nationwide. Three million new jobs have been created since November of 2016. Right now, there is a job opening for every jobless person in America. During the height of the recession just a few years ago, there were six people who were looking for work for every one job open. Now there is at least one job open for every single person in America. Unemployment has fallen to 3.8 percent--the lowest in 17 years--and consumer confidence has hit an 18-year high. There have been remarkable turnarounds that have happened. There has been a nice, strong, steady increase in our economy. What the Federal Reserve has always been afraid of--an overheating economy that moves too fast--has not occurred. It has just been one of steady growth with new individuals participating in the labor force. On top of all of that, even for those individuals who are currently employed right now, the average wages have increased in America by 2.7 percent. For the individuals who are employed, wages are going up. For individuals who are looking for jobs, there are job openings for every single American who wants a job, and the unemployment rate continues to drop to a 44-year low. That is good news. That is the ability for the American economy to be able to run again as it was designed to run. Quite frankly, when the tax reform bill was debated at the end of last year, there were a lot of people asking: Is this going to work? Will it really encourage the economy to grow or will it be a sugar high--is what I heard on this floor--of individuals who will be rushing to spend money only to then have the economy fall away and collapse? What it has shown is, month after month, since tax reform has been passed and implemented, businesses have been hiring; people have been finding work; and wages have been going up by a steady amount. There has been the opportunity for people to start new businesses. We have seen real growth. Whether that be in State revenues, as in my State, or whether it be for individuals around my State, we are seeing real progress. That is a benefit. Now I encourage people to keep going. There are a lot of things still to do in our economy, and I am grateful that, recently, the national survey, which is done every year on the best places in America to start a new business, listed Oklahoma City as the No. 1 place in the country to start a new business, a place that is business friendly. That is true for my entire State, where people are welcome to come and start new businesses, to engage, to find new jobs--to open up and find new opportunities. Speaking of opportunities, my State, along with many other States, has started rolling out from the tax reform bill what are called opportunity zones. It is when we look for areas and designate areas in the State that are not growing as fast as other areas and provide incentives for people--incentives that have been built into the tax bill--in working with the State leaders, where there can be greater investment for people to find jobs, start new businesses, open new businesses. There are additional incentives with which to do that, and we have seen that continue to roll out. So far, there have been 46 States that have designated opportunity zones, and they are rolling out even today. I am grateful for what is happening in our economy because it is not about numbers and statistics. It is about individual families who have the opportunity to find work. A friend of mine at church recently lost his job. What is interesting about that is, 8 years ago, I had a friend of mine at church who also had lost his job, but it is so different now versus then. Eight years ago, a different friend who lost his job caught me and talked about the desperation of looking, but there was nothing out there. Now a different friend who has lost his job, who is in transition right now, is talking about the opportunities, and he is not in a hurry because he has so many options in front of him. He may start something or he may join somebody else. It is a good thing that when those moments of crisis come, you have opportunities and the hope of transitioning to another place in order to be able to take care of your family. I would encourage us to continue to work on our economy. One of my favorite stories that has come out of the newspapers over the last couple of weeks is from the Wall Street Journal. It talks about this economy and talks about hiring, and it mentions specifically that many companies are having a difficult time finding new workers, so they are pursuing a group that they would not have considered a few years ago. They are looking to hire and train felons. These are individuals who have done their duty to society--who have been in prison, have finished their terms--and they are out and just want another shot. This economy is growing so fast that many of those individuals are getting their next shots to start life all over because companies are reaching out to train and hire people who even have felony records. These are individuals and families who don't need a handout; they need opportunities. Thankfully, they are getting it in this economy. Whether it is a company in Guymon or whether it is a company in Hugo or whether they are companies all across my great State, people are finding opportunities to work. I am grateful for that and a growing economy. Madam President, I thank Senator Inhofe and Senator Reed for their work on this year's National Defense Authorization Act. It is a big piece of work. It is something that we do every single year, walking through--what is called affectionately around here--the NDAA. It is all of our defense policies. It is what weapons systems we buy. It is how we support our men and women in uniform. It is how we ensure the national security of the United States. It is working its way across the floor, and I am proud of the role my State has played in what is happening to achieve the goals for national security. The defense bill authorizes a 2.6-percent pay increase for our troops, which marks the largest increase in troop pay since 2010. The bill also increases procurement and funding of the KC-46 tanker, which will be stationed at Altus Air Force Base in Southwestern Oklahoma and maintained at Tinker Air Force Base near Oklahoma City. The Air Force currently operates an air fueling tanker fleet with an average age of more than 50 years. Since the air refueling tanker plays a key component in our Nation's overall military strategy and our worldwide reach, including our readiness and operational capability, the KC-46A is a very welcomed and long-awaited asset for the Air Force's air refueling capability. They are scheduled to arrive later this year--in just a few months--at Altus Air Force Base so our women and men of the Air Force can step up and be trained and be ready to use that great asset. The 97th Air Mobility Wing at Altus Air Force Base is responsible for that formal training with the C-17, the KC-135, and now the KC-46 aircraft for the Active Duty, Guard, and Reserve aircrew, while it maintains that Global Reach. Tinker Air Force Base currently supports the depot maintenance on that. Many of those pilots who end up in that training first start out in Enid, actually. They are being trained in Enid, OK, on some of our smallest training aircraft. They learn how to do it and then, later, transition to Altus to then fly the KC-46. The bill continues the modernization efforts to be able to continue flying the B-52 bomber, the sustainment of which is completed at Tinker Air Force Base. The bill includes funding for the Paladin Integrated Management system upgrade, which is assembled in Elgin, OK, and is used at Fort Sill, which is right down the street. The Fires Center of Excellence at Fort Sill organizes, trains, and equips all of the Paladin units in the Army Paladin Integrated Management. Quite frankly, just about every time I go home or now fly out, I sit next to or nearby some young woman or man who is clutching a folder in his hand as he heads into Oklahoma City to get on a bus and head to Fort Sill so he can do his basic. I always recognize their faces, and I don't have to say anything else to them but ``thank you for signing up,'' because they are always clutching those folders they have been told not to lose, so they just hang onto them tightly. They are heading to basic at Fort Sill. It is an incredibly important facility for us as a nation. Earlier this year, it was announced that Fort Sill will maintain the long range precision fires and the air and missile defense cross functional teams and will welcome two new brigadier generals to lead these organizations. All around the world people are asking for the assets that are coming out of Fort Sill because people want missile defense and the capability of protecting themselves from incoming threats. This bill that we are working on also includes funding for the bulk diesel system replacement at the McAlester Army Ammunition Plant. Almost every time you see a guided missile somewhere--in all likelihood, on TV--it was assembled and prepared in McAlester, OK. The bill provides funding for the aircraft vehicle storage building for the Army National Guard in Lexington, OK. Since September 11, 2001, the Oklahoma National Guard has deployed more than 30,000 soldiers to more than 16 countries--right out of Oklahoma. We are proud to do our part. Finally, the committee recognized the spaceport in Oklahoma, which some folks missed, but the committee did not. It is home to one of the Nation's longest and widest runways. It is a 13,503-foot-long by 300- foot-wide concrete runway, and it is ready and prepared for our Nation. The committee noted that the Oklahoma Air & Space Port, near Burns Flat, OK, is the only space port in the United States to have a civilian Federal Aviation Administration-approved spaceflight corridor in the National Airspace System. This spaceflight corridor is unique because it is not within military operating areas or within restricted airspace, which provides an operational capability for space launch operations and associated industries that are specialized in space- related activities. This is a good bill. There is a lot in it, and it is a long bill. There are amendments that are still pending as we work through the process, but there has been a good conversation as we have worked through and continue to focus on one of the primary responsibilities of this Congress and of our legislative branch--standing up for the national defense and making sure we take care of that. There are a lot of things happening in our economy and our Nation because we are secure. If at any moment we let down our guard with our own security, a lot of other things will disconnect. It is a good thing for us to work through the process on this, and I look forward to supporting this bill and continuing to support our national security. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. LANKFORD

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

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, in the last 24 hours, Senator McConnell announced that the Senate will still be in session in August. I don't know of any Senator who loves being in Washington, DC, in August. Quite frankly, it is a hot, humid, miserable place. I would much rather be in Oklahoma with other folks whom I serve, getting to spend some time there. The Senate is in session 11 months of the year. The only month we are not in session traditionally is August. But we have a problem. The work is not getting done in the Senate. If the options are to be in Washington, DC, and get the work done or to be back in my State and see the folks in my State but knowing that the legislative work is undone, then the decision should be to get the work done. Senator McConnell announced yesterday that in August we will be here. We have two big issues as the reason we should be here in August to get some things done. One is the nominations issue. This is an issue that has, quite frankly, picked up a lot of speed this year. Last year in our nominations process, we had a record slow process to try to get nominations through. This year, more nominations have gotten through. Let me give an example of what we are up against. In the past 6 Presidents, there have been a total of 25 cloture votes for nominations in the first 2 years of the Presidency--25 total, all 6 combined. Right now, President Trump is at 100 cloture votes so far for his nominations. You may say, what is the big deal about that? Each one of those basically consumes a full day on the Senate floor--each one. In the past, if it was a controversial nominee, there would be additional time that would be requested, and that time would be done. It has been done 25 times over 6 Presidents. To do it 100 times for President Trump--it is obvious it is intentionally slowing down the Senate because when we are dealing with what is called postcloture debate time on a nominee, we can't deal with anything else. We can't deal with legislation. We can't deal with any other topic, so the Senate comes to a stop. One hundred days have been lost just doing that, lost time. We have a lot of nominees who still need to go through, which traditionally went through by voice vote or in rapid succession. The White House still has a lot of nominees. They are due to be sent to us as well. They can continue to send those nominees, but the nominees who are here, who have gone through the committee process and have been fully vetted--it is time to bring those to a vote so the President can have his staff. In 2013, Republicans and Democrats agreed together that things started to slow down a little bit in 2012 on some nominees. Republicans and Democrats came together to change the rule for how much time would be set aside for nominees. Harry Reid did a presentation during that time period and supported a proposal: 2 hours of time for district court judges, 8 hours of time for just about everybody else, except for Supreme Court, circuit court, and the Cabinet--they would still be 30 hours. Republicans joined Democrats in 2013 and agreed on that. For a 2-year time period, Republicans and Democrats agreed alike that was a reasonable amount of time for postcloture debate--2 hours, 8 hours, or 30 hours, depending on who that was. That expired at the end of 2014. I brought that back up. I brought it to the Rules Committee. The Rules Committee has debated it. The Rules Committee has now voted it out of the committee. My simple recommendation is, this was a Democratic proposal in 2013 for that time period. I think if it was good for the Democrats in 2013 and 2014, it should be good for Republicans or Democrats from here on out--to not just have it for the next 2 years but to say that is a simple rule to get the Senate back to functioning again. My concern is, now with 100 cloture votes that have been done in the past year and a half on nominations, the next time there is a Democratic President--and there will be at some future time--you can be assured that the Republicans are going to do at least 100 cloture votes to them, and we will slow down government just as much. That doesn't help us long term. We have to get out of this cycle, and we are in a downward cycle of trying to deal with nominees. We need to be here in August to work through nominees because we have not had enough time because 100 days have been lost just sitting on cloture votes, waiting on that to happen. The second aspect of this I want to remind people of is this: We need to be here in August, to work through this time period, because appropriations need to be done. In 18 of the last 20 years, this Congress has done an omnibus bill; that is, taking the 12 different appropriations bills, throwing them all together with no amendments, getting the text of it the night before, and saying: Everyone, just vote on it tomorrow. That has happened in 18 of the last 20 years. We have bad muscle memory. Twenty-five years ago, this Congress would debate those bills one at a time, bring them up onto the floor, and amend them. Democrats and Republicans would have input into those bills, and then they would pass. They would then be conferenced with the House and go to the White House for signatures. That really wasn't that long ago. Quite frankly, college students who are graduating right now have no memory of this Congress ever doing the appropriations process the right way. It has never happened in their lifetime. We have to fix this. The argument has been that we only have 50 workdays left before the end of the fiscal year. The only way to get some of those workdays back is to add in August. We have to get the appropriations process back on track. I hope most of this body can remember the early morning hours in March of this year when this Senate passed a 2,232-page omnibus bill that zero Members in this body had read because there was physically not enough time to even read it. We got it late one night and had to pass it the very next night. In fact, the House passed it at noon the next day--merely hours after they received the bill. We can't do this. We can do better. The only way to do it is to get time back in our schedule. I commend the leader for putting time back in the schedule. Senator Perdue, I, and 14 other Senators wrote him a letter and said that we need to consider this to get nominations done, to get appropriations done. If we cannot get the work done in the time we have, we have to make more time, and we have to get this done. I commend the leader for this, but I also challenge this body to say that we should not squander the days we have. None of us are going to enjoy being here in August when there are lots of others things we would like to do in our home States, but let's get the work done because it is important for the future of the country, and the country expects us to finish well what we are doing. Mr. President, I yield back.

Mr. LANKFORD

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

Mr. LANKFORD

Mr. LANKFORD. Anywhere else. I thank the chairman for that clarification. We look forward to doing what is in the best interest of the veteran and the veteran's care--not necessarily what is the simplest thing for the VA but what is in the best interest of that veteran and their family. I appreciate all the great folks at the VA who serve our veterans so faithfully every day and will continue to be able to give them what they need to do that but also help our veterans know that they are going to be taken care of in the best possible way. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to enter into a colloquy with Senator Isakson.

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, I thank Chairman Isakson for the work he has done on this important issue. It has been a long road to work through reforming the VA. The VA is exceptionally complicated. There are a lot of interests engaged with this. He has heard a lot of voices from all over the country and all over this town in order to help resolve some of the issues and bring them together. This is exceptionally important, though, for our veterans--especially for our veterans who live in rural areas that are very far from healthcare. Section 101 of this bill requires the VA to give access to community care when a veteran's referring clinician agrees that furnishing care or services in the community would be in the best interest of the veteran after considering certain criteria--and this is very important--things such as the distance they have to travel; the nature of the care that is required; the frequency of the care, so they don't have to travel back and forth, often for long distances; the timeliness of available appointments; whether the covered veteran faces an unusual or excessive burden. It includes the family and the veteran. So in the conversation that is happening, it is not just a clinician making a decision; the veterans are at the table, and their family is brought into consideration. This is important not just for so many veterans who have to travel long distances; it is important for veterans who live close. The chairman and I have spoken on this briefly before. I have a veteran in my State who was at the Muskogee facility and who was getting great care. I stopped by to visit veterans in the Muskogee facility and went room to room visiting with people, checking on them and their care. I asked how he was doing, and he said he had great nurses and great doctors and has really done well. My next question: Is this the first time you have been in this facility? He said: Well, no--kind of. I had cancer treatment a couple of years ago. But they couldn't do it here in my town; they sent me to Seattle to get my cancer treatments. I said: Did your family get to go? He said: No, sir. They couldn't go. So that was the best facility. He said: I got good care there, but I went a long way and spent months and months away from my family getting chemo, radiation, surgery, and then followup. He would have loved to have done that at any number of cancer facilities in Oklahoma. In fact, in Oklahoma City, there is a National Cancer Institute--one of top 2 percent of all the cancer hospitals in the country is right down the road. The question is, Once this bill passes, in future situations where veterans are facing great need for specialties--like cancer and other issues--will this be a situation where veterans will continue to be sent across the country, away from their families, for care because that is easiest on the VA, or will their family members and the frequency of visits be brought to bear in that so they will be able to make the decision that maybe they can get that great care locally?

Mr. LANKFORD

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, I was in a conversation with a group of Oklahomans just last week, and the issue of net neutrality came up in that conversation. A gentleman there who had published his content on the internet seemed very concerned about net neutrality and wanted to make sure that the content he had he could continue to publish, and he would not have to go to every single ISP--internet service provider-- across the country and negotiate a deal with them. That is what happens with net neutrality. I said: It is very interesting. Has that happened to you? Have you faced that? He said: No, but I am afraid I might. Here is the problem we have with this conversation about net neutrality. For 20 years, the internet functioned under a very clear set of rules. The Federal Trade Commission had a set of rules both for content providers and for the fiber--the internet service providers. There was a clear set of rules. They couldn't violate any trade practices. They couldn't do monopolies. They couldn't violate the basic rules of commerce. There was a very clear set of rules. Then, 2 years ago, the FCC--the FTC is the Federal Trade Commission, and the FTC has been the one regulating the internet for two decades. The FCC decided they wanted to regulate not the content and the internet service providers, just the internet service providers. So the FCC, in an unprecedented ruling that had already gone to court multiple times and failed, grabbed the regulatory control from the FTC and said: We will take the internet service providers, and we will manage them, and you keep the content folks. That is the fight we are in right now. It is the funniest thing to me to be in a conversation about net neutrality because the implication is that the internet will not be free if the government doesn't regulate it with this particular entity--the FCC. When I ask people ``Would it be OK if the government regulated with the FTC, the Federal Trade Commission?'' most people say ``Well, that would be fine too.'' Well, good, because that is the way it has been for 20 years. For 20 years, there has been one set of rules on the superhighway of the internet--the Federal Trade Commission. Here is what I would like to say to people who are trying to listen in and trying to figure this out: Most of the arguments and the fights that have come about cost increases and about paid prioritization and about blocking and about people monitoring content haven't been from the internet service providers. It has been from the content folks. You tell me, when you go to your news feed on whatever social media site you go to or whatever news site you go to, are there paid commercials that come up first, and then your friends come up second? Probably most of the time. Are there certain bits of content that you pay more for if you are on Facebook? You can put this out, but you will reach more people if you pay for it? Yes. But that is not net neutrality. The argument about net neutrality doesn't have anything to do with those content folks. It is about the internet service providers. So why do I bring this up? Here is what has happened. Over the past 2 years, America has been drawn into a fight between two sets of megacompanies. Google, Facebook, and Netflix are at war with AT&T, Comcast, and all the major internet service providers. You have the content folks on the web fighting with the internet service providers that actually provide the fiber that connects the content. They are fighting over their business, and the way the content providers have worded it, they have said: We want the internet to be neutral. We don't want to have customers pay more for certain content, and we don't want the internet service providers to charge more based on that content, while the whole time the content folks are charging people for the type of content. They are literally arguing and saying: We don't want them to do what we do every single day--what Google does every day, what Facebook does every day. In fact, they fight about not wanting internet service providers to filter out content when, of late, Facebook seems to put out every week a new release about how they are filtering content from places they don't like. Here is what we really want: a fair, flat playing field for everyone, and everyone who wants free speech can have free speech on the internet. If you want to start a new business, you can put up a website on the internet, and you don't have to worry about somebody filtering you out. This is not China--a place where they will filter out and decide whether you can put your content out. This is the United States of America, and everybody wants their content to be able to go out, to be fair, and not to have someone judge it. That is what we want with an open internet. By the way, that is what you have if the Federal Trade Commission goes back to regulating, as they have for 20 years. I ask a simple question: Was the internet open and fair for content in 2015? I believe it was. If you check your history books from 3 years ago, I think you will find that the internet was open in 2015. Facebook was out there. Netflix was out there. YouTube was out there. It was open in 2015. We are not talking about any set of rules that is different than how the internet operated in 2015. But what we don't want to have is two different sets of rules where this set of companies--Google and Facebook and Netflix--gets to tell a different set of companies, the fiber, how to do their business. Neither do we want the fiber companies telling the content folks how to run their businesses. Let them compete. A lot of people say that there are only a few internet service providers that are out there. Well, in the United States, there are 4,500 internet service providers that are out there. Yes, there are some big ones, but there are a lot of small ones. If the big ones misbehave, guess what happens. Competition will beat them down, and those small companies will beat them because the big companies get out of line. It is the way America works and the way competition works when you keep it fair and open. It is a misnomer to talk about net neutrality as if it is not neutral right now. There are a lot of fears and a lot of innuendos. There are a lot of accusations and what-ifs and maybe they will come out and I am afraid the boogeyman is going to come and take the over the internet. Really, what is happening is that two giant sets of companies are competing and asking the government to jump in the middle and the Googles and Facebooks and Netflix are asking this government to put restrictions to the internet service providers that they are not willing to actually have themselves. Why don't we just do this: Let everyone compete and not try to have the government in between. Can we have net neutrality where we don't have blocking of content, where we have fair trade rules, where we make sure everyone gets access to the internet? Yes. We can have that when the Federal Trade Commission actually oversees those rules as they have for two decades. There is a lot of hyperbole in this. I just wish there were more facts coming to the table at the same time the hyperbole is coming out. The simplest conversation I can have is actually a conversation I had with a mayor not long ago. We were talking through the complexity of this and about fiber networks and about broadband and capabilities and speed and all these things. He said: Hold on. I am a mayor. Can we talk about water pipes for a minute? I said: Sure. He said: So what you are telling me is there is lots of water going into the water pipe and lots of people who are using that water, and we have to find a fair way to be able to get all that water out because there is more water trying to get into that pipe than we can actually get out on the other end, and it is backing up. I said: Yes, sir. That is exactly what I am saying, but it is zeros and ones running through a piece of fiber, not water running through a pipe. He said: I can get that. Let's just keep it fair so that every person who wants to get access to it can get access to it and we are not discriminating on the water coming through the pipe. It is pretty easy. We can do that right now with the Federal Trade Commission. Tomorrow, I am chairing the hearing in the subcommittee that I lead in Appropriations. We will have the Chairman of the FCC and the Chairman of the FTC sit down for a 2-hour conversation, and I am sure much of it will be on this issue of net neutrality. My encouragement is for people to actually listen in to get the facts about net neutrality and not the emotion and not what the Googles and Facebooks and NetFlix are telling you what to think, because they are competing against the other guys. Come and get the real facts. We will lay the facts on the table. If there is an area that needs to be handled with new regulations, I would be glad to engage, but quite frankly, I think the internet needs the lightest touch possible. I don't see a reason why the Federal Government should get in the business of free speech and tell people what they can and can't say. Let's keep the internet open and free and fair and not block content, but let's also not try to jump between two sets of megacompanies and pick winners and losers at the same time. Let's keep it open and stay out of the business of telling businesses how to run their businesses. Mr. President, I yield back. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LANKFORD

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, I thank Senator Tillis and the Presiding Officer for acknowledging our time to have this conversation. This is a serious conversation because this is a NATO ally. Dr. Andrew Brunson has been in Turkey 24 years. For 23 of these years, he served as a pastor in humanitarian work. He took care of providing food and clothing and pastoral ministry for anyone who would come, just like anyone does. That has not been an issue in Turkey for decades because Turkey has been very open to all faiths, all religions, and they have prided themselves on being a nation that recognizes all faiths, all backgrounds, and all religions and ethnicity. At least that was the old Turkey. Literally, under Dr. Brunson's feet, Turkey shifted from where they were to where we don't recognize them anymore as a NATO ally. In October of 2016, Dr. Brunson was called by the police department there. Assuming it was an immigration issue, he and his wife went because they had gone multiple times to the police department to renew their visa and keep everything up to date. They had a great relationship with the local police department, with local individuals, and with all the authorities in the area because they had been there for two decades and had developed great friendships. So they went to check in, but this time, instead just checking in again for an immigration issue, they took them into custody, without any charges, and held them for a year--with no charges--then, eventually, presented these trumped-up charges which they have laid out that are absolutely absurd. How a Christian minister is somehow cooperating with a Muslim in a coup in Turkey is absurd on its face. All of the crazy accusations from secret witnesses who would appear by video with their faces blurred out, making accusations that they had seen or they had heard--allowing no one to actually ask them questions is absurd. Just as absurd is not allowing Dr. Brunson to bring any witnesses in his defense. There have now been two hearings that have been just this style: Dr. Brunson not allowed to bring anyone to speak on his behalf; all of these trumped-up witnesses who come with blurred-out faces--this secret testimony that they can present--to come back and present something they would consider evidence that we would never allow in any court, and, quite frankly, no one would take seriously these accusations. In 2016, after Dr. Brunson had been in jail for a few weeks, I went to Turkey and visited with the Minister of Justice there. The Minister of Justice at that time said: We have some information. We are going to work this out. We are going to allow the process to go through the court system, but we will rapidly go through this process. Now, a year and a half later, we are finding out there never was any evidence, there never was any issue--and we are still dealing with an American being held hostage by a NATO ally. I thought I would never say this sentence, but I would like to see Turkey follow the example of North Korea and release the American hostages they are holding. Now, when Turkey--a NATO ally--is behind North Korea in how they are handling humanitarian issues, Turkey has moved to a very bad spot. It is not a place they need to stay. Turkey has been a friend and an ally--we work together against terrorism; we work together on economics--but I join Senator Tillis in the statement he just made: I discourage anyone I speak to, to do any business in Turkey or to travel to Turkey at this point. If you are doing business in Turkey, you cannot guarantee the safety of your employees any longer; if you are traveling to Turkey, you cannot be guaranteed safety anymore. Because of the emergency powers that are currently being used in their legal system, they can sweep up anyone for any accusation and hold them for any length of time. That is not just theory; that is being proven by a pastor being held for a year and a half in Turkey with false charges. I highly recommend no one does business in Turkey at this moment, just for the safety of your employees and the people you would work with. Now, Turkey has not just done this. They have also turned toward Russia, pursuing Russia for their air defense systems. As a NATO ally, that is unheard of, to say they are going to have NATO equipment, but then they are also going to go to Russia. That shows the turning of President Erdogan and the leadership of the country. Congress is not going to just sit back on this and should not. Senator Shaheen and I have already put language out for the foreign ops bill in Appropriations which would specifically identify those individuals--the judges in the court, the officials who are holding Pastor Brunson, the officials in the city jail and in their national government who are specifically holding those individuals--to apply sanctions directly to the individuals who are holding an American pastor hostage. Senator Shaheen, Senator Tillis, and I have already put forward a piece of legislation blocking Turkey from maintaining or purchasing the F-35. They are a NATO ally, and they should have access to that, but they are not acting like a NATO ally. We don't know where they are going, and it would be a mistake for the United States to give our best technology--somewhere that we don't know where it is going to go and how it is going to be used in the future. Just this week, the House released their National Defense Authorization Act. In the base text of the NDAA coming from the House is a provision which would block all defense sales to Turkey until we get more information about what is happening in the future and what direction Turkey is going. That is a reasonable precaution to take in a nation that is rapidly shifting away from democracy, a free court, free speech, and freedom of religion. They are losing humanitarian values. We should address that and respond to that, and we are. It is not just what we might do; it is what we are doing currently to try to respond to this issue. The State Department continues to apply diplomatic pressure, but we have moved past the time when diplomatic pressure needs to be applied. It is time to apply economic pressure and pressure on how our partnership will work long term. We want our ally back--the Turkey we used to know, that we cooperated with, and maintained a long-term friendship with. We would love to maintain that long-term friendship with an ally that has strongly stood with us, and we have stood with them, but we do not recognize what Turkey is anymore. A good first step with them would be to follow the lead of North Korea and release our hostages out of their jails. Mr. President, I yield back.

Mr. LANKFORD

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, I could not more wholeheartedly agree with my colleague from Missouri. What is surprising to me is that Senator Schumer's objection to the taxpayers right-to-know bill was that the taxpayers would actually find out information that he doesn't want them to find out. That is the surprising part. I am grateful to be able to get his answer because over the last 6 months, our staff--Senator McCaskill's and my staff--has worked with his staff every month. We have made 27 changes and 6 revisions over the last 6 months. In the last month, we have gotten radio silence--nothing from Senator Schumer's staff. So we finally brought it to the floor and said ``What is the problem?'' because we can't seem to figure out what the problem is. We learn today that the problem is that he doesn't want the program inventory to be public because if the American people and the Congress and the Office of Management and Budget see the programs, they might actually do things with efficiency. That seems surprising to me, but if you read the transcript, that is what he just said. The fear is that they will actually find out what the Federal Government does in the programs. Surely that is not his objection. Surely no one in this body would say: I hope the American people and the Office of Management and Budget never find out what the Federal Government does. Here is what this bill does. The reason we could not have a good listing--Senator Schumer mentioned that there is no way to do a list right now--is because there is no definition for a program. The Federal Government has struggled with that simple definition, so this bill fixes that. The reason that inventory doesn't exist gets solved with this. So literally Senator Schumer's objection as to why we shouldn't do this is nonsensical. The second issue with this is the fear of OMB and Mick Mulvaney actually trying to slash programs. OMB and Mick Mulvaney have no authority to take down a program. Congress does that, and Senator Schumer knows that better than anyone in this body. While OMB can make recommendations, Congress has to actually vote to act on those recommendations. He can't just slash programs. He can recommend it. He can say: Here is an issue of inefficiency. It is the exact same as the Obama administration could have done, the exact same as any future administration could do, but Congress must act on that. It seems exceptionally shortsighted to say: I don't want the American people to know what the government is doing, because of the current administration and someone I don't like. In a few years, there will be a different administration. That may be in 7 years, or that may be in 4 years, but in a few years, there will be a different administration, but this problem will still remain. Agencies can't see what other agencies are doing, this Congress can't see what the agencies are doing, and the American people cannot see what the agencies are doing. I would say that for the benefit of the taxpayers--not the benefit of Washington bureaucracies but for the benefit of the taxpayers--we should allow this information to go public. I hope we can continue to work with Senator Schumer's office, after making 27 changes that his staff recommended, to finish this document. Yesterday, Senator Schumer was caught in the hallway and was asked what the problem is in the Senate, and his response to a reporter was that the Senate needs more comity. I would agree. The House approved this unanimously. Our committee approved this unanimously. It has come to the floor and has but one person who believes that the American people should not have access to the information on the programs they pay for. I would love to see more comity in this body and for us to work this out. I yield the floor.

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, Senator McCaskill and I rise to have an opportunity to pass a bill and for the Senate to do some work on a bill that has been around for several years and just hasn't been able to go over the finish line. We would like to see that finish today. It is a bipartisan bill with a very straightforward concept. Right now, if any agency head or any sub-Cabinet individual or any individual within the government wants to see what another agency is doing, they have to go to the Office of Management and Budget. They would do a study--and get it back to them--to find out if the program they are doing exists somewhere else. If any Member of this body or of the House wants to find out about an agency and such straightforward things as how many employees they have, what programs they are doing, if they measure those programs, how are those programs measured--if we want to find out those very basic things, we have to go to the GAO office to make a request, and 18 months later, we will get an answer back on that specific thing. This is something that every agency either already has or should have but that the American people can't see, the Congress can't see, and, quite frankly, the individuals within the agencies also cannot see. This is a straightforward concept. We call it the Taxpayers Right-to- Know Act, and it is something Senator McCaskill and I have worked very hard on. It is something that passed out of the Homeland Security Committee unanimously. This is a bipartisan bill. In fact, to show you how bipartisan it is, this passed in the House of Representatives last session 413 to 0. Not a single House Member voted against this proposal, but it wasn't able to pass in the Senate. So Senator McCaskill and I brought it up again this year. It came unanimously out of committee; it also has been through the House of Representatives. In January of 2017, it passed unanimously in the House of Representatives again. This is not a controversial piece of legislation. What is interesting is that Senator McCaskill and I did a lot of work with President Obama's Office of Management and Budget to make sure there were no concerns. They had some concerns, so we made some changes, and President Obama's Office of Management and Budget signed off on this and said it would be a helpful document. We have now worked with President Trump's Office of Management and Budget, which also signed off on this proposal and said that this would work. We went to the Government Accountability Office, the entity we asked to help us find duplication, waste, and inefficiency in government, and in a hearing we asked Gene Dodaro, the head of GAO, a simple question: Would it be a help to have the Taxpayers Right-to-Know Act? You have the ability to see all agencies. Would this be a help to you? His exact response: I would urge the Congress to complete passage of that bill-- meaning the Taxpayers Right-to-Know Act-- and send it to the president for signature. I think that it would make a huge difference in identifying overlap, duplication, fragmentation in the federal government and provide a better accountability tool to the Congress and the agencies. It's severely lacking. That is from the head of the Government Accountability Office, the one we have asked to help us find these things. He is saying that he needs this tool. We need this tool. The agencies need this tool. President Obama's team signed off on this. President Trump's team has signed off on this. It has passed unanimously out of the House of Representatives. We bring it to the floor today to ask unanimous consent to move this across the floor of the Senate today, to be able to get in place what President Obama asked for, what President Trump has asked for, what the Government Accountability Office has asked for, what all Members of the House of Representatives have asked for, and what Senator McCaskill and I are asking for. With that, I yield to Senator McCaskill.

Mr. LANKFORD

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess until 2:15 p.m.

Mr. LANKFORD

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, earlier today, the minority leader came to the floor to talk about multiple issues. During that conversation, he called me out by name regarding a rules proposal that I have in front of the Rules Committee this week. He said that he vehemently disagrees with that rules proposal. He even mentioned that he knows that I came here in 2014 and that I should study the history of the Senate a little bit more before I bring up a rules proposal. Well, I would only tell my colleague that I have studied the history, and I would like to get a little bit of context around those comments. The rules proposal that the minority leader is opposing is the exact same rules proposal that he actually voted for in 2013 when he was on the Rules Committee and then voted for again when it came to the floor of the Senate. This is not some radical proposal. In 2013, Democrats found intolerable what was happening with the nomination process, so at the beginning of 2013, they worked with Republicans and said: We need to be able to put a structure in place to get nominations through because a President should be able to have his staff put in place, and there shouldn't be an arbitrary slowdown of that process. Republicans came on board, even during a very contentious time, because Republicans did not agree with the policies of President Obama. Yet they agreed. With a vote of 78 total votes, 78 votes on the floor of the Senate, a rule change was made that was proposed by Senator Reid, supported by Senator Schumer, and supported by Senator McConnell, to say that this is a rule change that will go into place. It was a very simple rule. The rule was just for nominees. When nominees come to the floor, the minority can always ask for additional time to debate. Most of the time in the past, they have not, but they could. The time allotted for that purpose is 30 additional hours for debate. The assumption is that it is a controversial nominee when 30 additional hours of debate is required. The time was lowered in this 2013 rule so that for district court nominees, just 2 hours of debate on the floor is needed because, quite frankly, district court nominees had never been held up on a cloture vote, so 2 hours of extra time. The nominees have already been through the committee process. They have already been approved. Now they are coming to the floor, and if there is a request for additional time, they would get an additional 2 hours on the floor. For any other nominee, they would get 8 hours of additional time, if they even asked for more time. Supreme Court, circuit court, and Cabinet-level nominees would remain at 30 hours. That was the agreement that was made and that we functioned under in 2013 and in 2014. Fast-forward to today. A historic new precedent has been set for any President coming in. It was absolutely not done by Republicans in the past, and it was absolutely not done by Democrats in the past, but it is being done now. Right now, there are 67 judges pending and 139 executive nominees pending--139. In just the past year and a few months, Democrats have requested 85 cloture votes--that is asking for an additional 30 hours of debate time. They can say: Well, these nominees need to be vetted. These are all nominees who have already gone through the committee process, have already waited in line. There has been a tremendous amount of vetting. Even if this was additional vetting--an additional 30 hours of debate on the floor--for most of these nominees by far, there has been less than an hour of actual debate on the floor for these individuals, but 30 hours has been requested. It is not 30 hours of debate. In fact, just over the past couple of weeks, we have had district court judges, and they have had a demand for a cloture vote on them, and we had less than 15 minutes of additional debate time for those individuals on the floor, but 30 hours had to be allocated. There was less than 15 minutes of actual debate on that person. This is not about vetting. That is a good line for the media. That is a good line for the base. This is about slowing down the Senate. This is about slowing down the process. Again, giving a side-by-side, the minority leader said that this is about keeping intact the power of the minority, that the power of the minority needs to be maintained in the Senate. I totally agree. That is why I am trying to work this through a normal rules process--the same rule the minority leader supported on the Rules Committee in 2013 and the same rule he voted for on the floor. The only difference now is that it is not Democrats in power, it is Republicans in power. Republicans joined Democrats in 2013 to be able to put this in place, but for some reason, now that Republicans are in power, Democrats are saying that this is an onerous rule that will take away the power of the minority. The only real thing that has changed here--other than that now the Republicans are in control rather than Democrats--is one other thing; that is, the nuclear option. When Senator Reid and Senator Schumer put in place the nuclear option at the end of 2013, at that time, there were 20 judges pending and 56 executive nominations. But they unilaterally changed the rules of the Senate to be able to drop down nominations from 60 to 51 because they were so frustrated that there were 20 judges pending and 56 executive nominations. May I remind my colleagues that right now there are 67 judges pending and 139 executive nominations pending. The minority was so frustrated when they were in the majority that they had to go nuclear and unilaterally change the rules in November of 2013, even after Republicans joined them in January of 2013 to change the cloture rules because there were 20 judges pending. Yet now there are 67 judges pending. At that time, there were 56, so they went nuclear on the executive nominations. Now there are 139. Listen, this is not an argument that I am trying to make based on a partisan issue. I am trying to go back to the agreement that was made in 2013, which was a bipartisan agreement. That worked for that time period. Republicans and Democrats supported it, and it worked. We actually had a process that was in place. I am asking to take that Democrat-written document and say: Let's make that the rule from here on out--not just for this session but from here on out--so that we would have consistency whether Republicans or Democrats are in control. All I am asking is that Democrats vote again now for the same thing they voted for in 2013 when they asked Republicans to join them; for Democrats to join us and to say: Let's make this the clear rule for everyone. That is the history that I think needs to get into this conversation. Quite frankly, I am not asking for something radical. I am trying to do a rules change the right way, by the rules as they are written, going through the Rules Committee and having a hearing, which we had in December, having a markup in the Rules Committee, and bringing it to the floor of the Senate and actually implementing a rules change. If there is another proposal we want to consider, I will be glad to have that conversation. I am not looking to make it contentious; I am trying to actually solve a bad precedent because the precedent that has been set by the minority party right now will be the new precedent when the next President comes. So the next time there is a Democratic President, I can assure my colleagues that Republicans will say: We will just do the same thing the Democrats did to the Republican President--we will do that to the next Democratic President. And year after year, this toxic environment will get worse. The only way to dial back the volume is to actually fix the rules to make sure they stay fair for everyone. Again, this is not a partisan move for me; this is trying to get the Senate to actually function and work again. This rule change that was done in 2013--Senator Reid and Senator McConnell came to the floor of the Senate and had a colloquy, and in that colloquy, Senator Reid said: It is our expectation that this new process for considering nominations as set out in this order will not be the norm-- That is, asking for additional time for every person-- but that the two leaders will continue to work together to schedule votes on nominees in a timely manner by unanimous consent, except in extraordinary circumstances. Those were Senator Reid's comments. But now, this has been invoked more than 80 times by the minority just this year. There have not been 80 extraordinary circumstances. Quite frankly, many of these individuals waited out additional time for cloture and then they were confirmed almost unanimously. They weren't controversial; it was about slowing down the Senate. Let's get this fixed. When the Senate is broken--and it is certainly broken in process right now--the Senators can fix the Senate by fixing our own rules. That is what I am encouraging our body to do. I do understand the history--although the minority leader is right, I wasn't here when the nuclear option was imposed. When Democrats did the historic change to the Senate rules, unilaterally--I wasn't here then. Senator Schumer did support that and did make a radical change at that time. I have to read about that history. But I can tell my colleagues that we can fix our future--and not just for Republicans but for the country--if we actually fix this rule change for the future. 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. LANKFORD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. LANKFORD

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, I rise today to talk with this body about the NASA Administrator. Later today, we are going to have a vote that is extremely important for the future of NASA and the future of space exploration, what we are going to do with our satellites, what we are going to do on climate issues, and what we are going to do on weather. All of those are related to NASA. Jim Bridenstine, who is a friend and who is a fellow Oklahoman, the current Congressman from Tulsa, OK--Oklahoma's 1st District--is the person the President has tapped to say: That is the person I support to be the next NASA Administrator. He has for months and months and months gone through the process. He has gone through committee hearings and has gotten all kinds of support. The committees he served on in the House of Representatives sent a bipartisan letter with wide majorities to the Senate saying: We have worked with Jim Bridenstine. He is exceptionally knowledgeable about issues on space. He is a great choice. They sent that letter over from the House to the Senate. Multiple individuals have written letters in support of Jim Bridenstine, including Sean O'Keefe, who is a former NASA Administrator. Buzz Aldrin also sent an extensive letter in support of Jim Bridenstine and also wrote a pretty remarkable op-ed about Jim Bridenstine, in support for him. We have had multiple different groups that are space related who have sent us all kinds of information and endorsements about Jim Bridenstine leading NASA and being the next Administrator. There has been a lot of support from around the country and from multiple individuals--former NASA Administrators, former astronauts, individuals who have risen up--but I still have people who bump into me and say: I don't know who he is. Well, I get that. He is a Congressman from Tulsa, OK. Let me give just a little bit of background so you will have some perspective on him. Jim Bridenstine began his naval career flying the E-2C Hawkeye off the USS Abraham Lincoln. As a naval aviator, he had 333 carrier- arrested landings. He has had 1,900 flight hours in total. While on Active Duty, he transitioned to the F/A-18 Hornet and flew at the Naval Strike. He flew for TOPGUN. He served in Afghanistan. He served in Iraq. He served in our drug interdiction work in Central and South America, flying there. He has had a pretty remarkable naval career. He graduated from Rice University, which is no simple thing to do. He graduated with a triple major when he finished at Rice University. He has an MBA from Cornell University. He is extremely smart, and he is extremely engaged. He has been very attentive to the issues of space. Serving in the House of Representatives, he has made his focus space and research and trying to realign NASA into being mission-focused. Some have said that NASA in some ways has lost its focus of what it exist for. Jim Bridenstine has been very, very passionate in trying to get NASA back on focus with a big vision and a big mission. He has done that with multiple different bills that he has worked through, but he has also done that in trying to articulate to the space community why it is extremely important that we have a good, solid, and functioning NASA in all of its areas of operation. He has the support of our delegation. He has the support of many in the space industry. He has the support of former NASA Administrators. He has the support of former astronauts. And he should have the support of this body today. We will vote on him at 1:45. NASA's Acting Administrator is in the process of retiring right now. Not only should Jim be here, but we should not have taken this long to actually get to this spot. It has taken 8 months to get to a vote on a NASA Administrator. Let's get him on this task, and let's get him going. We need him in this spot, and I think he will do a fine job. That is not just my opinion; folks from all over the country have risen up and looked at him clearly and have said he is the right person for the job.