Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation with my colleague from Maryland, Senator Ben Cardin, which would increase access to preventive bone density screenings and improve osteoporosis diagnosis and treatment in the process. We are pleased to have Senators Wicker, King, and Stabenow as cosponsors.

The public health risk of osteoporosis cannot be understated. Today, approximately 54 million Americans either have osteoporosis or low bone mass, which places them at increased risk for osteoporosis. Women are disproportionally affected, accounting for 71 percent of osteoporotic fractures and 75 percent of costs. Osteoporosis is often called ``the silent disease'' because bone loss usually occurs gradually over the years without symptoms.

As the NIH Osteoporosis and Related Bone Disease National Resource Center observes, falls are especially dangerous for people who are unaware that they have low bone density. If the patient and the doctor fail to connect the broken bone to osteoporosis, the chance to make a diagnosis with a bone density test and begin a prevention or treatment program is lost.

Early diagnosis and treatment of osteoporosis are proven to dramatically reduce fracture rates, and appropriate reimbursement for tests that measure bone mass and predict fracture risk are necessary to maintain patient access to care, particularly in rural or underserved areas. Our legislation, the Increasing Access to Osteoporosis Testing for Medicare Beneficiaries Act of 2018, tackles a proven barrier to proper screening by creating a floor reimbursement rate under Medicare for the dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) test, the ``gold standard'' for osteoporosis diagnosis.

Congress has twice recognized the importance of reversing Medicare cuts to DXA reimbursement in order to maintain patient access, yet the Medicare reimbursement rate for DXA tests administered in a doctor's office has declined from $140 in 2006 to only $42 in 2018--a dramatic 70 percent decline. The National Osteoporosis Foundation has found that declining reimbursement rates have created a 26 percent decline in physicians performing DXA tests since 2008, resulting in a corresponding 22 percent decline in diagnoses since 2009.

Regrettably, as a result of reduced screenings due to declining reimbursements, it is estimated that more than 40,000 additional hip fractures occur each year, resulting in nearly 10,000 additional hip fracture-related deaths. As osteoporosis is already under-diagnosed in the Medicare population, it is clear that we must change this trajectory.

This legislation is endorsed by the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, the National Osteoporosis Foundation, and more than forty additional national medical societies and patient advocate organizations. I thank Senator Cardin for joining me in this effort to increase patient access to osteoporosis screening and diagnosis, while lowering costs and consequences resulting from a lack of diagnosis. I encourage my colleagues to support its adoption.

Mr. President, I am pleased the Senate is passing a resolution I introduced along with Senators Collins, Wyden, Gardner, and Bennet to commemorate the American Homebrewers Association's (AHA) 40th ``birthday''. Since its founding in 1978, the AHA--whose mission is to promote the community of homebrewers and empower homebrewers to make the best beer in the world--has had a tremendous impact on America, both within and well beyond the scope of beer. After then- President Jimmy Carter signed the momentous legislation (Public Law 95- 458) to legalize homebrewing at the federal level, the AHA worked ceaselessly and successfully to extend that legalization to all 50 States and the District of Columbia.

Today, the AHA has over 46,000 dues-paying members and works on behalf of more than 1.1 million homebrewers in our Nation. While the AHA was established in 1978, homebrewing has been an important part of our Nation's life from its inception. The Pilgrims landed at Plymouth Rock because they were running out of beer, which was safer to drink than water (each adult on board had a ration of one gallon of beer per day). Presidents George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison were all homebrewers who enjoyed crafting their own libations. In 2011, President Obama introduced a honey ale which became the first beer known to have been brewed in the White House.

Homebrewing isn't just a wonderfully delicious hobby; however. Home- brewing has an important economic impact, creating thousands of jobs and adding hundreds of millions of dollars to the economy. There are more than 700 homebrew shops nationwide, and scores of small businesses that fabricate the brewing, fermenting, and packaging equipment homebrewers use. Homebrewers also support American agriculture, with their demand for domestic malts, hops, yeast, and other ingredients. In the aggregate, American homebrewers produce 1.4 million barrels of beer each year. That production level puts homebrewers between the Boston Beer Company and the Sierra Nevada Brewing Company, which are the second and third largest craft brewing companies in America, respectively.

Homebrewing is collaborative and social. The AHA hosts major events that bring thousands of people together, including the National Homebrewers Conference, the National Homebrew Competition, the Big Brew for National Homebrew Day, Learn to Homebrew Day, and the Hill Staff Homebrew Competition, which encourages bipartisan participation in celebrating home-brewing and its rich history in the United States. Thirty years ago, Congress designated May 7th as National Homebrew Day and the AHA celebrates that anniversary each year with the Big Brew for National Homebrew Day on the first Saturday each May. The AHA initiated Learn to Homebrew Day, which is held in November, in 1999 to encourage homebrewers to introduce their non-brewing family members and

friends to the hobby. Nearly 4,800 people from 45 States and 11 other countries participated in Learn to Homebrew Day last November.

The ``big daddy'' of the AHA-hosted events is the National Homebrew Conference, which attracts as many as 3,400 participants. In 2016, ``Homebrew Con,'' as it is affectionately known, was held in Baltimore and I enjoyed speaking to the group and sampling some of the best beer in America. This year, the 40th Homebrew Con will be held in Portland, Oregon--also known as Beervana--starting this Thursday. Homebrew Con also features the final round of the National Homebrew Competition each year, the largest beer competition in the world. Over 143,000 homebrews have been entered and judged in this competition since the first one was held in Boulder, Colorado, where the AHA is headquartered, in 1979.

Since its inception, the AHA has successfully created community, camaraderie, competition, and, of course, great beer. Today, the hobby of homebrewing unites Americans from coast to coast of all backgrounds, life experiences, and political beliefs. Just as important, the AHA and its diverse members have played a key part in the rise of the craft brewing industry, which is larger today than it has ever been in the country's history. The United States is now home to over 6,000 small and independent craft breweries, most of which were started by homebrewers. Craft beer now accounts for $26 billion in sales and 23 percent of the U.S. beer market. More than 80 percent of Americans age 21 and up live within 10 miles of a brewery, and these breweries are reinvigorating local economies and creating good local jobs that won't go overseas. Collectively, they are adding $68 billion to the economy and donating over $70 million to charitable causes. Beer isn't just good to drink; it's good for the economy.

I would be seriously remiss if I were to fail to mention the one individual most responsible for the creation of the AHA, the growth of homebrewing as a hobby, and the reemergence of American craft beer: Charlie Papazian. Charlie, along with Charlie Matzen, founded the AHA in 1978 in Boulder. Charlie Papazian is rightfully known as ``the godfather of homebrewing''. As for the AHA's successes and the growth of the domestic craft beer industry, we can credit Charlie and his passion, enthusiasm, creativity, and commitment.

In 1972, Charlie graduated from the University of Virginia with a degree in Nuclear Engineering. After working as a kindergarten teacher, his passion for beer--and for the art and science of its creation--led him to swap hydrogen for hops. In 1978, he founded the AHA and published the first issue of Zymurgy magazine, announcing the new organization, publicizing the federal legalization of homebrewing, and calling for entries in the AHA's first National Homebrew Competition. In 1984, he published The Complete Joy of Homebrewing, which to this day remains one of the definitive guides to creating quality beer at home. Charlie's reassuring motto--``Relax. Don't worry. Have a homebrew.''--spawned an American movement that is now spreading abroad.

In 1983, Charlie founded the Association of Brewers, which included the AHA under its umbrella as well as the new Institute for Fermentation and Brewing Studies, which served the needs of the small, but growing, microbrewing industry. The Association of Brewers later merged with the Brewers Association of America to become today's Brewers Association (BA). I was honored to work with the BA and its members as the lead sponsor of the Small Brewer Reinvestment & Expanding Workforce (Small BREW) Act, which intended to cut the federal excise small, independent, domestic craft brewers pay. That bill was incorporated in the Craft Beverage Modernization & Tax Reform Act, which Congress passed last year.

Charlie launched a number of popular events, including the World Beer Cup and the Great American Beer Festival, which today gathers over 60,000 attendees annually. Beyond beer, Charlie also founded National Pie Day--which takes place each year on his own birthday, January 23rd--as an annual celebration of America's favorite dessert.

Charlie is a true trailblazer, pioneer, and entrepreneur. His irrepressible enthusiasm, sense of humor, and joie de vivre have endeared him to millions of people. The original wooden spoon he used to stir his mashes now resides at the Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of American History. Charlie purchased the spoon for $1 in a hardware store. ``I was walking down an aisle in the store,'' he recalls, ``and that spoon spoke to me. It said, `Give me a try, I'm special.' That was the start of our affair.'' He used the spoon when he started teaching homebrewing in 1973 out of a series of houses he rented in Boulder. From 1973 to 1982, he taught five semesters per year, five classes per semester, with 20 people per class. According to Charlie, ``Students had to get their hand on the spoon. They gave it a turn and got the ingredients going in the pot. It was an important part of the class and a lot of people touched that spoon.'' As Charlie puts it, ``It makes for a stirring tale, doesn't it? The spoon has been a witness to the evolution--and the revolution--of homebrewing and craft beer. When you hold it in your hand now, it kind of vibrates a little bit. It's got so much mojo in it.''

Come January 23, 2019, on his 70th birthday, Charlie will be exiting the AHA and its parent organization, the Brewers Association, where he served as president from 1978 to 2016. He is currently spending his time completing an array of projects, including a craft brewing history archive. This week, he will deliver the keynote address at Homebrew Con in Portland. He is often asked, ``Charlie, did you ever imagine that beer would become all of this?'' His answer is always yes.

At St. Paul's Cathedral in London, Sir Christopher Wren's epitaph reads, Si monumentum requiris, circum-spice--``If you seek (his) monuments, look around you.'' Charlie Papazian's monuments are all around us--from homebrewers making a chocolate stout in their kitchens or garages to the craft brewery down the street. From President Obama's ``beer summit'' to the neighborhood bar, beer is the beverage that refreshes us and brings us together. We can thank Charlie Papazian for being able to choose from the best beers brewed in the history of civilization to quench our thirst and warm our hearts. I would ask all of my colleagues to join me in celebrating the 40th anniversary of the American Homebrewers Association, and thanking Charlie Papazian for his seminal and lasting contributions to homebrewing and the craft beer renaissance and wishing him all the best as he completes his final year at the AHA and begins the next chapter in a life that serves as an inspiration to all of us.

Mr. President, today I wish to pay tribute to Dr. J. Alex Haller, Jr., a pioneer in the field of pediatric surgery, who died on June 13 at the age of 91. Theodore Roosevelt once said, ``The greatest gift life has to offer is the opportunity to work hard at work worth doing.'' Alex Haller certainly spent his life working hard on something worthwhile. He was a professor emeritus of pediatrics, surgery, and emergency medicine at the Johns Hopkins Medical School and was the surgeon in charge of the Johns Hopkins Children's Center for nearly 30 years. Over the course of his distinguished career, he became known as the ``father of pediatric trauma care.'' Throughout his life, Dr. Haller pushed the boundaries and transformed how we care for our children.

Dr. Haller was born in Pulaski, VA, in 1927. He earned his bachelor's degree from Vanderbilt University and then came to Baltimore to earn his MD from the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine. After he graduated from Johns Hopkins in 1951, Dr. Haller spent a year as a fellow in pathology at the University of Zurich, and then served in the military for 2 years. He returned to Johns Hopkins to complete his residency. In 1959, he went to Louisville General Hospital, where he served as chief of cardiac surgery for 4 years. Then, Alfred Blalock, the chief of surgery at Johns Hopkins, asked him to return to head the new pediatric surgery division Blalock planned to launch.

During his time at Johns Hopkins, Dr. Haller was responsible for helping to make Johns Hopkins one of the best hospitals for pediatric care in the country. For almost 30 years, he served as the surgeon in charge of the Johns Hopkins Children's Center and was the founding co- director of the division pediatrics. He created the regional trauma center for children, the first such program of its kind in the United States, and at his urging, Johns Hopkins became the first academic medical center to implement pediatric surgery subspecialties.

Outside of Johns Hopkins, Dr. Haller created opportunities for his colleagues to learn from one another. He was one of 24 pediatric surgeons who founded the American Pediatric Surgical Association and played a key role in developing the Pediatric Advanced Life Support, or PALS, protocol, which details the steps and procedures for stabilizing critically injured children or those with other emergency conditions.

Nelson Mandela once said ``There can be no keener revelation of a society's soul than the way in which it treats its children.'' Dr. Haller spent his life ensuring that our children will have the best care that modern medicine can offer. He leaves a lasting legacy in the lives of children whom he saved and who will be saved because of his pioneering work and because he trained so many other doctors and surgeons who carry on the mission. On behalf of my colleagues, I send my deepest condolences to his wife of 67 years, Emily Simms, whom he met in college and who became an obstetrician; his daughter, Dr. Julia Haller, ophthalmologist in chief at Wills Eye Hospital in Philadelphia; two sons, J. Alex Haller III of Asheville, NC, and Frederick B. ``Fritz'' Haller of Winston-Salem, NC; another daughter, Clare Haller Hughes of New Canaan, CT; and 16 grandchildren. In the midst of his family's grief, I hope they can find solace in reflecting on what a truly great and kind and humane person Dr. Haller was. The Baltimore Sun contained an obituary and I ask that the obituary be printed in the Record following my remarks. The obituary, I think, captures Dr. Haller's wonderful humanity, which should serve as a beacon for all of us to follow.

The material follows:

[From the Baltimore Sun, June 6, 2018]

J. Alex Haller Jr., Johns Hopkins Pediatric Surgeon Who Gained Fame in

Separating Conjoined Twins, Dies

(By Jacques Kelly)

Dr. J. Alex Haller Jr., a retired Johns Hopkins pediatric

surgeon recalled as the ``father of pediatric trauma care,''

died of respiratory arrest June 13 at his Glencoe home. He

was 91.

He was a professor emeritus of pediatrics, surgery and

emergency medicine at the Johns Hopkins Medical School and

was the surgeon-in-charge of the Johns Hopkins Children's

Center for nearly 30 years.

``Putting yourself in a child's shoes is part of being a

good surgeon,'' he once said.

Born in Pulaski, Va., he was son of J. Alex Haller, a

dentist, and his wife Julia Allison.

Emerging from scarlet fever as a young child--he lost his

hair permanently as a result--he was determined to go into

medicine.

After the death of his mother, he was raised by his father

and two maiden aunts who instilled a strong moral sense in

him. An Eagle Scout, he was a 1944 graduate of Pulaski High

School, where he played basketball.

He obtained a bachelor's degree at Vanderbilt University,

where he met his future wife, Emily Simms. She would go on to

become an obstetrician.

In a 2008 oral history, he said he came to Baltimore in

1947 and hailed a cab at Penn Station to take him to Hopkins.

He wound up, incorrectly, at the Homewood campus in North

Baltimore. From there he caught a streetcar to the East

Baltimore medical school.

``I went down through every imaginable slum area, and it

got worse and worse as I went deeper and deeper into East

Baltimore and finally ended up right there at the hospital,''

he said. ``I got out and said to myself, `Oh, my. This is the

end of the world.' . . . So I registered and that was the

beginning of my medical school journey.''

While in medical school, Dr. Haller also studied at Boston

Children's Hospital, where he developed an interest in

pediatric surgery. After graduating from Hopkins in 1951, he

studied pathology at the University of Zurich.

He did his military service in the Coast Guard--he said he

was mainly called upon to remove tattoos--and at the National

Institutes of Health.

He performed his residency at Hopkins and joined the

faculty of the University of Louisville in 1959, where he

served as chief of cardiac surgery at the Louisville General

Hospital. The renowned Johns Hopkins surgeon Alfred Blalock

asked him to return to Baltimore to head a new pediatric

surgery division.

In 1971 Hopkins opened the country's first pediatric

emergency room within a general hospital. In an article in

The Baltimore Sun about the opening of the new facility, Dr.

Haller said he did not like mixing children with adults in

crowded general emergency rooms.

In 1982 he led a surgical team that separated conjoined

twins, who were connected at their chests. The twin girls,

Emily and Francesca Selvaggio, were separated in a 10-hour

surgery.

``Dr. Haller was a pioneer in pediatric surgery and

responsible for training innumerable surgeons and leaders in

the field,'' said Dr. George Dover, former director of the

Department of Pediatrics at the Johns Hopkins University

School of Medicine and former pediatrician-in-chief of the

Johns Hopkins Children's Center.

He said Dr. Haller ``was responsible for the concept of the

Children's Medical and Surgical Center . . . the first

building to house all children in a separate facility at

Johns Hopkins. His impact on pediatric medicine was

enormous.''

Dr. Haller also worked with the University of Maryland's

shock trauma pioneer, R Adams Cowley, to organize a statewide

shock trauma system, the Maryland Emergency Medical Services

system.

``By far, the leading cause of pediatric death was then and

remains trauma--injury from auto accidents, falls and

burns,'' said Dr. James A. O'Neill, a friend for more than 50

years.

``The basis of trauma medicine was military experience in

Korea and Vietnam. Very little was known about how to treat

children involved in accidents,'' Dr. O'Neill said. ``Dr.

Haller led the effort to treat injured children and is truly

the father of pediatric trauma care.''

Dr. O'Neill, a professor of pediatric surgery at Vanderbilt

University, also called Dr. Haller ``a true social genius. He

could relate to anyone. He was charming, outgoing, calm,

humble and sensitive to other people. He had a fantastic

sense of humor and an appreciation for other people's

strengths as well as their foibles. He never cared about

money.''

``He was one of the best-known and well-beloved persons to

walk the halls of Hopkins,'' said his daughter Dr. Julia

Haller, ophthalmologist-in-chief at Wills Eye Hospital in

Philadelphia, Pa.

``As a father, he gave us a wonderful childhood,'' she

said. ``He shared his enthusiasm about the world with all of

us.''

He published more than 350 scholarly papers and 60 book

chapters. He also wrote the 1967 book, ``The Hospitalized

Child and His Family.''

His daughter said her father and mother were a well-known

couple, particularly in the Hopkins medical community.

``They were true partners, and each year hosted back-to-

back Christmas parties on Friday and Saturday nights so that

whoever had the weekend rotation could attend,'' she said.

``They served country ham and crab dip. Everyone sang

Christmas carols late into the night,'' she said. ``On family

vacations, they canoed together. When we were young, they

spent a month as camp doctors in western North Carolina. My

father threw himself in all the camp activities, too.

``It's not hard to see why children loved him,'' she said.

He was the recipient of the American Academy of Pediatrics'

William Edwards Ladd Medal, the Denis Browne Gold Medal, the

British Association of Pediatric Surgeons' award and the

Vaclav Kafka Medal from the Society of Pediatric Surgery of

Bohemia.

A funeral will be held at 11 a.m. June 23 at the Episcopal

Cathedral of the Incarnation, University Parkway and St. Paul

Street.

In addition to his wife of 67 years and daughter, survivors

include two sons, J. Alex Haller III of Asheville, N.C., and

Frederick B. ``Fritz'' Haller of Winston-Salem, N.C.; another

daughter, Clare Haller Hughes of New Canaan, Conn.; and 16

grandchildren.

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, tomorrow, June 20, is World Refugee Day. The United Nations General Assembly in 2000 declared June 20 to be World Refugee Day so we can have public awareness and support for refugees, asylum seekers, and displaced people.

The numbers are now out as to the number of displaced people in the year 2017, and that number is kind of shocking. It is record-setting for recent times--65.6 million people are displaced from their homes today. Over 22 million are refugees, over 40 million are displaced in their own country--internally displaced individuals, and almost 3 million are asylum seekers. These numbers rival the number of displaced people we saw after World War II.

Fifty-five percent of the refugees come from three countries: Syria, Afghanistan, and South Sudan. We have seen recent additions to the number of displaced people. In Burma, the Rohingya Muslims were forced out of their homes, and 650,000 had to flee. In the Central African Republic, we saw, again by reason of conflict, a lot of people being displaced. In our own hemisphere in Venezuela, there are 1.5 million people displaced from that conflict, and of course we all are familiar with the problems in Central America and El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras--countries which have been plagued by violence, from which a lot of families have tried to escape in order to save their children.

In Syria, there are 12 million displaced people. That is over half the population of Syria as a result of the conflict and the ISIS campaign. Over half the people in that country are displaced. When we talk about the impact it has on other countries when individuals seek to leave and become refugees--in Lebanon, for example, 1 million Syrians have fled to Lebanon. In Jordan, 660,000 Syrians have fled to Jordan. These countries have been prepared to take in these refugees. The impact, of course, is immediate to the individuals who are displaced. There is also an impact on the region, and as far away as we have seen the distances people will go in order to seek safety, there has been a major impact on the Continent of Europe.

I will be introducing a resolution for the U.S. Senate to go on record recognizing World Refugee Day. It will reaffirm the U.S. Government commitment to uphold international leadership, our strong support for humanitarian assistance, particularly in helping host countries' living conditions. I just saw the press accounts of the Rohingya population living in tent cities during the monsoon season who are at great risk. We need to join the international community that is working to help these vulnerable people.

The resolution speaks to us partnering with our international communities. This is an international effort, with U.S. leadership. We are reaffirming our longstanding tradition of resettling refugees in the United States.

I have worked on this issue since I have been in Congress, and it has always been bipartisan. I have had strong partners on both the Democratic and Republican side fighting for America to maintain its leadership against the vulnerable people in the world who have been displaced and the refugee population and the asylum seekers.

I remember vividly working with Senator McCain on humanitarian aid and holding those who prey on these vulnerable people who are displaced, the perpetrators, accountable for their human rights violations. There have been many other examples of us working together. We should be welcoming the persecuted and vulnerable refugees in the United States, recognizing that America's strength is in our diversity, the people who braved coming to this country who built this great country, the United States of America.

So I need to comment that President Trump's policies stand in sharp contrast to what America's role must be in regard to promoting the welfare of displaced people as we tomorrow celebrate World Refugee Day. I know the subject that is getting the most debate right now--and rightly so, and I am going to talk about it--is the removal of children from their parents at our border, which, to me, is an abomination. I am going to talk about that, but that is not the only problematic part of President Trump's refugee policies.

This administration has reduced dramatically the refugee caps for those permitted to resettle in the United States. We believe the number is as high as an 83 percent reduction in America's willingness to accept refugees. Here we are with global leadership asking countries to keep their borders open for those who are at risk to enter their country, and we are closing our borders. That is not what the world leader does in that regard.

We have seen policies that discriminate against who can come to this country. There is no question the Trump administration tried to impose a Muslim ban, a religious test, as to who could come to this country. We heard the President's comments about certain countries, which raised questions about whether the demographics of that country affect the ability of people being able to come to America. We have seen this administration propose, time and time again, cuts in humanitarian aid to vulnerable, displaced people in order to fund a wall on our southern border.

Then there are the Dreamers, the DACA registrants. Through Executive

order, President Trump created a problem that didn't exist for the Dreamers who were given status to be able to work and go to school under an Executive order by President Obama. President Trump changed that by Executive order. It wasn't Congress. Congress didn't create the problem, the President did.

Then we have those who are legally here--legally here under temporary status, TPS--from El Salvador, Haiti, Nicaragua, and other countries. They have been here a long time because the conditions in their country have not changed. It is still not safe for them to go back to their country. They are legally in the United States, and against the recommendations of our own missions in these countries, the Trump administration decided to put an ending date for their legal status in the United States, meaning, even though they have been here for 15 years, they are going to have to leave America. That is done by Executive action by President Trump, not by Congress. We didn't create this problem--whether it is the Dreamers or TPS, the President could change that today with the stroke of a pen.

Then we have asylum seekers. Asylum seekers are the most persecuted. Their own lives are at risk if they have to go back to their host countries. What did Attorney General Sessions do? He removed victims of domestic abuse and gang violence from those who can seek asylum in the United States. They did that by Executive action, not Congress. We didn't create this problem. The Trump administration created the problem, and they could change it with the stroke of a pen.

Yes, there are a lot of issues where I believe President Trump's policies are not what America is about, whether it is support for humanitarian aid or whether it is the number of refugees we accept or whether it is dealing with the Dreamers or those in TPS, the asylum seekers. All of that, to me, violates the basic principles of America that make us the strong Nation we are.

The most recent force of separation of parents from their children at our southern border is outrageous, and it is affecting people's lives every day--children's lives every day.

Let me set this up because, again, this was done by the President. He can correct it with the stroke of a pen. Congress didn't create the problem; the President did this. The President can change this today.

It is my understanding that as many as 70 children every single day are being separated from their parents at our southern border. This can't wait until tomorrow. Each one of these children will be scarred for the rest of their life because of this cruel and inhumane policy announced by the Trump administration.

Let me set this up as to how this happened, because there is no law requiring this. The President decided that because you happen to be a parent concerned about your child's life--you live in a country in which you have a choice of your child joining a gang--by the way, if you join a gang, you are going to have to take someone else's life. That is usually the admission to join a gang. And if you refuse to join a gang, not only is your life at risk, but your family's life is at risk. So what would you do as a father or a mother if your child were in that position? You are trying to seek the safety of your child, so you leave and you come to our southern border. Now you are told you are going to lose your child in separation for doing what--trying to protect that child's life? Is that the United States? No, it isn't. But that is the policy President Trump has now established at our southern border.

It has to end, and it can end today by the President of the United States signing an order saying we are not going to do that. We all want to have rule of law and enforcement of laws at our border. We understand that. But you don't separate children from their parents. That can change, and we need to change it.

Why are we doing this?

Attorney General Sessions said we are doing this as a deterrent. We take children away from parents as a deterrent when parents are acting in order to protect their children? That makes absolutely no sense.

Then I heard: Congress could take action. The President said that. We could take action. Our domestic policies must support our fundamental ideals of compassion and freedom and unwavering support for human rights. I agree with that. Yes, it would be nice for Congress to pass laws. I am all for doing that. We saw that we weren't even able to pass a bill protecting the Dreamers, even though Democrats and Republicans agreed on it, because President Trump wanted to use that for leverage for his wall and for repressive immigration policies.

Let's not go down another path where we are going to have delay after delay and children being separated from parents every day. It is President Trump's responsibility to correct this today.

Yes, we should work on legislation. I applaud Senator Feinstein for her legislation that would keep families together with the proper legal process. I congratulate Senator Smith for the HELP Separated Children Act, which gives fundamental principles. A lot of us have talked about various parts of immigration reform and comprehensive immigration reform. I am all for that. I voted for comprehensive immigration reform. But make no mistake about it--children are being taken away from their parents today by U.S. authorities on our southern border, when their parents have done nothing other than try to protect their children. It is happening today, and the way to change it today is for President Trump to say that is not what we are going to do here in America. I stand ready to work with any of my colleagues on reasonable laws that could protect the vulnerable people.

Tomorrow, as I said, is World Refugee Day, where we have record numbers of people who have been displaced. America has the responsibility to be a leader on these issues and to lead by example, recognizing that diversity is our strength. We have responsibilities to those who have been persecuted to welcome them under our reasonable vetting rules so that we can, in fact, live up to our principles and lead the world.

I ask my colleagues--on the eve of World Refugee Day--let us work together. I ask President Trump to do the right thing and reverse these repressive, un-American policies that he has put into place.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for the amendment the senior Senator from Arkansas has offered to the H.R. 5515, the Fiscal Year 2019 National Defense Authorization Act, NDAA. Senator Boozman's amendment is a thoughtful one. It proposes to solicit information from the Department of Defense to help us carefully think through our response to the changed strategic situation in Europe. Russia's military aggression and Military incursions in Georgia, Ukraine, and elsewhere have made it abundantly clear that we are no longer in the security environment that provided the context for the commitments we made in the 1997 NATO-Russia Founding Act.

The United States and Poland have a long record of highly effective cooperation in military matters. Poland has made important contributions to operations in Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan, and an American-led NATO battle group in Poland is playing an important role in reinforcing NATO's eastern flank today.

Still, a decision to permanently deploy U.S. forces to the territory of even such a stalwart ally should not be taken lightly. This amendment wisely requests that the Department of Defense provide its assessment of a number of factors that we will need to weigh when deciding whether to take such a step, including the reactions we should anticipate from other allies, possible responses by Russia, and more practical considerations including cost and timing.

Poland needs no reminder about the external threats it faces. After all, it borders Ukraine. However, Poland faces an enemy within: democratic backsliding, which plays into Vladimir Putin's hands as he aims to undermine democratic values across Europe.

Since 2015, the Polish Government has challenged constitutionalism, eroded checks and balances, and indulged in historical revisionism. The breadth and depth of the government's actions led the European Commission to conclude in December that Poland's ``executive and legislative branches have been systematically enabled to politically interfere in the composition, powers, administration and functioning of the judicial branch.''

I discussed these concerns in a meeting with Polish Deputy Foreign Minister Marek Magierowski in February, including a controversial law, introduced on the eve of International Holocaust Remembrance Day, which may actually impede research, scholarship, and journalism about the Holocaust. The Department of State rightly observed that this law might have repercussions for ``Poland's strategic interests and relationships--including with the United States and Israel. The resulting divisions that may arise among our allies benefit only our rivals.''

Independence of the judiciary will take another hit on July 3, when a new law will go into effect forcing the early retirement of up to 40 percent of Poland's 120-member supreme court, the reintroduction of the Soviet-era feature of ``lay judges,'' and make final judgments subject to ``extraordinary appeals.'' These developments--very concerning both for Poland and the region--should be part of the administration's dialogue with Warsaw on comprehensive transatlantic security.

Mr. President, next month will be the 65th anniversary of the armistice that ended the battles and bloodshed of the Korean war. As I am sure my colleagues know, the Korean war was never officially ended. Over the last 65 years, we have seen hostility on the Korean Peninsula. We have seen North Korea develop nuclear weapons, raising security concerns, and active in cyber attacks and human rights violations. The list goes on and on in the context of a formal state of war between the north and the south.

The United States has made major investments in this region as a result of our security concerns and our national interests. We helped rebuild Japan and South Korea, we developed allies that share our values, which is certainly in our interests, and we created a military deterrent against a belligerent North Korea. Yet, during this period of time, the Kim Jong Un regime in North Korea developed a nuclear weapons program, including delivery systems. It violated international commitments. The international community, led by the United States--I must say, empowered by this Congress, which gave the administration the ability to impose sanctions--with the leadership of the United States, sanctions had been imposed against North Korea, and those sanctions had impact.

This year, we saw a breakthrough with there being some hope of security in the future. With the election of President Moon of South Korea, the South Koreans have a leader who wants to have a better relationship with North Korea, and the use of the Winter Olympics helped to develop confidence between North Korea and South Korea. Now President Trump is scheduled to meet with Kim Jong Un at the Singapore summit on June 12, where there will be great opportunities. We hope this will be an opportunity to end the war between North and South Korea, create a framework to denuclearize the Korean Peninsula, and forge a path toward stability and security for all.

It starts with an acknowledgment by North Korea that it has violated international norms. That is the reason sanctions have been imposed. It has an illegal nuclear program; its missile program violates international norms; and it has created an oppressive regime against the basic human rights of the North Korean people. Clearly, diplomacy is our best option. That was the purpose of imposing sanctions--so that we could get to this moment at which diplomacy actually may lead to results. We couldn't have gotten here if we had not had a strong sanctions regime imposed against North Korea.

As I have said all year, Congress gave the administration the tools with which to do that. In working with our partners around the world, the United States led in the effort in isolating North Korea in its continuing down this path. We now have an opportunity for diplomacy. Diplomacy is our best option. If we have to use the military, the risk factors are so great as to what could happen that it begs the point that, really, the only successful option is for diplomacy to work.

This is where we have hope, because there is a common objective between the principal parties in trying to use diplomacy to end this crisis. North Korea and China very much want to preserve the Kim Jong Un regime. China does not want to see a democratic country on its border. It wants to preserve North Korea's Communist regime. Obviously, Kim Jong Un is interested in preserving his regime. The United States and China have a common agenda in that both countries want to see the Korean Peninsula absent of nuclear weapons.

Secretary of State Pompeo testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and indicated that the U.S. position is not for regime change. I think that gave Kim Jong Un the ability to go forward and say: Look, if the regime can be preserved and we get security assurances, then we can do that without nuclear weapons. That gave us the opportunity for diplomacy to succeed.

So where are we in regard to the summit that is scheduled in less than 1 week?

I was pleased that the Subcommittee on East Asia, The Pacific, and International Cybersecurity Policy, which is within the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, held a hearing this week with regard to the status of the summit--with regard to what we can expect and how we should be prepared. I appreciate Senator Gardner and Senator Markey, the chair and ranking member of the subcommittee, for holding that hearing.

Joe Yun, who is the former top American diplomat and one of the United States' leading experts on North Korea, was one of our witnesses. Victor Cha, who is the former National Security Adviser for North Korea, was the other witness. We had two of the top experts in this country who understand North Korea, who understand Kim Jong Un, who understand where we are in regard to what we can expect at the summit that will take place on June 12. Both agreed that we will need to have a realistic strategy in going into these negotiations.

I asked a specific question of the witnesses: Would Kim Jong Un be willing to give up his nuclear weapons in going into these negotiations?

Both agreed that was unlikely--unlikely, in the initial meetings, that he would agree to give up his nuclear program.

What should we expect? What should the conditions be? We had a robust discussion about that in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

It was pretty well agreed that it will start with a declaration by North Korea of its current program. We will need to understand what it is doing. We will need to know the venues of its nuclear program. We will need to know exactly from where we will be starting. We will need to make sure that the commitment to freeze that program will, in fact, be carried out. We will need international inspectors to make sure that, in fact, North Korea will not be advancing the program or its missile program. Then we will need a plan to dismantle its nuclear weapons program--all aspects of it. We will need to have a roadmap for getting there. That is the realistic expectation of what we will be able to achieve on June 12.

It is key for the United States to make it clear that we will not make

concessions until we have at least reached that understanding--a commitment to North Korea's dismantling the program, a freeze in place, and inspectors in place. We will have to be patient, but we will also have to be resolved that we will not make unilateral concessions.

This past week, several of my colleagues sent a letter to the administration that outlined this. It was led by Senators Schumer and Menendez, along with Senators Durbin, Feinstein, Brown, Leahy, and Warner. I agree with the letter. Let me just quote some of the conditions that are spelled out that we should be expecting in these negotiations.

Ultimately, it should include the dismantling and removal of all nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons from North Korea. The goal must be the full, complete, and verifiable denuclearization of North Korea. North Korea must continue its current ballistic missile test suspension. North Korea must commit to having robust compliance inspections, including a verification regime. The agreement with North Korea must be permanent in nature. These are conditions I would hope we could all agree on.

The letter goes on to read something that is critically important. In its addressing other critical matters, it includes North Korea's human rights practices and the need for them to be included in these discussions. Dr. Cha said it best when he said that a comprehensive political settlement with North Korea must include its agreement to end the regime's systematic violation of human rights.

I understand our objective is to make sure we have a denuclearized Korean Peninsula, and I agree with that. Yet, for long-term stability in that region, we need a North Korean Government that respects the rights of its citizens, and those discussions must start taking place on June 12.

Here is my concern and the reason I am taking this time today.

We have to be prepared for this summit. President Trump needs to be prepared, but President Trump needs to be prepared by working with Congress. That is where we know we are the strongest. I have seen no signs whatsoever of any congressional briefings or consultations from the Trump administration in leading up to the June 12 summit. We need to be on the same page in going into these discussions. Yet we have had absolutely no consultation. Dr. Cha said to consult with Congress given its role in funding and ratifying an agreement. We need to be involved.

Let me just underscore as to what Secretary Pompeo testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. I asked him a question as to what role Congress should play in this. Secretary Pompeo volunteered to say that he anticipates that this will be a treaty that will be submitted to the U.S. Senate for ratification if they are successful. If we are going to be called upon to ratify a treaty or if we are going to be called upon to change the sanctions regime against North Korea, we will need to be part of the process. We will not have to reinvent the wheel.

We ran into a similar issue in 2015 with regard to President Obama's negotiations for an Iran nuclear agreement. At that time, I was the ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. I worked with our distinguished chairman, Senator Corker, and other members of our committee, including Senator Kaine and Senator Menendez and others, and we came up with the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act. We know how difficult it is to get consensus in the U.S. Congress on any particular issue. Yet we passed that Review Act by a 19-to-0 vote in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. It passed overwhelmingly in the Congress itself, and it establishes a proper role for Congress in its review of such an agreement.

It doesn't restrict the President in his negotiations; it strengthens the President in his negotiations by giving him the power of the American Government, including the congressional part of our government. It strengthens the oversight of compliance. It did that with Iran, and it would do the same thing with regard to North Korea.

Just as with Iran, there is no trust when it comes to North Korea. So the final agreement must be verifiable, transparent, and make clear that any violation will result in the strongest possible sanctions. Our congressional role can complement both the ongoing and forthcoming negotiations with North Korea. Such legislation will help Congress's oversight and representative responsibilities to the American people.

As we go to this historic meeting that will take place next week, I know that every Senator--indeed, every American--will want the President to be successful in this endeavor to denuclearize the Korean Peninsula and to bring security and stability to the region. The best chance for that to happen is with Congress exercising its responsibility and being in a position to support the efforts and understand the efforts so that we can act with a united voice in America. Let us act accordingly.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, today we are proceeding to consideration of the Fiscal Year 2019 National Defense Authorization Act, NDAA, which is fitting: On this day 74 years ago, thousands of American troops, alongside our allies, executed a bold assault on the beaches of Normandy. The bravery of those troops on D-Day in their stand against Nazi tyranny and oppression has been admired by a grateful world ever since. The Nazi regime upended democratic freedoms and espoused a system of persistent human rights violations bent on trampling the existence of minority groups which culminated in the concentration camps and genocide. The accomplishments of allied forces on D-Day and thereafter during Operation Overlord led to the defeat of the Adolph Hitler's Nazi government and its heinous authoritarian, nationalist ideology.

D-Day remains a sterling example of how international partnerships and a spirit of collaborative defiance can overcome seemingly insurmountable odds. It is also a stark reminder of what is required in the presence of iniquitous leaders. The leaders of the D-Day alliance and the troops who fought mightily that day on the beaches and in the French countryside and towns deserve our most sincere thanks and admiration. It is because of their bravery and hardship that the western world remains free.

As we remember the courageous actions of those present that ``longest day,'' I ask that we express our gratitude by carrying on their example. We must resist the present-day reemergence of nationalist and racist influences in the Western world and beyond. Concurrently, we must hold authoritarian regimes accountable for their acts against humanity. We must expand our diplomatic reach by strengthening our alliances against authoritarianism. By working together like the daring souls who fought on D-Day, we can secure a future free from cruelty, oppression, and persecution.

Mr. President, last night, the Senate passed two pieces of bipartisan legislation that will increase access to capital for small businesses and strengthen the Small Business Administration's oversight of its largest lending program.

First, I want to talk about the Small Business Investment Opportunity Act. This bill modifies SBA's Small Business Investment Company, SBIC, program by increasing the amount of capital SBICs with a single fund can invest in qualifying small businesses.

This legislation will unlock millions in additional capital for small businesses with high-growth potential, create jobs, ensure the program keeps pace with inflation, and align the program with changes Congress made in 2015.

Earlier this year, I introduced the Senate version of this legislation with Senators Risch and Kennedy as original cosponsors. It was reported out of the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee in March by a vote of 19-0.

SBICs are privately owned and managed investment funds that use their own capital--plus funds borrowed with an SBA guaranty--to capitalize small businesses. The purpose of the SBIC program is to stimulate investment in America's high-growth small businesses. The investments are made at no expense to taxpayers.

This bill is straightforward. Under current law, SBA can guarantee up to $150 million for a single SBIC investment fund. This legislation increases

that cap to $175 million. The cap has not been raised since 2009. Today, adjusted for inflation, the amount should be nearly $170 million. Raising this cap ensures the program keeps up with inflation.

This change also builds upon a bill Senators Risch and Shaheen and I passed in 2015 that increased the maximum leverage from $225 million to $350 million for SBICs with more than one fund, commonly referred to as a ``Family of Funds.''

Aligning the maximum leverage cap for a single SBIC fund with that of a Family of Funds expands the capacity of SBA and its private-sector partners to deploy more capital to innovative, fast-growing small businesses. These are firms that boost local hiring, support our communities, drive innovation, and help our country maintain its competitive edge. Last year, SBICs helped more than 1,200 firms, creating or saving nearly 113,000 jobs.

Some of America's most iconic brands have received investment capital from SBICs, including Apple, Tesla, Whole Foods, Staples, Intel, FedEx, and Costco, among others.

Maryland is home to five SBICs, some with multiple funds. I would like to highlight a few successful small firms that got financing through a Baltimore-based SBIC called Patriot Capital.

CSS Antenna is based in Edgewood, MD. This firm designs and manufactures products that support the wireless communications industry. Patriot Capital invested in CSS Antenna to support new product development and provide a stable layer of working capital to nurture company growth. During the life of Patriot's SBIC investment, CSS Antenna quadrupled its revenue and employee count, from 25 to 100.

Patriot also invested in Advantage Engineers, based in Columbia, MD. This firm provides engineering services focused on the telecom, geotechnical, and environmental services markets. Since Patriot's SBIC investment in 2016, Advantage Engineers' has doubled its revenue and tripled its employees from 200 to 600. This firm could benefit from additional SBIC investment once the Small Business Investment Opportunity Act is implemented.

Finally, for those of you who like to check the weather on your smartphone, you might be interested to know that WeatherBug is an SBIC investment. WeatherBug provides desktop and mobile users with real- time, local weather information.

WeatherBug is the product of Earth Networks, based in Germantown, MD. Patriot Capital has provided various levels of SBIC capital to Earth Networks to support a series of initiatives, including expansion into Smart Home technology that allows you to remotely control your home's lights, locks, and heating and cooling systems.

With passage of this legislation, I am hopeful that more investments will flow to innovative small businesses in Maryland and throughout the country.

I also thank my colleagues for supporting the Small Business 7(a) Lending Oversight Reform Act of 2018. The goal of this legislation is to strengthen SBA's ability to conduct effective oversight of its largest lending program, the 7(a) Loan Guaranty Program, and 7(a) lenders.

The 7(a) program, through government guaranteed loans made by private sector lenders, provide small businesses with the capital they need for a broad range of purposes, from working capital for payroll and inventory to financing for buildings and equipment. The maximum loan size is $5 million, the maximum term is 25 years, and the program operates at zero subsidy, with costs covered by borrower and lender fees.

Protecting the integrity and stability of the 7(a) program is important because it is one of the largest sources of long-term capital available to small businesses in our country. The program's longer terms reduce the monthly payments for small firms and provide essential working capital to manage startup and growth.

Last year, the SBA 7(a) loan program helped more than 62,000 small businesses. Combined, they were approved for more than $25 billion in loans, which supported more than 571,000 U.S. jobs.

In Maryland, the 7(a) loan program helped 833 firms, which pumped nearly $300 million into local communities, supporting more than 6,700 jobs.

The Small Business 71(a) Lending Oversight Reform Act of 2018 strengthens SBA's oversight of 7(a) lenders in the following ways: modernizes the definition of and compliance with the Credit Elsewhere test; creates a streamlined process to prevent a shutdown of the program with a process by which SBA can request an increase of the 7(a) lending cap, up to 15 percent, after an appropriate waiting period; ensures the Director of the Office of Credit Risk Management, OCRM, is qualified and nonpartisan; improves the quality of lender reviews and examinations; and strengthens the rights of lenders to get timely reports of oversight reviews and appeal penalties.

Of the reforms we are enacting, two of the most significant are modernizing the credit elsewhere test and streamlining the process to increase the 7(a) program cap.

The credit elsewhere test is the bedrock of the 7(a) program. It was created to ensure SBA is only backing loans to qualified borrowers who, but for the guaranty, would not get a loan based on conventional market standards. This lender oversight bill updates the credit elsewhere definition to reflect current market gaps, reinforces OCRM's duty to ensure lenders use the credit elsewhere test for the benefit of the borrower and not the lender, and strengthens OCRM's authority to substantiate how lenders determine and document the credit elsewhere test.

Creating a streamlined process to increase the lending capacity of SBA's largest loan program will provide needed stability to this essential source of long-term capital for small businesses. Currently, if the 7(a) program hits its lending cap, Congress must act legislatively to raise the program level. Finding a timely legislative vehicle is difficult and this legislative uncertainty can trigger market uncertainty and shutdown the program.

To address this problem, this bill establishes a notification-and- wait process by which SBA can notify Congress of its intent to increase the 7(a) lending cap, up to 15 percent, after a 30-day waiting period. To prevent abuse of this authority, SBA may only increase the cap once a year.

I support the 7(a) loan program and these lender oversight reforms. I look forward to building on this legislation by identifying ways to increase 7(a) loans to borrowers in unserved markets.

Mr. President, this Monday, we will celebrate Memorial Day. Across our proud Nation this Memorial Day weekend, we remember the men and women of our Armed Forces who made the greatest sacrifice imaginable. Whether it was on the battlefield of Antietam, the beaches of Normandy, or in the mountains of Afghanistan, thousands of Americans have taken up the mission to defend our Nation, ideals, and freedoms at home and

abroad, knowing that they may not survive. This Memorial Day, let us pause to pay honor to their immense courage.

I specifically remember the sacrifices of my fellow citizens from Maryland such as SPC Tocarra Green. She was the first woman from Maryland to die in the Iraq War. I remember SGT Erick M. Houck, a Baltimore native like me, who died in Afghanistan just last year. It is a remarkable notion that our fellow citizens were willing to pay such a high cost for our own freedom. They and those like them deserve every honor we can bestow.

Memorial Day weekend often serves as an opportunity for Americans to spend time with friends and family. As we consider the cost of our freedom, let us also remember the families of our fallen, our Gold Star families. As we remember the sacrifices of our fallen servicemembers, we also recognize the tremendous loss to their families and admire their patriotism and perseverance.

Despite all of these sacrifices, the struggle to preserve our freedom continues. Just as in times past, our enemies seek to threaten the freedom for which our American brothers and sisters have laid down their lives. These enemies don't just fight our troops on the battlefield; they have attacked the integrity of our electoral system and our freedom of speech while seeking to reverse our progress against racial inequity and religious freedom. One of the best ways to honor our fallen comrades is for us to work together to defend our freedom and our American principles. We cannot allow the erosion of the liberties our family members and friends have fought so hard to defend.

As I pray for the fallen and their families this weekend, I will also pray for our men and women currently serving in harm's way and for their families too. I am truly grateful for those who have served our country, past and present, and I will continue to do my very best to serve them in return.

Mr. President, this week, the Senate is poised to confirm the nomination of David Cornstein to serve as the next U.S. Ambassador to Hungary. Against that backdrop, as well as reports that Secretary of State Pompeo will meet with the Hungarian Foreign Minister in Washington at the end of this month, it is timely to consider the troubling situation in Hungary.

Budapest is a fabulous city. The Parliament is regarded by many as one of the most beautiful legislative houses in the world. Hungarians are a warm and generous people, and the United States and Hungary have a shared history dating to the times of Lajos Kossuth, whose bust graces the halls of the U.S. Congress. Hungarians have come to this country as both immigrants and refugees, enriching our national fabric.

The beauty of Budapest masks a growing climate of fear, however. For the past 8 years, Hungary's ruling Fidesz party has tried to pass majoritarianism off as democracy. Media pluralism has disappeared. The government plays favorites with religions, preferring some while discriminating against others, like the Hungarian Evangelical Fellowship. Moreover, the checks and balances that are essential for democracy are missing in action. To say that the ruling party now exercises unchecked legal power is not an exercise in hyperbole, but merely a concise analysis of the facts.

Prime Minister Viktor Orban has allowed corruption to flourish, enriching his own friends and family. The government has recentralized, and more of the economy is either under state control or in the hands of Orban's cronies. Once Fidesz won two-thirds of the seats in Parliament in 2010, the party changed the election system to perpetuate that outcome. As Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, OSCE, elections observers concluded, separation of state and party is no longer respected. For a country that suffered under a one-party regime, that is a deeply disturbing conclusion.

In 2013, I chaired a Helsinki Commission hearing on the trajectory of democracy in Hungary. Frankly, I did not think things would get this bad, in part because I did not think the ruling Fidesz party would become more extremist than Hungary's strongest opposition party, Jobbik, but after 2010, with Jobbik's anti-Semitic and anti-Roma rhetoric serving as a Greek chorus, Fidesz leaders carved out their own revisionist bona fides, worked to rehabilitate fascist-era figures, and repeatedly awarded, elevated, and amplified one of the country's most extremist polemicists. They determined that they could get away with further escalating hate-mongering against racial and religious minorities with one tweak: call them Muslims and migrants. Hatred, it seems, is fungible.

Not surprisingly, the politics of fear, historical revisionism, and national grievances have found expression in the ruling party's foreign policy too. The most alarming example has been Hungary's opportunistic approach to Ukraine following Russia's 2014 invasion, with Hungary's rhetoric often echoing Moscow's. Overall, the Hungarian Government's approach suggests that it is not interested in a dialogue about the Hungarian minority in

Ukraine, but in finding a new political enemy. The fact that this is music to Vladimir Putin's ears may be just a coincidence.

In any case, Hungary's posture regarding Russia is unusual in the region, to say the least. As suggested in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Report we issued on ``Putin's Asymmetric Assault,'' Russian disinformation isn't just creeping in over the transom; the Hungarian Government has opened the door and put out a welcome mat. Paradoxically, however, while Prime Minister Orban may tilt his country to east, Hungarians themselves remain among the most pro-European Union of Europeans and many still vote with their feet, forming a steady exodus west. In fact, the outward exodus is contributing to an emerging labor shortage.

It is not surprising that Hungary gets compared to Russia: the nongovernmental organization, NGO, Law adopted in Budapest last year was inspired by Russia, proposed by Jobbik, and passed by Fidesz, but there are still big differences between Hungary and Russia. Journalists are not murdered in Hungary, and no one goes to jail for his or her opinions. Instead, Hungary is using a fist in a velvet glove to silence civil society and thwart political dissent without ever leaving a mark. Viktor Orban has mastered nonviolent means of repression. He has used the renationalization of segments of the economy, the recentralization of state authority, and the kleptocratic control of putatively private business to stymie opposition and dissent. I know political analysts are using a lot of different terms to describe the specific system that has emerged in Hungary under Orban--illiberal or mafia state? Oligarchy or kleptocracy? One of the most apt may be ``goulash authoritarianism.''

There are worrying signs that things may get worse before they get better. Viktor Orban now appears set to fulfill his campaign pledge to extract ``moral, political and legal'' retribution from those who opposed him. He welcomed the publication of an ``enemies list'' containing some 200 names--including numerous American citizens--and urged the close-to-Orban media to do more to root them out. This is the kind of smear campaign that often comes just before the gloves come off and the blows begin.

Under these challenging circumstances, the United States needs to speak with a clear and unambiguous voice. As Senator Corker said at the confirmation hearing last week, ``Mr. Cornstein will have the important task of reminding the Government of Hungary that its future lies not in a return to the dark days of the past but in remaining an active member of the community of liberal democracies.'' Messages delivered behind closed doors are likely to have little effect or may even be completely misrepresented in public by Hungarian officials.

The United States will always have a relationship with Hungary, but the question is: What kind of relationship will that be? One built on deeply shared values or only fleeting transactional interests? Our strongest alliances are with countries where human rights are respected and democracy is strong, and that is the kind of relationship I hope Mr. Cornstein will help build.

Mr. President, today, I am introducing the Strengthening American Communities (SAC) Act of 2018. My bill seeks to expand access to debt-free public service career pathways for Americans who want to serve their communities, States, or 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. My bill is a first step toward 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 lost out on a young, engaged 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 serve our communities. 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. And 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 career before seeing any reward in the form of Federal student loan forgiveness.

The Strengthen 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 transfer into a four-year institution for their junior and senior years, those who commit themselves to at least three years of public service and meet 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, she or he may be able to graduate with a baccalaureate degree debt-free before embarking on the path to becoming 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 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 student loans forgiven, with 100 percent of the Federal student loan balance being forgiven at the end of 10 years of service. By accelerating Public Service Loan Forgiveness, we can encourage 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 2018. My bill seeks to expand access to debt-free public service career pathways for Americans who want to serve their communities, States, or 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. My bill is a first step toward 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 lost out on a young, engaged 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 serve our communities. 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. And 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 career before seeing any reward in the form of Federal student loan forgiveness.

The Strengthen 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 transfer into a four-year institution for their junior and senior years, those who commit themselves to at least three years of public service and meet 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, she or he may be able to graduate with a baccalaureate degree debt-free before embarking on the path to becoming 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 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 student loans forgiven, with 100 percent of the Federal student loan balance being forgiven at the end of 10 years of service. By accelerating Public Service Loan Forgiveness, we can encourage 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, I rise today to mourn the loss of Amy S. Caprio of the Baltimore County Police Department, who was 29 years old. Sadly, Ms. Caprio is the first female police officer to be killed in the line of duty in the history of the Baltimore County Police Department and the 10th officer killed in the history of the department.

As a longtime resident of Baltimore County and as the Senator from Maryland, I want to express my profound sadness and condolences to the family and friends of Ms. Caprio, especially her husband Tim.

Officer Caprio was killed on Monday after responding to a call about a suspicious vehicle and potentially a burglary in progress in the Perry Hall region. According to police reports, Officer Caprio had ordered suspects to leave the car when she was deliberately run over by a suspect. It is unclear whether a firearm was discharged, and police are reviewing the footage from her body camera before she was killed.

The Baltimore County police now report that they have several suspects in custody, including juveniles who have been arrested and charged as adults with first-degree murder.

A resident of the neighborhood told the Baltimore Sun that his son saw the officer struck by a vehicle. Tony Kurek, 54, had just walked into the door of his home when his son, Dakota, shouted to him: ``Dad, Dad, a cop just got run over out front,'' the father recalled his son saying. The officer was lying in front of his house, he said. Dakota told his father he had seen the officer draw her gun on a black Jeep Wrangler and order the people inside to get out. Instead, the driver sped forward, ramming the officer with the vehicle. She landed about 20 feet away. ``She basically landed almost in front of my mailbox,'' Kurek said.

Let me thank the Kurek family, as well as the EMS and MedStar Franklin Square Medical Center staff, who rushed to try to save Officer Caprio's life. I know this event has shaken the Perry Hall community, as well as residents who were asked to shelter in place, and several local elementary schools were placed on lockdown during the police search for the suspects. I am hopeful that the Blue Alert System in use helped to quickly catch the suspects in this case.

As we learn more about Officer Caprio's life, we grieve for her loss. According to a story in the Baltimore Sun, she served just shy of 4 years with the Baltimore County Police Department, but she had already proven herself to be a dedicated officer. She was credited with bringing down a pair of alleged package thiefs, closing dozens of cases reported around the county at the end of last year. Because of her efforts, the department was able to recover a cache of stolen property.

The department officials stated:

She didn't realize she was embarking on what would become a

considerable investigation into holiday package thefts around

the eastern portion of Baltimore County. This involved

numerous cases being independently investigated by

officers in multiple precincts, and would eventually

result in the identification and arrest of two suspects,

leading to the return of a very sentimental gift.

Officer Caprio had pieced together evidence from security cameras, interviewed witnesses, tracked a vehicle, and compared notes with other officers who were investigating package thefts in the area. She ended up linking two suspects to dozens of stolen package cases in the Parkville, White Marsh, Dundalk, Towson, Cockeysville, and Essex precincts. When officers found the suspects' hotel room, it was filled with stolen goods, including a brightly colored handmade quilt with a heartfelt inscription that a woman had shipped to her granddaughter. This quilt was eventually returned to the family.

Closing the case earned her praise across the nearly 2,000-member department, and she was named the Parkville precinct's officer of the month in March.

Police Chief Terrence Sheridan said:

Officer Caprio was the type of officer that you'd want to

hire. She was the kind of officer that was going to go up in

this organization.

Officer Caprio had graduated from Towson University in 2010 and was a 2006 graduate of Loch Raven High School. She joined the county police department in July 2014. She graduated with the department's 140th recruit class in December 2014 and was initially assigned to the Essex precinct.

The men and women of law enforcement put their lives on the line every day and run towards danger, not away from it. Family members always worry about being reunited with their spouses, parents, and family members at the end of the day.

Last week, I held a delegation meeting in the Capitol with our Federal law enforcement officials from Maryland. I thanked them for their service and told them I would fight for the resources they need to combat crime and provide the best possible equipment and training for their agents. This includes providing full funding for the COPS and Byrne JAG Programs, which are absolutely critical to our Federal, State, and local law enforcement partnerships. Teamwork is critical, particularly when we are combating crime across jurisdictional boundaries.

Last week was National Police Week. It is when we pause to recognize and remember those law enforcement and emergency services officers in Maryland who have paid the ultimate price and have made the ultimate sacrifice. Each spring, law enforcement takes a rollcall to solemnly mark the ``end of watch'' for the fallen law enforcement officers. Their names are then added to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial in Judiciary Square, close to

Capitol Hill. Carved on the memorial's walls are the names of more than 21,000 officers who have been killed in the line of duty throughout U.S. history.

Let me share with my colleagues the other law enforcement officers who were killed this past year in Maryland in addition to Officer Caprio.

Sean Matthew Suiter, a detective in the Baltimore City Police Department, was shot on November 15, 2017, while attempting to interview a suspect during a homicide investigation.

Sander Benjamin Cohen, a deputy chief in the Maryland Office of the State Fire Marshal, was killed in a traffic accident on December 8, 2017, as he attempted to assist a law enforcement officer whose car was disabled on I-270. FBI Supervisory Special Agent Carlos Wolff was also killed.

This year, on February 21, 2018, Corporal Mujahid Ramzziddin, a corporal in the Prince George's County Police Department, in Maryland, was killed while he was off duty and assisting a woman who was involved in a domestic dispute.

Once again, I ask my colleagues in the Senate to keep Officer Caprio's family and colleagues in their thoughts and prayers today. We thank our law enforcement officers and all first responders who run towards danger instead of away from it. Congress should make sure that our officers have all of the tools and resources they need to effectively carry out their mission to protect and serve their communities and bring offenders to justice.

I thank my colleagues.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I take this time to urge my colleagues to support S.J. Res. 52, which would reinstate the free and open internet. I thank my colleagues, Senator Markey and others, for bringing this to our attention. It deals with the Congressional Review Act to block regulation which had been suggested that would repeal the protections we have on the free internet. Let me just give a little bit of background so we can put this in context.

Internet service providers--known as ISPs--are basically utility companies that provide internet service to our constituents, to our businesses, and to America. Without the protection for net neutrality, these utilities have the ability to block or throttle content on the internet or charging what is known as being in the fast lane, charging more. So this is a debate between whether we are on the side of the big utility companies that provide internet service and their special interests or the individuals and small businesses of America to guarantee them equal access to this critical service. Let me give one example, and there are many that can be given.

I am sure, in every one of our communities, we have a lot of small businesses. They recognize that they can now do business on the internet, and they have an opportunity to compete with the large companies that do most of their business through the internet.

In Baltimore, in Maryland, I have small shop owners. One I am particularly familiar with sells bikes. This shop owner now is using the internet in order to get to customers so he can show his wares on the internet and be able to compete against one of the large, giant retailers that does a lot of business on the internet.

If a consumer in Baltimore goes onto that bike shop's website, and if the product that consumer is interested in will not pop up within a couple seconds, the consumer is gone. There has been study after study that shows that about 3 seconds is the maximum attention span of a consumer shopping on the internet.

The large store that has access to the fast-service broadband will have an incredible advantage over our small businesses if we allow the utility that provides the internet service to discriminate against the smaller users. That is what this debate is about. It is about protecting individual consumers, and it is about protecting small businesses.

There is a reason why, in 2015, the open internet order was passed to protect utilities that provide internet service from blocking or slowing down internet service.

Broadband internet service is a public utility. It is interesting that almost half of the consumers have no choice in whom they have to provide their internet service. They have basically one internet provider to choose from. Competition does not exist. So this is not a matter of competition; this is a matter of preventing discrimination.

I have had the honor of being the ranking member of the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee, and I can tell you, on behalf of the small businesses of Maryland and around the Nation, on behalf of farm owners around the Nation, they need to have access to the internet, and they depend upon net neutrality. Fifty-six percent of the small business owners oppose the FCC's repeal of net neutrality; 70 percent of small business owners feel they are at a disadvantage compared to a large corporation due to their size and market power. The internet gives them that capacity to try to equalize that disadvantage.

John Duda is co-owner of Red Emma's, a cooperative bookstore and restaurant in my hometown in Baltimore. He summed it up best by saying:

I don't have the money to pay an internet service provider

to guarantee my website will load quickly for all users, so

I'm concerned the end of net neutrality means customers will

buy from retailers that have the resources to pay for faster

service. Additionally, if my internet service provider slows

load times for--or blocks access to--my web content, we'll be

up against more than just larger book sellers or

restaurants--we're suddenly competing against any website

that loads quickly because those are the ones that will draw

people's attention.

This is a matter of economic survival for small businesses. Everybody wants to make sure they have access and that we have superhighways for broadband. We have that in Maryland, and we need the last mile to make sure you can get connected. Absolutely, we have to do

more to make sure all communities have access to internet service, but, like healthcare, if you don't have quality care, access is not going to help you. You need to be able to have reliable broadband service.

Net neutrality has lowered the barriers to starting and growing a small business, and that is undeniably good for our economy. We all brag about the fact that small businesses are the growth engine of America and more jobs are created by small business, innovation, et cetera. Let's make sure we give small business what they need. Let's preserve net neutrality.

As FCC Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel put it, ``For the first time, small business could think big and consumers could shop small, from anywhere in the world.'' Think about that for a moment: Small businesses can think big because they have access to the internet, and consumers can shop anywhere in the world and shop in small companies anywhere in the world. The loss of net neutrality jeopardizes that progress.

In every State, community, and home across our Nation, Americans expect the water coming out of their tap to flow on demand and be safe to drink. They expect the lights in their homes to go on thanks to the utility company that provides the electricity. And, yes, they not only want but need to have access to broadband internet in the very same way. This is a utility, and it needs to be regulated as such.

These providers should not have the last word in what any American can see on the internet. Access to the information vital for our democracy and our economy to function must be preserved.

Congress has a chance to put consumers and small businesses first and prevent the FCC from bowing to corporate interests instead of serving the public interest. I urge my colleagues to vote for S.J. Res. 52.

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

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

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