Floor Statements

Madam President, today I would like to recognize a selfless young man of great character and tremendous determination, Keith Nolan of Frederick, MD.

Keith's passion for service and for this country has driven him to doggedly seek an opportunity to join the less than 1 percent of Americans with a disability who have served in our military. In his commitment to defend our Nation, as well as our values, he has pursued this issue with many levels of the Defense Department. Moreover, he has reached out to the Armed Services Committees in both Chambers of Congress and even approached the White House to seek opportunities for disabled Americans to serve in the ranks of the military. Keith is deaf and recognizes that he is quickly reaching the age limit to enlist. However, he is still committed to seeking change that could enable others, with similar disabilities, to contribute to the defense of our nation.

Keith Nolan is an inspiration to me and to those he has touched. I thank him for the example he sets and am hopeful that someday emerging military occupations might present opportunities for disabled Americans to serve their country proudly and with honor.

Mr. President, as a member of the Senate Budget Committee, I am disappointed that Republican leaders have not even begun the process of debating a budget for the upcoming year in our committee. The United States needs a budget that addresses our national debt, which is increasing significantly faster due to a Republican tax plan that delivers huge windfalls to millionaires, billionaires, and multinational corporations.

Unfortunately, the budget proposal we considered today would take health coverage from tens of millions of Americans because its massive spending cuts would almost certainly mean huge reductions in Medicare and Medicaid. This budget would also make it harder for struggling families to afford food, housing, and childcare, and it would slash vital economic investments in infrastructure, education, and scientific research.

At the same time, this budget does not achieve even one penny of deficit reduction from reducing the tax cuts that Republicans just provided to those at the top. I will not support a budget that is balanced on the backs of working families and the middle class.

We need a budget that invests in our future, supports a basic standard of living for all Americans, and safeguards our health and safety. This budget proposal fails to do so, which is why I voted against the motion to proceed to its consideration.

Mr. President, as we observe National Police Week, I rise today to recognize Sean Matthew Suiter and Sander Benjamin Cohen, two Maryland law enforcement officers who lost their lives in the line of duty in 2017. It is important that we give thanks to all the men and women who put themselves at risk every day to protect our communities.

Sean Suiter was an 18-year veteran who was shot in west Baltimore while investigating a triple homicide. Relatives describe him as an anchor in his family, devoted to his wife and three children who ``. . . was focused on trying to [. . .] raise them to be strong and good citizens.''

Sander Cohen, who served as deputy chief in the Maryland Office of the State Fire Marshal was killed in December while assisting a disabled motorist. His friends and family describe him as funny with an infectious smile and as ``an example of the good in people.''

As a member of the Appropriations Committee, I will continue to support programs that provide our law enforcement officers with the funding and training they need to protect themselves and our communities.

Police officers bear a unique burden. While we can never fully repay them for their sacrifices, we should all take the time to thank police officers who put their lives on the line every day to protect our safety. We must honor their sacrifice and support the families of those we have lost in the line of duty.

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

Thank you.

Mr. President, as the Senate considers the nomination of Mike Pompeo to be Secretary of State, we have to ask ourselves many questions. Among them are these: Will Mr. Pompeo offer the kind of independent judgment that is necessary to help restrain President Trump's worst impulses, or will he be somebody who becomes a ``yes'' man to the President of the United States? Will Mr. Pompeo continue in his past attitude, which reflects a ``shoot first, ask questions later'' approach to foreign policy? And can somebody like Mr. Pompeo, who has made very divisive, polarizing, and, in fact, hateful remarks here in the United States be able to reflect American values abroad?

I regret to conclude that I do not think Mr. Pompeo can pass these tests, and I will oppose his nomination for Secretary of State.

We all know that our country is facing formidable challenges. Armed conflicts are raging in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia, creating refugee crises across borders. Russia's campaign to undermine Western democracies continues at pace and has sharpened divisions in our society. It has bolstered populous movements at home and abroad, and we have seen terrorist networks continue to expand their reach into information space. Changes in our climate have resulted in drought, natural disaster, and famine, and as the President of France reminded a joint session of Congress today, there is no planet B.

Of the many crises we are confronting, at least one of them is entirely of President Trump's own making, and that is the potential unraveling of the Iran nuclear agreement. Let me say that I agree with all of those who believe that we should never allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon. That is exactly why it is so important to keep that agreement in place.

In just a few weeks, President Trump will make a decision. He will decide whether to waive the nuclear-related sanctions on Iran in order to keep the Iran agreement intact or whether to blow up that agreement.

As the President of France reminded us today, that agreement was forged with our European allies, Russia and China, and yet it has cut off Iran's pathways to nuclear bombs, it has imposed very tough constraints on their nuclear program, and it has subjected Iran to the most comprehensive inspection and monitoring regime ever negotiated--an inspection regime that would disappear if we backed out of that agreement, leaving us blind to exactly what the Iranians were doing with respect to their nuclear program.

Our State Department, our Defense Department, and our intelligence community have all assessed time and again that Iran is in compliance with the nuclear agreement. Secretary of Defense Mattis testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee just last fall that the Iran deal was in the national security interest of the United States. Despite that consensus even

among the President's current team, the President is talking about recklessly shredding the agreement.

As President Macron of France warned us today, such a move would be very reckless and it would be reckless to replace what we have today without having something to substitute for it.

Mr. Pompeo has weighed in on this issue over the years. It is not only that he has been a fierce opponent of the Iran deal, but he has proposed military strikes against Iran. In 2014, he said that it would take ``under 2,000 sorties to destroy the Iranian nuclear capacity. This is not an insurmountable task for the coalition forces.''

That is a dangerous illusion--the notion that there would be absolutely no response to an American attack on Iran's nuclear facilities.

Iran, of course, is right next door to Iraq, where the United States spent an ill-fated number of years, at a great loss of lives both to Americans and Iraqis and at great cost to the public. To just talk offhand about bombing Iran as the solution is not the kind of sentiment or mindset that we want in the Secretary of State for the United States of America.

The idea that he somehow had a conversion to diplomacy is difficult to believe, given the testimony that he has provided and the statements that he has made.

We also know that we are at an inflection point when it comes to the situation in North Korea. In a span of just a few months, President Trump has veered from taunting Kim Jong Un over Twitter to recently calling him ``very honorable.'' We are all rooting for diplomacy to succeed in North Korea, but we all know that the opening rounds are, in fact, the easiest legs, and that reaching a credible and lasting accord with North Korea will take significant time, hard bargaining, and the support of our partners and allies in the region.

When it comes to Russia, President Trump's affection for President Putin continues unabated. Two weeks ago, he rejected the sanctions on Russian companies found to be assisting Syria's chemical weapons program, contradicting his own U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. Then, he earlier congratulated Putin on winning the election--an election that we all know was a sham election and that the outcome was never in doubt. It was marred by ballot stuffing and forced voting, and it was hardly what you would call a fair and free election.

When it comes to Russia, despite appeals from Republicans and Democrats in this body and in other parts of the country, the President has decided not to take action to address the threat of Russian cyber attacks in our upcoming elections. In fact, Admiral Rogers, the former head of the U.S. Cyber Command, testified just in February that President Trump had not directed him to confront Russian cyber operations at their source.

So while Mr. Pompeo has said that Russia will meddle again in our midterm elections, he has been much quieter and softer since his nomination was presented by the President with respect to President Trump's soft approach to Russia and Putin.

It is also a fact that our next Secretary of State will be responsible for managing tens of thousands of Foreign Service officers, civil servants, and locally employed staff of the State Department at our embassies and consulates overseas.

We all know that at the State Department today, we are witnessing historically low morale. In his budget, President Trump has tried to gut the State Department of its personnel and resources, issuing two budgets in a row that cut the State Department's budget by over 30 percent. You cannot conduct the diplomacy of the greatest country on Earth with two hands tied behind your back. Yet I heard nothing from Mr. Pompeo about challenging the President with respect to the deep cuts to the State Department and the resources that he will have available to him to conduct American diplomacy.

There is also the very long history of really awful remarks that Mike Pompeo has made toward various minority groups here in the United States, including Muslims and the LGBT community. You have to wonder how somebody who has made these comments is going to be able to oversee a State Department that has patriotic Americans who are Muslim Americans, who are LGBT, and who come from other minority groups. How do you lead an agency when you have made those kinds of comments about people in your workforce? And how do you represent American values overseas when you have disregarded those important values here at home?

Mr. Pompeo has said that Muslims ``abhor Christians.'' He has said that all Muslim leaders were ``potentially complicit'' in acts of terrorism. He has made other statements and has not condemned statements made by groups that were supporting him.

We have heard today from the President of France, Mr. Macron, a speech that uplifted the best of American values and French values. It was a speech that could have been given by earlier American Presidents, Republican or Democrat. He called upon America, France, the NATO allies, and other freedom-loving democracies and countries that respect the rule of law to seize the mantle of leadership.

He said:

We can actively contribute together to building the 21st-

century world order for our people, for all people. The

United States and Europe have a historical role in this

respect, because it is the only way to defend what we believe

in, to promote our universal values, to express strongly that

human rights, the rights of minorities, and shared liberty

are the true answer to the disorders of the world.

He warned against using anger and fear to divide us. He said:

We are living in a time of anger and fear because of the

global threats, but these feelings did not build anything.

You can play with fear and anger for a time, but they do not

construct anything.

What we have heard from President Trump is exactly the stirring of anger and division that the President of France warned about in his talk today to the Congress. It is those fears that President Trump has sought to exploit rather than to rise above and to lead.

As I look at the record of Mr. Pompeo and as I listen to the statements he has made, including many repulsive statements about different groups within the United States, I have to conclude that he does not reflect the great tradition in American foreign policy of standing up for those universal values that the President of France talked about today. It is a sad moment in our history when it requires a President from France to remind us of those universal values.

France has been a leader in the world, but the United States has been the chief organizer of the post-World War II era. And our friends in France, in England, in Germany, and other allies not just in Europe but around the world have stood with us. Yet, in this administration, we see a full retreat from that kind of American leadership around the world.

I regret to conclude that, looking at Mr. Pompeo's record and statements, he is part of the retreat and not part of the leadership that we need in the 21st century. So I ask my colleagues to oppose this nomination. We can do better. We need to remind every Member of this body that the United States has always stood up for those values that are in our Declaration of Independence and in our Constitution, and we need to uphold those values in the conduct of our foreign policy.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. President, April is National Autism Awareness Month. Although much of our focus is on the challenges that children with autism face, today I wish to recognize April 21 as Autism After 21 Day, representing the age when Federal services for children end and adulthood begins.

In declaring this day, we draw attention to the fact that there are millions of Americans with exceptional gifts who need our help in overcoming the unique challenges that they face. In Maryland, approximately 1 in 55 8-year-old children have autism, and I am committed to ensuring that these kids are empowered to live independent and fulfilling lives. As someone who has personally employed individuals with Autism Spectrum Disorder, ASD, I can attest to the outstanding talents that this population brings to the workforce.

I am so proud of the organizations in my State that are working tirelessly to address these needs. To celebrate their work and advocate for adults all over this Nation with ASD, I call on the Senate to recognize Autism After 21 Day and acknowledge the millions of people who are navigating an uncertain adulthood to reach their full potential.

We all must work together to ensure that this journey is not lonely and isolated. Rather, these individuals must be recognized as an important part of our communities. Twenty-eight years after the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act, ADA, adults with ASD deserve access to the goals set by the ADA: equality of opportunity, full participation, independent living, and economic self-sufficiency.

Thank you.

Mr. President, I want to start by thanking my colleague from Massachusetts for the clarity and passion he brings to this debate.

I, too, am here to strongly oppose the nomination of Andrew Wheeler to be the Deputy Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.

Before I talk about Mr. Wheeler, I want to join my colleague from Massachusetts to talk a little bit about Scott Pruitt and the current management over the EPA. Because the people of our country rely on a strong, effective, and healthy EPA to keep our air and water clean and to make sure people are not living among toxic substances, we need strong leadership there.

In the State of Maryland, the EPA is also important to protect a great national and natural treasure, the Chesapeake Bay. The bay States include many of the States in this area. We have made great progress over the years through the EPA's Chesapeake Bay Program. It was recognized many years ago that when you have a bay such as the Chesapeake, where multiple States feed into it, so that when you see pollution in Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware, or Virginia, it ends up in the bay, you need a national response, and you need an agency like the EPA to bring people together. That is why the EPA's Chesapeake Bay Program was created. Yet we now have a Director of the EPA, Scott Pruitt, who doesn't recognize the vital and unique role the EPA plays in protecting the Chesapeake Bay.

We know that because, if you look at the budget Scott Pruitt and President Trump submitted to the Congress, they zeroed out funding-- zeroed out funding--a big goose egg for the EPA Chesapeake Bay funding. That is what they did in year 1.

Then, when Senator Cardin and I and others said: This is a really important national effort; in fact, it has had bipartisan support in the Congress, it has bipartisan support among the Governors of all the Chesapeake Bay States, then they said: OK. We are going to provide just 10 percent of the moneys that had been provided for that program.

This is a $73 million-a-year program. It actually needs more to achieve its full effectiveness, but Administrator Pruitt and President Trump provided only $7.3 million in their budget, which would devastate the bay program.

Fortunately, on a bipartisan basis, this Senate and the House of Representatives have continued full funding for the Chesapeake Bay Program for the past 2 years. I thank my colleagues for recognizing the vital importance of that program, not just to the bay States but really to protecting a national treasure.

I guess it shouldn't be surprising that Scott Pruitt's first budget zeroed out funding for Chesapeake Bay protection because, back when he was the attorney general of Oklahoma, he filed an amicus brief in a case that would have neutered the ability of the EPA to actually enforce the pollution protection standards for the Chesapeake Bay.

We can set forth all sorts of standards, we can set forth all sorts of restrictions in terms of pollution that can fall into the bay, but if you don't have the ability to enforce it, it means nothing. It means people can pollute with impunity.

Even before he took the current job, Scott Pruitt telegraphed to all of us that he didn't care about enforcing pollution standards for the Chesapeake Bay.

We have also seen other recent actions where it is clear he has a disregard for adequate protections for clean air and water. The Senator from Massachusetts was just talking about a recent proposal to roll back the auto emission standards, auto emission standards that are essential to addressing the challenge of climate change, that are also vital to making sure we have energy independence--standards, by the way, that would save consumers a whole lot of money that would otherwise be going to the oil companies and the gas companies.

In fact, those new emission standards would save the average American family $300 per year. Apparently, Mr. Pruitt and President Trump want to see those $300 come out of the pockets of American consumers and go right to the bank accounts of big oil companies.

It is maybe not surprising, given the very close relationship between Administrator Pruitt and the Koch brothers, who worked very hard and worked over time on his confirmation to be EPA Administrator. With Administrator Pruitt, they are getting the policies they want--policies that are not good for the health of the American people but very good for the bottom line of the Koch brothers and some of the biggest oil companies in the country.

The Chesapeake Bay and the rolling back of the auto emission standards are just two examples of a record that fails the American public when it comes to the environment under this current EPA.

I also want to talk about the work environment today at the Environmental Protection Agency because my State of Maryland is the home to many

terrific public servants--Federal employees, including many dedicated employees of the EPA. You can listen to them, but you can read about accounts in many of the publications we have seen about the incredibly low morale at the EPA.

Leadership starts at the top, and Scott Pruitt has taken an agency with strong morale and led it down the tubes. I guess it is not surprising, since he has been seeking to cut the EPA team, the professionals there, by roughly 20 percent. I should say, he is talking about cutting those folks who are working every day on behalf of the American people at the same time he is increasing the number of political appointees at the EPA--people who really do nothing more than the politics of the Administrator. So he is increasing the number of high-paid political appointees while proposing to cut, by 20 percent, the EPA workforce that looks out for the American people.

Under his directorship, already 700 employees have left the Agency either because they found it a hostile place to work or were actually forced out. So I do find it ironic that the Agency that is supposed to protect the country from toxic pollution has created a toxic environment under its own roof.

Beyond my concerns about how he actually manages his staff, concerns about undermining protections for the Chesapeake Bay and other environmental efforts, we have seen a total disregard for basic public ethics from the current Administrator. His conduct is not appropriate for a public official and has violated the public trust time and again. It seems every day now, when you open a newspaper or look online, you can find another example of the current Administrator abusing the public trust.

We have to ask ourselves whether Andrew Wheeler is going to be someone at the EPA who addresses those serious problems we have with the current Administrator. How will he help stabilize the situation? Will he be any kind of counterbalance on these important issues? The clear answer, from the record, is no. In fact, the clear answer is that Mr. Wheeler would just reinforce Mr. Pruitt's worst instincts. One might say he is a carbon copy of Mr. Pruitt. And when we look at his history--Mr. Wheeler's history--we find a very cozy relationship between the nominee, Mr. Wheeler, Mr. Pruitt, the current Administrator, and an army of lobbyists for the coal industry. In fact, Mr. Wheeler, as we have noted, has been a lobbyist for that industry. When we look at his relationships, we find that he was advising Murray Energy. Murray Energy was at that time a top donor to Scott Pruitt's super PAC. This was before Mr. Pruitt became the Administrator of the EPA. He had a super PAC. Murray Energy, for whom Mr. Wheeler lobbied, was one of the top donors to that Pruitt super PAC.

The relationship between Pruitt and Wheeler and Bob Murray gets even cozier when we see that Bob Murray was a co-plaintiff in 8 of the 14 lawsuits that Pruitt brought against the EPA before Pruitt became the Administrator. So I want to get this right. We have Mr. Wheeler, who is the lobbyist for Mr. Murray, and Mr. Murray joined with Pruitt in filing 8 of 14 lawsuits against the EPA. So we can see that we have a very cozy relationship there and one that will only reinforce, not counterbalance, Mr. Pruitt's worst instincts at the EPA.

Among those challenges is the question of climate change. Just yesterday, in the Environment and Public Works Committee, we had a hearing. We had a hearing on using Federal incentives to have more carbon sequestration, to try to take carbon out of the environment, and carbon recapturing technology.

What was interesting was that every single one of the witnesses-- those called by the majority and those called by the minority--every one of them, when asked whether climate change represented a serious threat, answered yes. All of them acknowledged that human activity was contributing to that climate change--every one of the witnesses, right down the table.

It is also interesting that that legislation, which has bipartisan support, uses taxpayer dollars and, combined with the tax measures we passed recently, creates tax incentives for carbon capture. So we are agreeing on a bipartisan basis to use public funds for the purpose of reducing carbon pollution. The only reason to do that would be that we agree carbon pollution represents a threat.

I will tell my colleagues who believes carbon pollution represents a threat: the U.S. military. I represent the Naval Academy. A little while back, I went out there and talked to the head of the Naval Academy, who talked about the fact that even today, sea level rise is creating threats, and we can actually see the results of sea level rise with the flash flooding down in Annapolis, MD, which is home to the Naval Academy. That is just one small example. Yet, if we look at Mr. Wheeler's record and statements, we find just another person with their head in the sand, and that is not the kind of person we should have as the No. 2 at our national Environmental Protection Agency.

I was looking to see if the No. 2 appointment might provide some kind of counterbalance to Mr. Pruitt. Unfortunately, everything we find shows not only that they had this prior, very cozy relationship-- lobbyist, Attorney General, and a lot of coal industry companies--but on all of the issues that are important to protecting the health of the American people, we have a Deputy nominee who is actually going to take us in the wrong direction.

So I urge all of my colleagues to oppose the nomination of Andrew Wheeler.

I yield the remainder of my postcloture time to Mr. Carper.

I see that Mr. Leahy is on the floor.

Mr. President, the brutal war in Yemen has raged for 3 years. At least 10,000 civilians have lost their lives in this conflict. More than 8 million Yemenis are on the brink of starvation. The worst cholera outbreak in modern history has afflicted over 1 million people, including over 600,000 children. Millions more are displaced from their homes. As the years wear on, the cycle of desperation, destruction, and death continues unabated.

Make no mistake: The Houthis and their Iranian backers bear great responsibility for the civilian toll of this war. However, the Saudi- led coalition, with U.S. military support, continues to conduct hundreds of airstrikes each month. According to the United Nations, almost two-thirds of reported civilian deaths are the result of these airstrikes.

The administration claims U.S. military support for the coalition, in the form of aerial refueling, munitions sales, and targeting assistance, provides leverage in the conflict; yet the Defense Department appears to know

disturbingly little about how U.S. military assistance is used on the battlefield, including whether our refueling enables the bombing of civilians. Most critically, with both sides at a total impasse, the prospect of a political settlement is farther from reach now than at the beginning of this devastating war.

In. short, U.S. policy in Yemen has been an abject failure, and by continuing our military assistance unmitigated, we are complicit in this tragedy.

This complicity is fueled by President Trump's unquestioning embrace of the Saudi monarchy, and his apparent inability to use our leverage to place meaningful restraints on the Saudi attacks in Yemen. In addition, more than a year after his inauguration, the President has not put forward nominees to fill key diplomatic posts that would be responsible for addressing this conflict, including the Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs or the U.S. Ambassador to Saudi Arabia. He has alienated our counterparts at the United Nations. In action and in deed, President Trump has all but ensured the onslaught in Yemen will continue.

I believe it is incumbent on the Congress to hold the Saudi-led coalition accountable and no longer to abdicate our responsibility in decisions of peace and war. S.J. Res. 54 reins in the President's largely unencumbered war making powers and ends unconditional U.S. military support for the Saudi campaign in Yemen without an authorization from Congress. For these reasons, I voted against the motion to table this resolution.

Mr. President, I want to discuss S. 2155, the banking bill, and explain the provisions of the bill I supported, those I opposed, and my reasons for ultimately opposing this legislation.

Over the past year, I have appreciated the opportunity to meet with Maryland community bankers, consumers, and an array of stakeholders who would be impacted by this bill. I have organized roundtables on economic development in Howard County and Baltimore. I have met with consumer groups who want a strong regulatory framework to ensure fair lending and to protect taxpayers from excessive risk-taking by some of the biggest banks. Most recently, I held a forum with my State's attorney general, Brian Frosh, where hundreds of passionate Marylanders came out on a rainy night to talk about consumer protection.

We need a healthy banking system that serves Maryland businesses and consumers, and banking regulations should be appropriately tailored to the risks a bank poses to consumers, taxpayers, and the economy. Community banks should not have to comply with all of the regulations that apply to large Wall Street banks. That is why I support many of the reforms in this bill to relieve community banks of some unnecessary regulations. I also support provisions to modernize the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, so that reciprocal deposits are not considered to be brokered deposits.

While I supported most of the reforms relating to community banks and credit unions, I have concerns with provisions in the bill that will encourage excessive risk-taking in systemically important banks and am disappointed by the absence of strengthened protections for consumers.

For example, this legislation significantly raises the threshold for enhanced prudential standards for systemically important financial institutions, SIFIs. While I can support an increase in the threshold, I believe this bill goes too far. Gary Gensler, the chair of the Maryland Financial Consumer Protection Commission, and the former chairman of the Commodities Futures Trading Commission, has pointed out that this bill dials down prudential oversight for about 20 percent of U.S. banking sector assets. Mr. Gensler also noted that section 401 could be construed as possibly requiring the Federal Reserve to raise the threshold at which foreign megabanks are subject to the enhanced standards, thereby potentially allowing the very biggest banks to escape some of the current regulations.

I am also concerned that section 402 of the bill modifies the supplementary leverage ratio by excluding custodial assets for custodial banks. This provision allows for greater risk-taking among megabanks. Removing custodial assets from the denominator of the supplementary leverage ratio will allow these banks to take on risk in all areas. Former Federal Reserve Governor Daniel Tarullo said that removing one type of asset from a ratio on the grounds that it is safe ``would defeat the whole purpose of a leverage ratio, which is to place a cap on total leverage, no matter what the assets on the other side of the balance sheet may be.'' Former FDIC Chair Sheila Bair wrote that ``Section 402 will create an uneven playing field by giving big systemic banks a special capital break not applicable to community and regional institutions.'' Moreover, this could create a slippery slope where we start excluding other items banks deem ``safe'' from the ratio.

Additionally, I cannot ignore the fact that this bill does very little to help strengthen consumer protections at a time when the Trump administration is eliminating rules that protect consumers. If we can reach bipartisan agreement to modify regulations for banks, surely we can find agreement on ways to help protect consumers from the abuses we have seen from the likes of Wells Fargo and Equifax.

I am particularly troubled by two last-minute changes that benefit Equifax. Section 310 has the admirable goal of increasing competition in the credit scoring industry. However, the primary beneficiary of this provision is VantageScore, a company jointly created by the three consumer credit reporting agencies, Equifax, TransUnion, and Experian. This means that a company that is essentially owned by the credit bureaus will also have the ability to determine your score. In short, this bill gives the credit bureaus a key tool to take over the credit reporting and scoring markets. Be assured that I will closely watch how the Federal Housing Finance Agency implements section 310.

After both Republicans and Democrats spent the past 6 months saying that we would hold the credit reporting agencies more accountable, this bill makes a second last-minute change that would prevent members of the armed services who receive a free credit freeze from suing the credit reporting bureaus for wrongdoing.

We hear time and time again about how poorly the credit reporting bureaus treat consumers. False information in credit reports can do great harm to consumers; yet the credit rating agencies face no real sanctions for their culpability. That is unacceptable. We need to change the system so that these companies have better incentives to produce accurate credit reports, including sanctioning them for inaccurate and breached data. We must give consumers the power to control their own data and provide them with the ability to take legal action against the bureaus when they have been wronged. Providing the bureaus with a shield from legal liability and opening the door for them to manipulate the credit reporting industry is going in the wrong direction.

In conclusion, while I support many provisions in the bill, especially those relating to community banks and credit unions, I believe other provisions in the bill create excessive risks. Those risks, as well as the failure to use this opportunity to further protect consumers, led me to oppose this bill.

Mr. President, today many of us will join with Maryland students and other students throughout this region to demand that this Senate and the House of Representatives take commonsense action to reduce gun violence in America--gun violence that has resulted in massacres at concerts, slaughters in churches, and, of course, mass deaths at schools throughout the country, and the death toll we see in the streets of America every day.

I am going to read the names of 17 Maryland young people, people under age 20, who have died just in the last year as a result of gun violence in Maryland.

Andre Galloway, 16 years old; Lavander Edwards, 16 years old; Dashanae Woodson, 17; Shaquan Trusty, 16; Thomas Johnson, 16; Anthony Cheeks, 17; Tyrese Davis, 15; Jeffrey Quick, 15; Xavier Cole Young, 14; Kymici Brown, 17; Larry Aaron, 19; Terry Joseph Bosley, 17; Iyanni Nachae Watkins, 13; Shadi Adi Najjar, 17; Artem Ziberov, 18; Dustin Khoury, 17; and Laila Goodwin, 4 years old. That is not the entire list of people under age 20 who were shot and killed in Maryland. In the State of Maryland, in 2017, 481 souls were lost to homicide, and in 2016, 436 Marylanders were lost to homicide, in all cases by gun violence.

The time to act has long passed, but for goodness' sake, let's join with the students and Americans crying out throughout this country to say enough is enough and enact commonsense gun safety legislation.

Mr. President, today I wish to recognize the 50th anniversary of the founding of the International Baccalaureate, which has made significant contributions to educating students around the world.

In 2018, the IB celebrates 50 years of a curriculum that prioritizes critical thinking skills with a focus on international mindfulness. This organization pioneered a movement of international education in 1968 that now offers four high-quality, diverse and challenging educational program for students aged 3 to 19 years old. Through a unique curriculum of high academic standards, the IB program emphasizes critical thinking and flexibility of learning by intertwining disciplines across cultural and national boundaries. The IB currently works with more than 1.4 million students in over 4,775 schools in 153 countries.

The IB's founders sought to create a program with a multinational approach to scholarship that would help young people develop the skills, values, and knowledge necessary to build a more peaceful future. The program inspires young people to become lifelong learners, using their energy, conviction, and positivity to engage with increasingly complex and interconnected global issues. Its program is highly respected, as the best universities in the world actively seek out IB students because of their experience with IB's crossdisciplinary and crosscultural approach. IB alumni are equipped with the skills and mindset needed to succeed and to approach challenges in innovative and effective ways.

The International Baccalaureate is one of the world's leading educational initiatives. I am honored that the IB Global Centre is located in Maryland and am delighted to recognize IB's achievements and the profound contributions it has made to education throughout the world.

I thank the Presiding Officer.

Mr. President, I start by thanking my colleague from the State of Maryland, Senator Cardin, for his leadership on many, many issues but, especially, as we gather here on the Senate floor to discuss the Dreamers and immigration issues, including the folks who are TPS recipients. I thank him for his leadership in Maryland and around the country on these vital issues.

I think the country understands how important it is that we provide the Dreamers with a secure future. These are individuals who have grown up in our country. They know no other country as home. They have been in classrooms with our kids. They have pledged allegiance to the flag. They are now students in college or individuals working in businesses. Some of them are small business owners. Many serve in our Armed Forces. It would be disgraceful if, after welcoming these young people, we were to cast them away.

Unfortunately, last September, President Trump lit the fuse on the deportation of the Dreamers, and that clock has been ticking every day and every month as we approach the March 5 deadline. So we as a Senate--as Republicans and Democrats but, more importantly, as Americans--need to come together and finally do our work so that we operate as a body that can help solve problems in this country. Part of that is making sure that these Dreamers have a secure home and a pathway to becoming full citizens here in the United States of America.

Just the other day I was talking to the president of the University of Maryland. We have a number of DACA recipients who are there training to be engineers, training to be doctors, and people who are looking forward to participating in the only country they know, the United States of America.

I wish to turn now quickly to people who are here under what is called temporary protected status. These are individuals who are in the United States and could not return home because of disasters in their home countries, whether by earthquakes or hurricanes or other events that made it impossible to return home because their homes had been destroyed or other circumstances had changed that made it impossible for them to return. We, the United States of America, granted these individuals temporary protected status. These are individuals who are in the United States legally, and many of them have been here for over two decades. In the case of El Salvador, we have most people who are here from El Salvador on temporary protected status since the year 2000. They have families here. They are small business men and women, and they are working productively in our communities. In the case of Honduras, it was even earlier, 1998.

Senator Cardin and I and others have introduced legislation called the SECURE Act, which would also provide security here in the United States for these individuals on TPS status. Unfortunately, a series of decisions coming down from the Trump administration has put the future of these individuals in jeopardy.

The clock is also ticking on many of these people who have been here for more than 20 years toward deportation. These are individuals who are, again, working here legally and are contributing to our communities. I believe that as Americans we should recognize that it is important that we provide a secure future for them as well. That is why we introduced the SECURE Act.

So I am hopeful that as we debate a secure future for the Dreamers, we also find a way going forward to provide a secure future for those who are here under TPS.

It seems to me that the answer is in plain sight. The answer is making sure that Dreamers have a secure future, providing a path to citizenship as long as they meet all of the requirements, and that we ensure we have border security. I don't think there is a Senator in this body who does not believe that the United States has to have strong and secure borders. The debate has always been what is the smartest, most effective, most cost-efficient way to provide for border security.

I hope nobody is interested in wasting taxpayer dollars on things that don't work. It seems to me that we should be about the business of finding the most cost-effective way to ensuring that border security. As we do that, we should be listening to the experts as to what works and what does not work. Unfortunately, we have seen more focus in recent months on things that cost a lot of money but don't really significantly improve our border security. I am hoping that we can come together and have a rational conversation about how we can secure our borders in the most cost-effective way.

This is a moment for the Senate to really stand up and do its job. I think if you look at those two issues--a path forward for the Dreamers with a path toward citizenship for those who meet all the requirements and that we find a way to do smart, cost-effective border security-- then, that is clearly the way forward. I do hope that as we consider those two important priorities, we also come together and find a way forward for people who are here on temporary protected status, because in my conversations with Republican Senators, they recognize that for these individuals--who are here legally, working in the country, and having been here for an average of 20 years--we should find a way to make sure they have a secure future here.

We may want to look at ways to reform TPS going forward, and we can have that discussion, but for those who are here now and have been living in the United States for decades and working, let's find a way to provide a secure future for them as well. This is going to be a test for the Senate--hopefully, in the coming days, but if not, in the coming weeks, and I hope we can get the job done.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, today I wish to express my disappointment that David Stras was confirmed to serve on the Eight Circuit Court of Appeals.

Mr. Stras's nomination should not have made it to the Senate floor. For over a century, the Senate Judiciary Committee has used the blue slip process to ensure that the White House fulfills its constitutional duty to seek the Senate's advice and consent for judicial nominations. Traditionally, a nominee received a committee hearing only if both of their home State Senators returned their blue slips to the committee. Despite receiving only one blue slip, Mr. Stras was granted a hearing, and his nomination was sent to the Senate floor for a vote. I am extremely disappointed that my colleagues are abandoning long-standing practices in order to fill the judiciary with conservative ideologues.

Moreover, Mr. Stras is yet another judicial nominee selected for this administration by the Heritage Foundation and the Federalist Society. His name was on President Trump's Supreme Court shortlist, and although he was not selected to fill the Supreme Court vacancy, outside dark money PACS spent millions of dollars running ads in support of his nomination to this seat. These facts should alarm every American. Our judiciary system, under the Trump administration, is being outsourced to outside organizations with unlimited financial resources that are not accountable to voters.

I urge my colleagues to return to regular order.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Carryover Equity Act of 2018 to eliminate the 20 percent carryover limitation which is an impediment to flexibility and effective financial planning of the 1890s Extension Program. The 1890s Extension Program is administered by the USDA's National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) and is a capacity funding program supporting extension activities at 1890 Land-Grant Universities. Its intent is to increase and strengthen agricultural sciences at the 1890s through the effective integration of education, research and extension programs.

My State is the home of the University of Maryland Eastern Shore (UMES), Maryland's only 1890 Land-Grant University and one of the State's four Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs). UMES, along with the University of Maryland College Park, form the University of Maryland Extension--a statewide educational organization funded by Federal, State, and local governments that brings research- based knowledge directly to communities throughout the ``Old Line'' State. The mission of University of Maryland Extension is to educate citizens to apply practical, research-based knowledge to critical issues facing individuals, families, communities, the State of Maryland, and its global partners.

In Maryland, the 1890 Extension Program is headquartered at UMES in Princess Anne, MD and extension programming at the University focuses on 4-H STEM; nutrition and health; seafood technology; small farm outreach; and small ruminant research. The UMES program is targeted to diverse audiences on the agriculturally important Eastern Shore with special emphasis on those with limited resources to help them improve their quality of life and to successfully pursue a career in agriculture.

Mr. President, current law limits the funding amount an 1890 institution may carry over in any fiscal year to 20 percent of the 1890s Extension Program funding received. This prohibition creates significant impediments for 1890 institutions to carry out their mission to deliver programs to customers and clientele and restricts the ability of 1890 institutions to efficiently and effectively manage their funding. No other USDA/NIFA capacity program has a similar 20 percent carryover limitation. By eliminating this 20 percent limitation, via the Carryover Equity Act, the 1890s Extension Program will have the same funding flexibility found in the other major capacity programs administered by NIFA. This bill has the strong support of 1890 institution Presidents as well as the Association of Public & Land-Grant Universities.

I am pleased to be joined in introducing this bill by Senators Perdue, Brown, Tillis, Cardin, Coons, Graham, Manchin and Kaine who, like me, recognize the value 1890 land grant institutions bring to the rural communities of our States and the research and technical support these institutions provide to our socially disadvantaged, and veteran farmer, and rancher constituents with limited resources. I look forward to working together with Senate and House colleagues to see that this important legislation is included in the next Farm Bill.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Carryover Equity Act of 2018 to eliminate the 20 percent carryover limitation which is an impediment to flexibility and effective financial planning of the 1890s Extension Program. The 1890s Extension Program is administered by the USDA's National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) and is a capacity funding program supporting extension activities at 1890 Land-Grant Universities. Its intent is to increase and strengthen agricultural sciences at the 1890s through the effective integration of education, research and extension programs.

My State is the home of the University of Maryland Eastern Shore (UMES), Maryland's only 1890 Land-Grant University and one of the State's four Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs). UMES, along with the University of Maryland College Park, form the University of Maryland Extension--a statewide educational organization funded by Federal, State, and local governments that brings research- based knowledge directly to communities throughout the ``Old Line'' State. The mission of University of Maryland Extension is to educate citizens to apply practical, research-based knowledge to critical issues facing individuals, families, communities, the State of Maryland, and its global partners.

In Maryland, the 1890 Extension Program is headquartered at UMES in Princess Anne, MD and extension programming at the University focuses on 4-H STEM; nutrition and health; seafood technology; small farm outreach; and small ruminant research. The UMES program is targeted to diverse audiences on the agriculturally important Eastern Shore with special emphasis on those with limited resources to help them improve their quality of life and to successfully pursue a career in agriculture.

Mr. President, current law limits the funding amount an 1890 institution may carry over in any fiscal year to 20 percent of the 1890s Extension Program funding received. This prohibition creates significant impediments for 1890 institutions to carry out their mission to deliver programs to customers and clientele and restricts the ability of 1890 institutions to efficiently and effectively manage their funding. No other USDA/NIFA capacity program has a similar 20 percent carryover limitation. By eliminating this 20 percent limitation, via the Carryover Equity Act, the 1890s Extension Program will have the same funding flexibility found in the other major capacity programs administered by NIFA. This bill has the strong support of 1890 institution Presidents as well as the Association of Public & Land-Grant Universities.

I am pleased to be joined in introducing this bill by Senators Perdue, Brown, Tillis, Cardin, Coons, Graham, Manchin and Kaine who, like me, recognize the value 1890 land grant institutions bring to the rural communities of our States and the research and technical support these institutions provide to our socially disadvantaged, and veteran farmer, and rancher constituents with limited resources. I look forward to working together with Senate and House colleagues to see that this important legislation is included in the next Farm Bill.

Mr. President, today I wish to recognize John Brewer and his excellent service as a part of our team. Going into my first term as Senator, I was proud to be the first Maryland Senator in almost 100 years to serve in the Senate Agriculture Committee. Understanding the importance of this role, John hit the ground running as our USDA fellow. With his past experience in both public and private sectors, John leaned into every project, from advocating on behalf of land grant universities to funding nutrition programs, with great enthusiasm that stemmed from his dedication to serve the needs of Marylanders. Besides his vast expertise, we will miss his kindness and dedication. Although we wish we didn't have to give him back to the Department of Agriculture, my whole staff and I know he will continue to achieve great things.