Floor Statements

Madam President, today I rise to celebrate International Roma Day, which occurred yesterday, April 8, 2019. Last week, Senator Wicker, the Helsinki Commission's Senate cochairman, and I introduced a resolution that celebrates Romani American heritage.

As a member of the U.S. Helsinki Commission and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) Parliamentary Assembly Special Representative on Anti-Semitism, Racism & Intolerance, I have long worked to improve the situation of Roma throughout the OSCE region.

The resolution we introduced on April 4 does four things.

First, it recognizes and celebrates Romani American heritage. Roma have come to the United States with every wave of European migration since the colonial period. In the United States,there may be as many as 1 million Americans with some Romani ancestry, whether distant or more recent. Romani people have made distinct and important contributions in many fields, including agriculture, art, crafts, literature, medicine, military service, music, sports, and science.

Second, it supports International Roma Day and the Department of State's robust engagement in activities to honor that occasion. On April 8, 1971, the First World Romani Congress met in London, bringing together Roma from across Europe and the United States with the goal of promoting transnational cooperation among Roma, combating social marginalization, and building a positive future for Roma everywhere. April 8 is now celebrated as International Roma Day around the world. U.S. Ambassadors and our Embassies across Europe are frequently asked to participate in April 8 celebrations across the region. I commend the important work they are doing as they demonstrate U.S. commitment to inclusive societies not only on April 8 but throughout the entire year.

Third, this resolution commemorates the 75th anniversary of the destruction of the so-called Gypsy Family Camp at Auschwitz. Experts estimate that 200,000 to 500,000 Romani people were killed in death camps and elsewhere throughout Europe. On August 2 to 3, 1944, Nazis murdered between 4,200 and 4,300 Romani men, women, and children in gas chambers when the Nazis decided to liquidate this camp. A number of governments have taken important steps in recent years to commemorate the genocide of Roma, to remember the victims, and educate future generations. Germany took an important step when it opened a memorial in Berlin for Sinti and Roma victims of national socialism. I also commend the Czech Government for its decision to remove the pig farm at the site of the Lety concentration camp and address remaining issues regarding the proper memorialization of that sensitive site.

Finally, this resolution commends the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum for its critically important role in promoting remembrance of the Holocaust and educating audiences about the genocide of Roma. The U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum is the preeminent Federal institution dedicated to serving as a living memorial to the Holocaust. I am honored to serve as a member of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum Council and I welcome the initiatives of the museum to ensure that Romani victims are remembered and support related scholarship.

I am pleased that Senator Wicker has joined me in introducing this resolution and urge other colleagues to join us in celebrating Romani- American heritage.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. President, we shortly will be voting on cloture on a Senate resolution.

As I understand it, a Senate resolution in regards to a policy issue is basically trying to express the Senate's collective views on a policy issue without implementing the legislation itself. If we are going to take up such a resolution, we should take up one that can get broad consensus here in the Senate. Although the Green New Deal has support, it certainly will not have consensus in this body at this time.

Therefore, I urge the leader to bring up S.J. Res. 9, introduced by my colleague Senator Carper, which deals with climate change with three specific issues that I think all of us should be able to agree on: one, that climate change is real and it is happening; second, that our conduct here on Earth is a major factor in accelerating climate change's activities, leading to the types of extreme weather we have seen around the world; and, third, that it is urgent that we take action to mitigate the impact of climate change.

Climate change is real. I represent the State of Maryland, with 3,000 miles of shoreline in my State. I see it in flooding and shoreline erosion. I see the impact it has on the Chesapeake Bay, which is iconic to my State and to our economy. Climate change is having an impact--a negative impact. I see it in communities such as Ellicott City, which experienced two 100-year floods within 20 months, just recently, and cost loss of life and property. I see the impact it has on our environment and on our economy.

Clearly, our activities are having a significant impact on accelerating climate change. Carbon emissions, greenhouse gas emissions, and the use of fossil fuels have had an impact on accelerating that. We use too much energy, and we get too much of our energy from sources that are not friendly toward the issue of greenhouse gas emissions.

Third is the urgency. An October 2018 report from the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change made clear that it is urgent that we deal with climate change now and that science tells us that we can reverse the most extreme impact of climate change. We can mitigate the impact of climate change if we take action--if we act now--on this issue.

The Trump administration is an outlier in the global community in dealing with the realities of climate change. Every other nation in the world--every other nation in the world--has acknowledged that we need to act as a civilized world, that we need to work together, and that there is no geographical boundary as to dealing with climate change.

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change met in December of 2015. I was there with 9 of my colleagues, in Paris, where 195 nations agreed to deal with climate change. I was proud to be part of the U.S. delegation. Now we have left those discussions, and we are alone.

This is too important and too urgent of an issue to play partisan games with, and that is exactly what the majority leader is trying to do today. We need to commit to work together, Democrats and Republicans, in the U.S. Senate to restore the U.S. leadership on this key issue, knowing full well that America's full leadership is desperately needed in order to deal with these issues, and we need to make sure that we take action.

More than passing a resolution, let's start with legislation that will really make a difference on climate change and commit much stronger to renewable energy, rather than using fossil fuels to the extent that we do today. Let's put a price on carbon to allow the U.S. market economy to figure out the solution for reducing the amount of fossil fuels. Let's commit to conservation in our buildings and the way we

deal with auto fuel efficiencies. That type of action will make a real difference and will follow in the best traditions of the U.S. Senate in providing leadership for the United States to work with the global community to solve a global problem.

I urge my colleagues: Let's work together on issues to make a difference and stop playing partisan politics.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, today I rise to speak about the Enhancing Human Rights in Arms Sales Act of 2019, which I was proud to introduce on

Monday with my colleagues, Senators Dick Durbin, Ron Wyden, and Ed Markey. Senators Jeff Merkley, Chris Van Hollen, and Rand Paul also cosponsored the bill this week. Our bipartisan bill takes critical steps to ensure that U.S.-manufactured weapons are not used in the commission of heinous war crimes, the repression of human rights, or by terrorists who seek to do harm to Americans and innocent civilians abroad. We do not only have a moral obligation to ensure that U.S. weapons are used responsibly, but it is clearly in our national security interest.

As one may be aware, the United States is the world's leading arms supplier. According to data compiled by the Security Assistance Monitor, from 2002 to 2016, the United States has delivered more than $286 billion worth of major conventional weapons and related military support to 200 recipients. The Cato Institute found that more than 40 percent of nations purchasing these arms are at high risk of instability, terror, or egregious human rights abuses.

There are far too many examples of what can happen when we sell or transfer arms without proper vetting. In Yemen, U.S. arms transferred to Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and their coalition have been linked to more than 1,000 civilian casualties, according to a recent report from a coalition of local and international human rights NGOs.

In December 2017, the Trump administration lifted a freeze on weapons transfers to Nigeria to sell 12 Super Tucano A-29 aircraft and thousands of bombs and rockets worth $593 million, according to a Reuters report. Earlier that same year, the BBC reported that at least 115 civilians were killed in a Nigerian military airstrike on an IDP camp. Twenty Red Cross humanitarian aid workers were among the casualties.

Reuters reports that, since 2000, the United States has provided close to $1 billion worth of military equipment to the Philippines, ranging from surveillance planes, drones, and boats to small arms. Human Rights Watch estimates that at least 4,000 men, women, and children have been killed by some of the country's security forces in the government's anti-drug campaign. President Duterte has openly encouraged the security forces to engage in extrajudicial killings. Congress recently prevented the administration from selling small arms to the Philippines, but insufficient end use monitoring prevents us from knowing if U.S. weapons were used in the commission of these abuses.

In Guatemala, according to the Washington Post, authorities used U.S.-supplied armored J-8 Jeeps to intimidate U.S. Diplomats and international anticorruption investigators in August 2018. Just weeks later, the U.S. provided an additional shipment of similar jeeps to the Guatemalan Government. Just to repeat, our diplomats were threatened by the weapons that we ourselves provided. This is far from the only threat American citizens and our partners face from American-made weapons. Numerous investigations found that the dispersion of American- supplied arms in Iraq made up a significant portion of ISIS's weapons supply in the country.

This legislation will help curb these dangerous practices by requiring the Secretary of State to make human rights certifications for certain arms sales and transfers, specifically those involving heavy weapons capable of causing mass casualties or destruction, such as attack aircraft and missile launchers. The bill also requires the Secretary of State, in coordination with the Secretary of Defense, to develop a strategy to enhance human rights protections in the arms transfer process. Since we know abuses can take place years after weapons have been transferred, the bill amends the Arms Control Export act to ensure stringent end use monitoring with regard to human rights.

America's strength around the world is rooted in our values. Through this legislation, the Senate can send a strong message that the United States must not allow U.S. made arms to countries who abuse human rights, attack civilians, recruit child soldiers, or who are unable to keep weapons out of the hands of extremist groups. These commonsense measures ensure any arms transfers take place in a responsible manner that safeguards our security and protects human rights.

Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to President Trump's so-called emergency declaration of a crisis and invasion on our southern border, an attempt to misappropriate funds to build the President's border wall. The President's actions here are an affront to the constitutional separation of powers, our checks and balances, and the congressional power of the purse to set appropriation levels.

The very nature of how President Trump decided, finally, to declare a so-called emergency at our southern border shows that he, too, knows that there is no real national emergency at our southern border. President Trump himself admitted, in announcing this so-called emergency in the Rose Garden:

I could do the wall over a longer period of time. I didn't

need to do this, but I'd rather do it much faster.

It doesn't sound like a national emergency. We know that a medieval border wall would be a tremendously wasteful expenditure of resources, as opposed to smarter border security technology that would enhance screening at our ports of entry and specifically target transnational criminal operations smuggling contraband into the United States.

The Constitution gives Congress, not the President, the power of the purse.

Article I, section 9, clause 7 provides that ``No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.''

Article I, section 8, clause 1 provides that ``the Congress shall have Power To . . . provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States.''

Additionally, the presentment clause of the Constitution requires that the President either approve or veto a bill, and it does not give him the power to change the text of a law or appropriation levels or to cast a line item veto for certain provisions.

The Supreme Court held in the line-item veto case of ``Clinton v. City of New York'' in 1998:

There is no provision in the Constitution that authorizes

the President to enact, to amend or to repeal statutes. . . .

Our first President understood the text of the Presentment

Clause as requiring that he either ``approve all the parts of

a bill, or reject it in toto.''

The courts have regularly upheld the authority of Congress by statute--and not the President by fiat--to set funding levels. As the Supreme Court said in Hooe v. United States, in 1910, ``it is for Congress, proceeding under the Constitution, to say what amount may be drawn from the Treasury in pursuit of appropriations.''

The Ninth Circuit held in United States v. McIntosh, in 2016, that if the executive branch spends money in violation of appropriations law, ``it would be drawing funds from the Treasury without authorization by statute, and thus violating the Appropriations Clause.''

The Supreme Court held in the Office of Personnel Management v. Richmond, in 1990, that ``any exercise of a power granted by the Constitution to one or the other branches of Government is limited by the valid reservation of congressional control over funds in the Treasury.''

Beyond the legal challenges in court to the President's emergency declaration, Congress has a responsibility to act, as well, and rein in the President's abuse of power in order to maintain the proper separation of powers and checks and balances under our Constitution.

Former Republican Members of Congress recently wrote a powerful open letter to the current Republican Members of Congress on this issue. Signatories include former Members John Danforth, Mickey Edwards, Chuck Hagel, Jim Kolbe, Olympia Snowe, and Richard Lugar. Let me quote:

Our oath is to put the country and its Constitution above

everything, including party politics or loyalty to a

president. . . . That is why we are coming together to urge

those of you who are now charged with upholding the authority

of the first branch of government to resist efforts to

surrender those powers to a president.

We offer two arguments against allowing a president--any

president, regardless of party--to circumvent congressional

authority. One is the constitutional placing of all lawmaking

power in the hands of the people's representatives. . . . The

power of the purse rests with Congress. . . . If you allow a

president to ignore Congress, it will be not your authority

but that of your constituents that is deprived of the

protections of true representative government.

Let me just add that, in addition to what was said in that letter, we have made appropriations here. We expect those appropriations to be carried out. We are the representatives of the people. In my own State of Maryland, we have many military construction contracts on many of the military installations that could be put at jeopardy. Maryland is the proud home of major military installations, including Pax River, Indian Head, Andrews, Fort Detrick, Fort Meade, and the APG, or the Aberdeen Proving Ground. It is our responsibility to make those appropriations. If you let this emergency power go, that action could be compromised by the President of the United States, denying the people of this country their representative government.

Let me continue the letter from our former Republican colleagues. The letter continues:

The second argument goes directly to the question each of

you must face: how much are you willing to undermine both the

Constitution and the Congress in order to advance a policy

outcome that by all legitimate means is not achievable? The

current issue--a wall on our southern border--has gone

through the process put in place by the Constitution. It has

been proposed by the President, it has been debated by

Congress, and the representatives of the people allocated

funding at a level deemed appropriate by Congress. We

understand that there are many Members of Congress who

disagree with the final funding compromise reached by a

bipartisan group of legislators.

And it was approved overwhelmingly by Congress.

To you, we ask this question: what will you do when a

president of another party uses the precedent you are

establishing to impose policies to which you are unalterably

opposed? There is no way around this difficulty: what powers

are ceded to a president whose policies you support may also

be used by presidents whose policies you abhor.

The letter then concludes:

We who have served where you serve now call on you to honor

your oath of office and to protect the Constitution and the

responsibilities it vested in Congress. We ask that you pass

a joint resolution terminating the emergency declared by the

President on February 15, 2019.

Congress should therefore take all necessary action to overturn this unlawful Presidential declaration on border security under the National Emergencies Act or other authorities. Instead of trying to raid funds that have been designated for critical military construction and environmental projects, the President should work with Congress to enact comprehensive reform.

The Senate should vote to uphold the Constitution and its legislative prerogatives, including the power of the purse, and to cancel the President's emergency declaration.

I yield the floor.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, today I wish to commemorate International Women's Day, which occurred this past Friday, March 8, 2019. On this day each year, we recognize and celebrate women's incredible achievements and double down on our commitment to advance gender equality and women's empowerment, both at home and abroad.

The theme of International Women's Day this year is ``Think equal, build smart, innovate for change,'' which highlights the importance of finding new ways to advance gender equality, especially by utilizing technology. In January of this year, President Trump signed a bill Senator Boozman and I sponsored, the Women's Entrepreneurship and Economic Empowerment Act, WEEE Act, into law. This important, bipartisan legislation allows women around the world, including those living in poverty, to access critical tools to start and grow their businesses. It requires that 50 percent of U.S. Agency for International Development's micro, small, and medium-sized enterprise resources are targeted to activities that reach the very poor, as well as enterprises women own, manage, and control. The WEEE Act empowers women to invest in themselves, their families, and their communities.

A McKinsey Global Institute report estimates that achieving global gender parity in economic activity could add as much as $28 trillion to annual global gross domestic product by 2025. The WEEE Act will help women overcome the critical barriers they face when seeking economic opportunity and the legislation will open doors for children, families, and communities to benefit, too.

This year's theme of ``Think equal, build smart, innovate for change'' also provides the opportunity to celebrate some of the incredible and life-changing innovations being launched around the world. In Cambodia, for example, CARE has developed a gamified mobile app called ``Chat!'' to provide cost-effective and high-impact reproductive health education to its young, female population working in the garment industry. Cambodia has the largest youth and adolescent population in Southeast Asia; two-thirds of the population are under the age of 29. Increasing numbers of Cambodians, especially young women, are migrating to urban areas to support its garment industry.

According to CARE, 85 percent of Cambodia's garment factory workers are women, who are vulnerable to abuse and exploitation. According to the United Nations' research on women, one in three women are likely to face violence in her lifetime. Therefore, applications like Chat! are critical to reach this population and provide reproductive health information and services, helping these women make informed and healthy choices and prevent unplanned pregnancies.

While International Women's Day provides the opportunity to celebrate such successes, it is also critically important to recognize the work that lies ahead in the fight for gender equality, and especially the challenges that female human rights defenders face in this fight. A recent United Nations report on human rights defenders describes increased resistance to the work of female human rights defenders at multiple levels, linked to the rise of populism, fundamentalism, and violent extremism around the world.

The report highlights the increasing number of countries that are actively restricting fundamental human rights, including the freedoms of expression, association, and assembly, and specifically notes the enforced disappearances of female defenders in Saudi Arabia. Samar Badawi and Nassima al-Sadah, for example, were arrested last summer for advocating to lift the ban on female drivers and end the guardianship system that prevents women from legal and social independence. Amal al- Harbi was also arrested last summer for advocating for the release of her husband, Fowzan al-Harbi, a human rights defender. These female human rights defenders remain detained to this day, and several of these activists are due to appear in Saudi court this week. With no access to legal representation, I and many of my colleagues fear that these activists will be charged and tried for crimes they did not commit, as a result of engaging in peaceful activities to advance human rights in Saudi Arabia, which are protected under international law.

The reduction in funding for women's rights in recent years is also an immense challenge to future progress, a challenge exasperated by the Trump administration's actions, particularly in the realm of women's health. The Trump administration's reinstatement and expansion of the Mexico City policy, often referred to as the Global Gag Rule, for example, has closed the door on some of the most effective, lifesaving family planning programs by disqualifying international organizations from receiving U.S. family planning assistance if any non-U.S. funds are used to provide abortion services or counseling. The implementation of this expanded policy, as the aforementioned UN report notes, has ``threatened the integration of health services and created division in civil society around the world.'' As underscored by the example of Chat!, we know that family planning tools are critical to providing the education, information, and services that help prevent unplanned pregnancies and abortions.

As I have stated in the past, America's global leadership begins with our progress here in the United States. This also extends into the realm of gender equality. A critical challenge to progress here at home is the fact that our own Constitution does not already guarantee women the same rights and protections as men. The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution guarantees ``equal protection of the laws,'' and the Supreme Court, so far, has held that most sex or gender classifications are subject to only ``intermediate scrutiny'' when analyzing laws that may have a discriminatory impact. Ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment, ERA, by State legislatures would provide the courts with clearer guidance in holding gender or sex classifications to the ``strict scrutiny'' standard. That is why on January 25, 2019, Senator Murkowski and I introduced a resolution to immediately remove the ratification deadline and reopen consideration of the ERA for ratification by the States and finally guarantee full and equal protections to women in the Constitution.

While we have much to celebrate on this day, I want to take this opportunity to remind my colleagues in the U.S. Senate that we must continue to use our leadership positions to shine a spotlight on human rights violations, wherever they occur, and push for the

immediate release of human rights defenders around the world, imprisoned for exercising fundamental human rights. We must also end the Global Gag Rule once and for all, and we must finally grant women equality under the law. By doing so, we will truly recommit ourselves to breaking down the barriers that remain for women's empowerment, so that we can pave the path towards prosperity for generations to come.

Madam President, this month we celebrate the storied history of incredible women in our country. We recognize the sacrifices made and the battles fought to ensure a future where our daughters and granddaughters are born into a world of equality and limitless opportunity.

Throughout Women's History Month, we mark the historic strides women have taken to advance our culture, our sciences, our States, and our Nation. As we recognize these achievements, we must also assess and advocate for the work still to be done, including the ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment, the ERA. Ratifying the ERA would be a major milestone on the road to equality. Not only would ratification enshrine equal rights for women in the Constitution, it would also honor all of those who have fought for justice along the way.

One such inspiring woman is civil rights activist Juanita Jackson Mitchell. A Baltimore native, Mrs. Mitchell fought to end legally sanctioned segregation in her community while she simultaneously reached out to young people and mobilized them into civic engagement. After she received her law degree from the University of Maryland, she was the first African-American woman to practice law in our State, and she worked tirelessly on a number of cases to provide more job opportunities for African Americans. As the President of the NAACP in Baltimore, she advocated for integration and later convinced the city to hire Black social workers, librarians, and police officers, which bolstered the community by helping to bring an end to long-held systemic prejudices.

As a community activist and champion of women's rights, Mrs. Mitchell exhibited true bravery in her engagement with her community. She fearlessly paved the way for other women to join the movement. She worked with the Kennedy and Johnson administrations to find solutions for systemic social and educational discrepancies in communities of color. Mrs. Mitchell

understood the importance of representative democracy and of empowering those who could make differences in their communities. Juanita Mitchell is a shining example of why a constitutional amendment to guarantee women's rights is long overdue.

The ERA, which Congress approved in 1972, guarantees equal protection under the law regardless of one's sex. At that time, Congress imposed a 7-year deadline--later extended to 10 years--for the States to act. By the time this artificial deadline expired in 1982, 35 States had approved the Equal Rights Amendment--three short of the 38 States necessary to add it to the Constitution. Since then, two more States have approved the amendment, which leaves us just one State shy of reaching the goal. Congress must act to authorize additional time for the remaining States to consider the amendment.

Earlier this year, I and the senior Senator from Alaska, Ms. Murkowski, introduced a bipartisan Senate resolution, S.J. Res. 6, to reopen consideration of the ERA. It may come as a shock to many that in a country to which the world looks as being an example of liberty and justice, our Constitution does not guarantee women the same rights and protections as men. That is why this bipartisan resolution is imperative as we urge Congress and the remaining States to finish what we started nearly 50 years ago to ensure equality under the law for all women.

In the early 20th century, women were disenfranchised and had little or no legal, financial, or social opportunities to pursue. Property ownership, jobs, and economic equality were privileges women did not have. Today, a century later, more women have entered the workforce than ever before. Women are filling leadership roles at unprecedented levels, and we are finally on the verge of ratifying the ERA. This change has boosted our economy, strengthened our families, and brought our society to new heights of innovation, enlightenment, and opportunity. We see that change is not only possible, it is essential to realizing our greatest potential as a nation.

While ratifying the Equal Rights Amendment is critical to giving women in our country the rights they deserve, it is not, in and of itself, enough. I will continue to fight for the ERA but also for women's economic opportunities and reproductive rights.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I urge the Senate to take up legislation to require universal and complete background checks for individuals seeking to purchase a gun. I am pleased that the House recently passed this legislation, and it is well past time for the Senate to act.

Rarely has a month gone by without a mass shooting, and many communities are ravaged daily by gun violence that does not make the news headlines. Individuals have used firearms to take countless innocent lives in concerts, churches, and even elementary schools. By now, these incidents are etched in our memories: Santa Fe, Parkland, Las Vegas, Orlando, San Bernardino, Sandy Hook, Pittsburgh, and Thousand Oaks.

In Maryland we saw tragedies that occurred in the Capital Gazette office in Annapolis. We, as a nation, must act to stem the tide of bloodshed and the hatred that drives it. We cannot allow such massacres to become routine in our society.

We have the ability to end the tragic cycle of violence, but it will require us to come together in full urgency and honesty. I know we can protect innocent Americans from further senseless gun violence while still protecting the constitutional rights enjoyed for hunting and self-defense. Through commonsense gun safety reforms that would make background checks more efficient and close loopholes, I am confident we can do just that.

Let me start with a little history, as provided by the Brady Campaign. The Gun Control Act of 1968 established a framework for legally prohibiting certain categories of people from possessing firearms. The list of prohibited persons has grown over the years and now includes categories such as felons, fugitives, domestic abusers, and those found by the court or other tribunal to be seriously mentally ill.

Only in 1993, with the passage of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, did Congress provide the public with a presale process for checking whether a prospective firearm purchaser is legally able to purchase the firearm.

Since the Brady Law took effect, it has blocked more than 3 million prohibited gun sales and processed over 278 million purchase requests. When someone goes to a federally licensed dealer to buy a gun, the retailer contacts the FBI to run a background check. The FBI checks the National Instant Criminal Background Check System to see if they are a convicted felon, fugitive, domestic abuser, or other prohibited purchaser.

If the system reveals that the buyer is legally barred from owning a gun, then, the sale is denied. Simply put, the Brady Law prevents guns from getting into the hands of dangerous individuals.

The Brady Law has blocked more than 3 million gun sales to prohibited buyers, helping to save countless lives, but the law doesn't apply to all gun sales. Instead, only Federal firearm licensees approved by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives are required to conduct background checks on gun sales. The Brady Act background check requirement applies only to licensed dealers, allowing transactions conducted by private, unlicensed sellers to be completed without any check. Private, unlicensed sellers need not conduct any check under current law.

However, the Brady Law was enacted before the rise of the internet. America has changed, and our Nation's gun laws need to change with it. Today, unlicensed gun sales made online and unregulated and unchecked contributed to one out of every five gun sales. That is simply wrong. Those sales can avoid the background check.

Passing legislation to expand background checks to nearly every gun sale, including those conducted online at gun shows and through private transfers, should be the top priority in Congress for commonsense gun safety legislation to save lives.

It is long past time to expand lifesaving Brady background checks to every gun sale. The public agrees. A 2018 study showed that 97 percent of Americans support expanding background checks--97 percent. We don't get any higher than that.

The Senate should follow the lead of the House, which recently passed the legislation to expand criminal background checks. In the Senate, I cosponsored S. 42, the Background Check Expansion Act. This bill, which passed the House, would expand Federal background check requirements to include the sale or transfer of all firearms by private sellers, just as licensed dealers are required to conduct under the existing Brady Law.

The bill requires background checks for sales or transfers of all firearms from one party to another, even if the party is not a federally licensed dealer. This requirement extends to all unlicensed sellers, whether they do business online, at gun shows, or out of their home.

According to the Brady Campaign, in any given year in the United States, more than 120,000 Americans are shot in murders, assaults, suicides and suicide attempts, unintentional shootings, or police actions. Of these, 35,000 result in death. Over 17,000 of those injured or killed are children and teens. On average, 34 people in America are murdered on account of gun violence every single day.

Mass shootings often shine the spotlight on the United States and its position as a global outlier. The number of firearms available to American civilians is estimated to be at around 310 million, according to the National Institute of Justice. According to the Small Arms Survey, the exact number of civilian-owned firearms is impossible to pinpoint because of a variety of factors, including arms that go unregistered, the illegal trade, and global conflict. However, estimates indicate that Americans own nearly half of the 650 million civilian-owned guns in the world today. Half are here in the United States. Our Nation is well armed.

Americans own the most guns per person in the world, with about 4 in 10 saying they either own a gun or live in a home with guns, according to the 2017 Pew Center study, and 48 percent of Americans say they grew up in a House with guns. According to the survey, a majority, 66 percent, of U.S. gun owners own multiple firearms.

The No. 2 country for the world's largest gun-owning population per capita is Yemen, a country that is in the throes of a years-long civil conflict,

and they trail significantly behind us. They have 54 guns per 100; we are at 88 guns owned per 100.

When it comes to gun massacres, the United States is an anomaly. There are more public mass shootings in America than in any other country in the world. The United States makes up less than 5 percent of the world's population but holds 31 percent of global mass shooters. In Australia, for example, four mass shootings occurred between 1987 and 1996. They decided to do something about that so they passed sensible gun safety legislation. Australia has not had a mass shooting since then.

Gun homicide rates are about 25 times higher in the United States than other developed countries. According to the recent study of the American Journal of Medicine, the United States has one of the highest rates of death by firearm in the developed world, according to the World Health Organization data. The calculations based on the OECD data from 2010 showed that Americans are 51 times more likely to be killed by gunfire than people in the United Kingdom. We need to do something about this. We can't sit idly by.

Congress should act today to close the so-called Charleston loophole. The Senate should once again follow the House's lead here. A particularly tragic example of the consequences of this loophole was the racist hate crime murder of nine people at the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, SC, that occurred in 2015. In that tragedy, the shooter was not legally allowed to possess a firearm due to drug charges but still was able to acquire his gun from a licensed dealer who made the decision to transfer, after the current 3- business day period expired, despite not having received a definitive response from the background check system.

Unfortunately, the sale to the shooter after 3 days fell into what is known as the default proceed sale, and this was not an isolated incident. Since 1994, gun sellers proceeded with between 3,000 and 4,000 such sales every year simply because the information has not gotten back on the background check.

I would note that in most cases, a licensed gun dealer receives notification from the system about a prospective buyer within a few minutes. In less than 10 percent of the cases, the examination may require additional time to complete the background check if the information the transferee provided is incomplete, inaccurate, or otherwise defective. Under current law, a licensed gun dealer conducting a background check on a prospective purchaser may sell the firearm to the purchaser after 3 business days, even if they have not received a reply in regard to the background check. This is wrong, and Congress should change the rule as the House has done.

I agree gun laws alone cannot solve the problem, but gun laws will make a difference. Yes, there is no single answer, but we should be united in our willingness to do what we can to save lives.

I agree with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle that we must devote more resources to mental health priorities to identify young people who may be about to cause harm to themselves or others. Let's attack this problem from multiple directions. We cannot raise our hands in the air and give up because there is no one law that can solve the problem.

Sitting on the sidelines is not an option when our children are being killed--sometimes by other children--and surrendering to the false logic that the problem is too big to address falls well short of what the American people deserve. We were sent to our Nation's capital to make tough decisions and to do the right thing.

The American public is letting their voices be heard on this issue. Thoughts and prayers might console the grieving for a moment, but action speaks louder and will have lasting impact.

From my hometown of Baltimore to many towns across America that have had their names in the headlines because of gun-related tragedies or mass shootings, people are calling on Congress to act.

What we are proposing are logical next steps to address the deadly problem that has been festering in this country far too long. Too many lives have been lost. Let's do the right thing in the Senate and immediately take up legislation to require universal and completed background checks for individuals seeking to purchase a gun.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today, I am introducing the Strengthening American Communities (SAC) Act of 2019. My bill seeks to expand access to debt-free public service career pathways for Americans who want to serve their communities, States, or our Nation. No one should be denied the opportunity to serve their community as a law enforcement officer, public health practitioner, social worker, or educator based on his or her ability to afford the rising cost of an undergraduate education. As Congress moves towards reauthorizing the Higher Education Act this year, I intend for my bill to be a first step towards correcting public sector workforce disparities by enabling people to serve their communities without being hobbled by massive student loan debt, and by providing current public servants with the financial freedom to continue to heed their calling to service.

Every city, town, and rural community in the United States relies on individuals who choose to utilize their talents for the betterment of others while accepting the lower pay of public service careers. The very foundation of our civil society is based on these public servants making such sacrifices. Far too many individuals who feel drawn to public service do not pursue such careers--or they are forced to abandon such careers prematurely--due to the high cost of obtaining their college educations. When I had the opportunity to hear directly from a student at an Historically Black College and University (HBCU) in my home State of Maryland, I was saddened to hear from an academically successful sophomore who was planning to drop out of school because she feared further indebting herself and her family. She said that while she appreciated the financial assistance she did receive, it simply wasn't sufficient to cover her cost of attendance. While this student had aspirations to serve in her own community, she could not bear to burden her family with the cost of her education. As a result, my home City of Baltimore missed out on the talents of an engaged and aspiring public servant.

Our current system of indebting individuals at the onset of their careers has led to minority underrepresentation in the public sector workforce. First generation college students and students from low- income families cannot afford to take on student loan debt and enter into lower-paying public service careers. As a result, our Nation is deprived of the talents and perspectives of individuals who want to serve their communities but simply cannot afford to do so. As a result, our workforce is less representative of the people it serves. We must find new ways for people to earn the degrees they need to meet our community needs. I believe that students who make a commitment to public service should be afforded a debt-free pathway to the baccalaureate degree they need to start their public service career just as those individuals who have already made the decision to choose service over salary should not have to wait for ten years in a lower- paying public service career before seeing any reward in the form of federal student loan forgiveness.

The Strengthening American Communities Act I am introducing today offers a new path for future public servants to earn their baccalaureate degree. Through a new partnership between the Federal Government, States, and public and private, non-profit institutions of higher education, students will have the ability to receive the first two years of their education at a community college, Minority Serving Institution, or Historically Black College or University tuition- and fee-free. Colleges would be required to commit to ensuring student success, and students would have to meet certain academic standards and complete their education within two years. Once students start their junior or senior years or transfer into a four-year institution, those who commit themselves to at least three years of public service and meet certain academic standards will receive a National Public Service Education Grant to pay a significant portion of their college's tuition, fees, and room and board costs. Universities must provide students with opportunities to engage in public service commitments, academic counseling and student support services, and the opportunity to earn to finish their degree in fewer than two years. Depending on a student's financial need, under the Strengthening American Communities Act, they may be able to graduate with a baccalaureate degree debt-free before embarking on their chosen path to become a public servant.

For those individuals who have already answered their calling to public service, my legislation would assist more public servants continue serving their communities by accelerating the existing Public Service Loan Forgiveness program. Under current law, these dedicated workers must work for 10 years in a public service career and make 120 monthly payments on their federal student loans before they see a dime of federal student loan forgiveness. Economic, family, and other reasons can cause individuals to leave the public sector workforce and despite their years of service, the service these workers provided are not taken into consideration. I propose to accelerate the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program to provide more immediate student loan relief. For every two years of employment and corresponding monthly Federal student loan payments, hard-working public sector employees will receive a percentage of their federal student loans forgiven, with 100 percent of the federal student loan balance being forgiven at the end of 10 years of service. With 99 percent of the initial round of PSLF applicants being rejected last year for loan forgiveness due to administrative barriers and misunderstanding of the rules of the program, Congress should work to accelerating Public Service Loan Forgiveness, therefore encouraging additional individuals to stay in the public sector workforce despite the lower-paying salaries, reduce their cost of borrowing for home and auto loans, and set aside additional money for their own retirement.

As Congress moves forward with an overdue reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, I urge my colleagues to join in this effort to help individuals who are wholly committed to public service by supporting the Strengthening American Communities Act. No individual willing to serve his or her community in a public service career should be held back from that calling due to the high cost of obtaining a college education. No individual willing to serve his or her community should be forced to leave public service because of financial hardship.

Mr. President, today, I am introducing the Strengthening American Communities (SAC) Act of 2019. My bill seeks to expand access to debt-free public service career pathways for Americans who want to serve their communities, States, or our Nation. No one should be denied the opportunity to serve their community as a law enforcement officer, public health practitioner, social worker, or educator based on his or her ability to afford the rising cost of an undergraduate education. As Congress moves towards reauthorizing the Higher Education Act this year, I intend for my bill to be a first step towards correcting public sector workforce disparities by enabling people to serve their communities without being hobbled by massive student loan debt, and by providing current public servants with the financial freedom to continue to heed their calling to service.

Every city, town, and rural community in the United States relies on individuals who choose to utilize their talents for the betterment of others while accepting the lower pay of public service careers. The very foundation of our civil society is based on these public servants making such sacrifices. Far too many individuals who feel drawn to public service do not pursue such careers--or they are forced to abandon such careers prematurely--due to the high cost of obtaining their college educations. When I had the opportunity to hear directly from a student at an Historically Black College and University (HBCU) in my home State of Maryland, I was saddened to hear from an academically successful sophomore who was planning to drop out of school because she feared further indebting herself and her family. She said that while she appreciated the financial assistance she did receive, it simply wasn't sufficient to cover her cost of attendance. While this student had aspirations to serve in her own community, she could not bear to burden her family with the cost of her education. As a result, my home City of Baltimore missed out on the talents of an engaged and aspiring public servant.

Our current system of indebting individuals at the onset of their careers has led to minority underrepresentation in the public sector workforce. First generation college students and students from low- income families cannot afford to take on student loan debt and enter into lower-paying public service careers. As a result, our Nation is deprived of the talents and perspectives of individuals who want to serve their communities but simply cannot afford to do so. As a result, our workforce is less representative of the people it serves. We must find new ways for people to earn the degrees they need to meet our community needs. I believe that students who make a commitment to public service should be afforded a debt-free pathway to the baccalaureate degree they need to start their public service career just as those individuals who have already made the decision to choose service over salary should not have to wait for ten years in a lower- paying public service career before seeing any reward in the form of federal student loan forgiveness.

The Strengthening American Communities Act I am introducing today offers a new path for future public servants to earn their baccalaureate degree. Through a new partnership between the Federal Government, States, and public and private, non-profit institutions of higher education, students will have the ability to receive the first two years of their education at a community college, Minority Serving Institution, or Historically Black College or University tuition- and fee-free. Colleges would be required to commit to ensuring student success, and students would have to meet certain academic standards and complete their education within two years. Once students start their junior or senior years or transfer into a four-year institution, those who commit themselves to at least three years of public service and meet certain academic standards will receive a National Public Service Education Grant to pay a significant portion of their college's tuition, fees, and room and board costs. Universities must provide students with opportunities to engage in public service commitments, academic counseling and student support services, and the opportunity to earn to finish their degree in fewer than two years. Depending on a student's financial need, under the Strengthening American Communities Act, they may be able to graduate with a baccalaureate degree debt-free before embarking on their chosen path to become a public servant.

For those individuals who have already answered their calling to public service, my legislation would assist more public servants continue serving their communities by accelerating the existing Public Service Loan Forgiveness program. Under current law, these dedicated workers must work for 10 years in a public service career and make 120 monthly payments on their federal student loans before they see a dime of federal student loan forgiveness. Economic, family, and other reasons can cause individuals to leave the public sector workforce and despite their years of service, the service these workers provided are not taken into consideration. I propose to accelerate the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program to provide more immediate student loan relief. For every two years of employment and corresponding monthly Federal student loan payments, hard-working public sector employees will receive a percentage of their federal student loans forgiven, with 100 percent of the federal student loan balance being forgiven at the end of 10 years of service. With 99 percent of the initial round of PSLF applicants being rejected last year for loan forgiveness due to administrative barriers and misunderstanding of the rules of the program, Congress should work to accelerating Public Service Loan Forgiveness, therefore encouraging additional individuals to stay in the public sector workforce despite the lower-paying salaries, reduce their cost of borrowing for home and auto loans, and set aside additional money for their own retirement.

As Congress moves forward with an overdue reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, I urge my colleagues to join in this effort to help individuals who are wholly committed to public service by supporting the Strengthening American Communities Act. No individual willing to serve his or her community in a public service career should be held back from that calling due to the high cost of obtaining a college education. No individual willing to serve his or her community should be forced to leave public service because of financial hardship.

Mr. President, today I wish to recognize the service and achievements of Ms. Chris Correale, director of harbor development for the Maryland Port Administration, upon her retirement.

Chris Correale is the ultimate example of a public servant whose expertise and efforts while unknown to the majority of Maryland's residents, have been critical to Maryland's economy and environment.

An expert in U.S. Army Corps of Engineers processes, Chris has spent more than 25 years crafting and implementing innovative and collaborative Federal and State beneficial reuse projects that kept the Port of Baltimore's shipping channels open and improved the environment in the Chesapeake Bay. From dredging, construction, beach replenishment, habitat restoration, and permitting, Chris has been the visionary behind the development of projects that have significantly improved the infrastructure, environment, business climate, regional partnerships, and economic development opportunities throughout the State of Maryland.

At the Maryland Port Administration, Chris ensured the Port of Baltimore's channels are in top condition for maritime traffic serving the port. She oversaw the planning and policy of what to do with the dredged material, she secured State and Federal funding for the port, and she coordinated multi-agency management of the port's aids to navigation systems.

Prior to joining the Maryland Port Administration, Chris had a distinguished career as the chief of the operations division of the U.S. Army Corps' Baltimore District. By overseeing the Baltimore District's navigation program, Chris was instrumental in the operations, maintenance, protection, and restoration of Maryland's ports, military installations, levees, Federal channels, island habitats, and reservoirs.

Chris's retirement is a loss for the State of Maryland. Her vision, expertise, and extraordinary social skills have enabled her to successfully navigate the Federal, State, and local forces to bring so many critical projects to fruition. She has significantly improved the infrastructure, environment, and business climate throughout the State of Maryland, and she will be missed. Therefore, it is my honor to recognize the contributions of Ms. Chris Correale to the State of Maryland and thank her for her years of valuable service.

Mr. President, as we are considering the leadership of the Environmental Protection Agency, I think we should pause a moment to recognize this administration's record on the environment--or should I say the missed opportunities--and what this administration has done in moving America in the wrong direction on environmental protection. This administration's record in dealing with the greatest challenge we have--global climate change--is deplorable.

I had the opportunity to lead a delegation of 10 Members of the Senate to the Paris climate talks in which U.S. leadership demonstrated our ability to get universal consensus that climate change is real, is happening, that it is primarily caused by the activities we do here on Earth, and that we can make a difference in the trajectory of climate change and the impact it will have on our lives. If we follow what science tells us, we can change the course for the better for future generations.

I saw in Paris the importance of U.S. leadership. We had been trying for a long time to get a global agreement to deal with this challenge. It wasn't until America's leadership in Paris that we were able to get a global consensus. In fact, every country in the world signed on to the Paris Agreement and recognized that every nation has the responsibility to respond because what happens in the environment knows no state boundaries--we are all in this together.

Then there was the election of Donald Trump as President of the United States. One of his first actions was to withdraw America from the Paris climate agreement. America became the only Nation in the world not to be part of the global effort to deal with climate change.

Our leadership was now going to be lost, but the Trump administration didn't stop there. They have withdrawn the powerplant rules even though it was in 2007 that the Supreme Court, in Massachusetts v. EPA, determined that carbon dioxide is a dangerous air pollutant and is required to be regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency under the clean air rules. Yet the administration is moving in the other direction as it relates to clean air.

They did the same thing with water. The Supreme Court issued certain decisions in regard to regulated waters. It required Congress to act. Congress didn't act. The administration under President Obama issued regulations that were similar to what we had before the Supreme Court decision, and now the Trump administration has withdrawn those regulations as they relate to clean water.

The list goes on. The Trump administration is now backing down on CAFE standards. That is energy efficiencies

in our automobiles. Maryland is one of 12 States under section 177 that follow California's tougher standards. That is now being jeopardized by the Trump administration.

As we are considering the leadership of the Environmental Protection Agency, we have to recognize that the Trump administration has moved us in the wrong direction. We take pride that with every administration, Congress adds to the protections we have for clean air and clean water and dealing with our environment. Yet we find with this President, the opposite is true. That puts special responsibility on us in Congress. We have to fill that vacuum. Yet the Republican leadership in Congress has made no effort to bring forward legislation to deal with climate change. They have not acknowledged that climate change is real. They have not acknowledged that our activities here are the primary cause of climate change. They have not acknowledged that science tells us that if we do the right thing, we can affect for the better the impact of climate change in our communities. All that has been denied by this administration.

What we should do is bring forward comprehensive legislation to reduce greenhouse gases. We should put a true cost on carbon. Let the market forces help solve the problems we have here. We should provide for the continued efficiency of the transportation sector. We should restore America's leadership. That is what this Congress should be considering. Yet under Republican leadership, we have had no opportunity to consider comprehensive legislation in this area.

If we acted, it would be good for our environment. There is no question about that. Why should we all be concerned about that? Let me give some examples from my State of Maryland. Over the last 50 years, Maryland has experienced a 70-percent increase in rainfall. Tell the people of Ellicott City, who have experienced two 1,000-year floods in the last 20-month period. These are floods that they have never seen before in their lifetime. A large amount of rain that fell in a very short period of time caused tremendous damage to the people of Ellicott City. Tell the 13 million people who are in danger of being displaced by the end of this century because of rising sea levels. Tell the people in the Western United States whose homes were taken by wildfires. We need to act. It would be good for our environment.

I am proud to be one of the Senators who represent the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. There are 18 million people who live in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. We see a rise in the sea level. This is a vulnerable body of water.

The warming of the Chesapeake Bay is causing the loss of seagrasses that are important for the aquatic life. The salinity of the bay is being diminished because of more freshwater, and that is affecting the ecology of the bay. Algae growths are greater and longer because of the warm waters. All of that affects the Chesapeake Bay. If we respond to climate change, we have a much better chance of improving the quality of the Chesapeake Bay, which is critically important for the way of life for the people who live in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed.

It is also, by the way, an important economic issue. If we do what is right and respond to climate change, we will also be helping our economy. The Chesapeake Bay alone adds $1 trillion to our economy. A clean bay helps our economy. Green energy creates jobs--many more jobs than do traditional fossil fuels.

It also is good for our national security. If we use more of the renewables and fewer fossil, we as a nation will be stronger from the point of view of not being dependent on other countries that don't agree with our way of life for supplying energy needs not only to us but to our allies around the world--to the democratic countries around the world. It makes sense.

As we are considering the future leadership of the Environmental Protection Agency, let us recommit ourselves to recognizing that we have responsibilities to advance these environmental issues and implore upon the Republican leadership to bring forward comprehensive legislation that, in fact, will make a significant difference on the trajectory of climate change here in the United States and will restore America's global leadership on this critically important issue.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I would like to bring the Senate's attention to the bipartisan Preserving Teacher Loan Forgiveness for Military Spouses Act of 2018, which I am introducing today with Senators Cornyn and Jones. This legislation eliminates a barrier for teachers in military families to earn federal student loan forgiveness for their years of public service.

The Department of Education's Teacher Loan Forgiveness program rightfully incentivizes teachers to commit to students in our lowest income school districts in exchange for up to $17,500 in Federal student loan forgiveness. Teachers qualify for the Federal student loan forgiveness once they have taught full-time for at least five consecutive years at a low income school or educational service agency. Teachers who are forced to move in the middle of the school year to follow their spouse's relocation or reassignment to another installation in the United States or abroad lose their accrued eligibility for the program and must restart their five years of service under current law.

Last Congress, a Maryland constituent brought to my attention the barriers her daughter faced when seeking Federal student loan forgiveness despite her commitment to public service. Her daughter, a teacher married to a member of the military, was in the middle of her fifth consecutive year teaching at one of Maryland's lower income schools. As any military spouse knows, relocation or reassignment orders can come at any time, upending the lives of the service member and their family. Rather than being able to complete a fifth year of teaching in a Maryland school, this family had to relocate with three months left in the school year. Despite this family's double commitment to service for our military and our schoolchildren, this military spouse missed the opportunity to have a portion of her Federal student loans forgiven. No military spouse

should be punished for following his or her spouse's relocation or reassignment.

The legislation that Senators Cornyn, Jones and I have introduced is a common sense proposal to allow military spouses to earn the benefits that they have dutifully worked towards and continue to incentivize individuals to teach our hardest to educate children. Our legislation provides a waiver from the Department of Education's Teacher Loan Forgiveness program's five consecutive years of service requirement for qualified military spouses if their spouse is relocated during the school year pursuant to military orders from the Armed Forces. This waiver will allow individuals to remain eligible for the Teacher Loan Forgiveness program should they resume teaching full-time at a qualifying low-income school district within one year of their relocation. In addition, this legislation requires the Department of Education to provide a report to Congress every two years on the number of military spouses who remained eligible for Teacher Loan Forgiveness due to this legislation. In addition, it would allow military spouses that follow their service member overseas to accrue periods of service towards the Teacher Loan Forgiveness program if they teach in one of the Department of Defense Education Activities operated schools.

I urge my colleagues to join in this effort to help families who are wholly committed to public service by supporting the Preserving Teacher Loan Forgiveness for Military Spouses Act. No family committed to service of our country should lose out on earned benefits due to a technicality.

Mr. President, I would like to bring the Senate's attention to the bipartisan Preserving Teacher Loan Forgiveness for Military Spouses Act of 2018, which I am introducing today with Senators Cornyn and Jones. This legislation eliminates a barrier for teachers in military families to earn federal student loan forgiveness for their years of public service.

The Department of Education's Teacher Loan Forgiveness program rightfully incentivizes teachers to commit to students in our lowest income school districts in exchange for up to $17,500 in Federal student loan forgiveness. Teachers qualify for the Federal student loan forgiveness once they have taught full-time for at least five consecutive years at a low income school or educational service agency. Teachers who are forced to move in the middle of the school year to follow their spouse's relocation or reassignment to another installation in the United States or abroad lose their accrued eligibility for the program and must restart their five years of service under current law.

Last Congress, a Maryland constituent brought to my attention the barriers her daughter faced when seeking Federal student loan forgiveness despite her commitment to public service. Her daughter, a teacher married to a member of the military, was in the middle of her fifth consecutive year teaching at one of Maryland's lower income schools. As any military spouse knows, relocation or reassignment orders can come at any time, upending the lives of the service member and their family. Rather than being able to complete a fifth year of teaching in a Maryland school, this family had to relocate with three months left in the school year. Despite this family's double commitment to service for our military and our schoolchildren, this military spouse missed the opportunity to have a portion of her Federal student loans forgiven. No military spouse

should be punished for following his or her spouse's relocation or reassignment.

The legislation that Senators Cornyn, Jones and I have introduced is a common sense proposal to allow military spouses to earn the benefits that they have dutifully worked towards and continue to incentivize individuals to teach our hardest to educate children. Our legislation provides a waiver from the Department of Education's Teacher Loan Forgiveness program's five consecutive years of service requirement for qualified military spouses if their spouse is relocated during the school year pursuant to military orders from the Armed Forces. This waiver will allow individuals to remain eligible for the Teacher Loan Forgiveness program should they resume teaching full-time at a qualifying low-income school district within one year of their relocation. In addition, this legislation requires the Department of Education to provide a report to Congress every two years on the number of military spouses who remained eligible for Teacher Loan Forgiveness due to this legislation. In addition, it would allow military spouses that follow their service member overseas to accrue periods of service towards the Teacher Loan Forgiveness program if they teach in one of the Department of Defense Education Activities operated schools.

I urge my colleagues to join in this effort to help families who are wholly committed to public service by supporting the Preserving Teacher Loan Forgiveness for Military Spouses Act. No family committed to service of our country should lose out on earned benefits due to a technicality.