Floor Statements

Madam President, I rise to speak in support of the nomination of Judge Peter Phipps of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania to be a U.S. Circuit Judge for the Third Circuit.

Judge Phipps is highly qualified to serve on the Third Circuit. He has dedicated his legal career to public service, first as a decorated career attorney at the U.S. Department of Justice and now as a Federal trial judge. As both a judge and a lawyer, he has been a faithful adherent to the rule of law.

Senator Casey and I supported Judge Phipps' nomination to the district court. He was recommended to us by the bipartisan judicial advisory panel that we use to vet and recommend candidates to fill district court vacancies in the Western District of Pennsylvania. In 2018, the Senate easily confirmed Judge Phipps to the district court by voice vote after the Senate Judiciary Committee reported him to the floor by voice vote.

Before joining the bench, Judge Phipps served for 15 years as a career attorney in the U.S. Department of Justice's Civil Division, where he worked under three Presidential administrations of both parties. He represented the Federal Government in numerous complex cases and received multiple awards for his excellent work. Since 2014, he has served as an adjunct law professor at Duquesne University, where he teaches administrative law. Earlier in his career, he clerked for Chief Judge Guy Cole on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit and worked as a commercial litigator in private practice. Judge Phipps is a graduate of the University of Dayton and Stanford Law School.

Judge Phipps has an outstanding reputation for intelligence, professionalism, fairness, and integrity, but you do not have to take my word for it. Here are few examples of how others have described him.

The American Bar Association has rated him well-qualified on the basis of his integrity, professional competence, and judicial temperament. Minority Leader Schumer and Senator Leahy, the former chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, have called the American Bar Association's rating ``the gold standard by which judicial candidates are judged.''

Senator Graham, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, stated after Judge Phipps' nomination hearing on June 5, 2019 that Judge Phipps ``is one of the most impressive nominees for the U.S. Circuit Courts that has appeared before the Committee. He is incredibly smart and well balanced. Mr. Phipps will be a great addition to the Third Circuit.''

At Judge Phipps' district court investiture on December 18, 2018, Chief Judge Cole of the Sixth Circuit, an appointee of President Bill Clinton, said that Judge Phipps ``has earned a reputation for honesty, trustworthiness, great character, humility and professionalism.'' In addition, Chief Judge Cole stated that Judge Phipps ``has a brilliant mind, endless curiosity, and an even temperament. He will treat all who come before him equally and apply a strong work ethic to each and every matter. In short, Judge Phipps will be fair and just in the truest sense of those words.''

Leon Panetta, Secretary of Defense under President Barack Obama, has written to the Senate in support of Judge Phipps' nomination. He worked closely with Judge Phipps on a legal matter when he was Secretary of Defense. His letter states: ``Throughout the many hours we spent with one another I was repeatedly impressed by Peter's legal acumen, dedication, attention to detail, and integrity. I have come to know Peter to be a faithful public servant and an excellent attorney. I am very pleased that he has been nominated to give his time and talents to the bench. I believe Peter will serve with honor and highly recommend his confirmation.''

The Senate has also received enthusiastic letters of support for Judge Phipps' nomination from attorneys who have litigated with and against him, including former colleagues from the U.S. Department of Justice. For instance, one group of attorneys praised Judge Phipps as a ``model jurist'' who has a ``piercing intellect'' and ``deep knowledge of the law.'' Similarly, a group of his former colleagues from the U.S. Department of Justice wrote: ``Judge Phipps' generosity, perspective, commitment to the rule of law, and selflessness--in addition to his intelligence and extensive experience--will make him a superb appellate judge.''

I am confident that Judge Phipps will live up to this high praise on the Third Circuit. He has all the essential qualities needed to excel as a Federal appellate judge: experience, intelligence, integrity, and respect for the limited role of the judiciary in our constitutional system. I am pleased to support this highly qualified nominee and urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the very high- stakes political and social crisis that has been unfolding in Hong Kong over the past several weeks.

Hong Kong is a very exceptional city. It boasts of a very robust free market economy that has thrived for centuries. It has a very vibrant free press. It has an independent judiciary and a partially democratic election system. Those freedoms, combined with Hongkongers' natural entrepreneurial spirit and appreciation for individual liberty, have made Hong Kong a jewel of the financial and business world, one of the freest places in Asia, and a great place to live--for a time, anyway, as I did back in 1991.

Economic and political achievements are particularly impressive when you consider that Hong Kong is, after all, a part of China, which has neither a free economy nor a politically free society.

Back in 1997, Great Britain transferred Hong Kong to China on a condition--an explicit written agreement--that Hong Kong's social and economic systems would remain unchanged under a ``one country, two systems'' arrangement that would last for at least 50 years, until 2047.

The Chinese Government also made a pledge at the time--a pledge that Hong Kong's legislative and executive leaders would be elected through ``universal suffrage.'' Yet, here we are, 22 years later. Hongkongers still do not enjoy complete universal suffrage, and Hong Kong has faced deep and persistent efforts by the mainland to erode the independence and the authority of Hongkongers.

On the surface, this ongoing crisis in Hong Kong was clearly caused by the Hong Kong Government, probably at the behest of the Chinese leadership in Beijing to pass a deeply unpopular extradition bill. This bill would diminish Hong Kong's independent legal system very dramatically, and it would do so by allowing and exposing individuals in Hong Kong--including Hong Kong citizens, foreigners, and even tourists--to being extradited to China.

The accused would then face prosecution by an authoritarian government in mainland China that does not uphold the rule of law, nor does it practice the fair and impartial administration of justice. Let's face it. The judicial system in China is politicized and controlled by the Chinese Communist Party.

Some people are concerned that if this bill were to become law, it would even pave the way for Chinese state-sponsored kidnapping of dissidents. It certainly would have a chilling effect on freedom in Hong Kong, a chilling effect on the ability of Hong Kong people to live their lives and express their views without the fear of political repercussions. It is simply a fact that mainland China is a legal black hole, and Hong Kong's extradition bill would be a step to exposing Hong Kong residents directly to mainland China's opaque and often blatantly unfair legal system.

In response to this threat, the people of Hong Kong have for weeks poured into the streets, calling for a withdrawal of this bill and deeper democratic reforms. Remarkably, last month, one of these protests--one of these demonstrations brought together an estimated 2 million Hongkongers into the streets. It is stunning anywhere in the world that 2 million people would come out to protest anything. But in Hong Kong, it is truly staggering because the total population of Hong Kong is only 7.4 million. That is about one in four Hongkongers who were on the streets protesting.

Just today, the Hong Kong Chief Executive said that bill was dead. But it has not been formally withdrawn, as I understand it, and I think the threat remains.

It is also important to note that on a deeper level these ongoing protests are really a response to efforts by the Chinese Government to ``mainlandize'' Hong Kong. It is an effort in which political, cultural, and even physical distinctions between Hong Kong and mainland China are meant to be diminished, the differences blurred, and the distinction eroded.

The extradition bill is just the latest example of the Hong Kong people's struggle for the freedom, democracy, and respect for human rights that they cherish, that they want to hold on to, and that were promised to them when the handover occurred in 1997.

Hongkongers really have a rich history of protest, and I think that history reveals their enduring grassroots desire for the freedoms they have grown to love and cherish and for a democratic form of government that they deserve.

Back in 1989, the Tiananmen Square massacre that we all remember--the 30th anniversary was just last month. On the eve of the massacre, once it was clear the Chinese Communist Government would respond to peaceful protesters with bullets and tanks--once that became clear, about 1.5 million Hongkongers marched in the streets of Hong Kong in solidarity with the students in Tiananmen.

In 2003, the Hong Kong leadership proposed an anti-subversion bill. Hongkongers rightly saw this bill as an attack on their freedom of speech and freedom of association. The Hong Kong leadership proposed it--again, doing it at the behest of the mainland Chinese Government-- and 500,000 citizens protested and eventually forced the government to withdraw the bill.

In 2014, the Hong Kong Government announced a reform to change how Hong Kong's Chief Executive was selected. The proposal was meant to continue what already existed, and that was mainland Chinese Communist control over the election process in Hong Kong. One of the mechanisms they used to achieve this was that only candidates vetted by a committee of mostly pro-Beijing supporters would be allowed to seek the office of Chief Executive.

In response to this undemocratic measure, Hong Kong students staged a campaign of civil disobedience and peaceful protest to oppose this effort. Up to a half a million people participated in the movement. Students famously used umbrellas to shield themselves from tear gas and pepper spray that was being launched at them by the police, so much so that the pro-democracy protesters were quickly termed the ``Umbrella Movement.''

All of these protests and acts of civil disobedience make it clear that Hongkongers want more freedom, not less freedom.

I think this matters. This matters obviously in Hong Kong, but it matters

beyond Hong Kong. It matters to us. It should matter to us. What is happening in Hong Kong is not just important for those residents but for the rest of the world. Today the people of Hong Kong are fighting against an unpopular and unfair extradition bill. They are really fighting for a future in which they can enjoy basic human rights, natural rights that everyone should have, including the right to free speech, the right to a fair trial, the right to be confident that your government will follow the laws of the society in which it exists, and participation in a just and fair representative system of government.

If the Chinese officials in Beijing and the Communist Chinese who rule mainland China have their way, they will extinguish these rights for the people of Hong Kong. If the extradition bill were to become law, it would threaten all of those rights because of the chilling effect of the threat of being extradited to the lawlessness of the Chinese judicial system.

In some important ways, I think Hong Kong can be seen as a canary in a coal mine for Asia. What happens in Hong Kong will at least set expectations, create a climate that will maybe affect what happens in Taiwan over time, other Asian nations that are struggling for freedom in the shadow of China. The fact is, China itself is controlled by an authoritarian government, interested primarily in its own survival. That is the top priority of Beijing's leadership. They have created a modern-day police state. They use mass surveillance, censorship, internet applications in order to control their own citizens. They have imprisoned over a million of their own citizens, the Muslim Uighur minorities, in concentration camps.

China's authoritarianism threatens free and open societies all around the world. A democratic Hong Kong is a direct threat to the Communist regime in Beijing because people across China, naturally, ask the question: Why do Hongkongers get to have more rights and a better life and more freedom than we have? That is the threat the government in Beijing is trying to extinguish.

We, of course, recently had the blessing of being able to celebrate our own Independence Day, when Americans reflect on our own struggle against tyranny, against an unjust government, and our successful effort to throw that off and establish this, the world's greatest, most vibrant, and freest democratic society.

In many ways, the Hongkongers are fighting for some of the very same values as our Founding Fathers did during the American Revolution. I think it is important that we in the United States not turn a blind eye to the struggle for freedom that is happening outside our borders. I think it is important that Americans continue to stand in support of the voices in Hong Kong calling for freedom, for democracy, and respect for basic human rights. I will do what I can in the Senate to support the people of Hong Kong in their peaceful protests for their own freedom, and I call on my colleagues in this administration to join me.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I come to the floor this evening to offer an amendment about the opioid addiction crisis that is devastating our Nation.

The origins of this epidemic are no doubt complicated, but there is a simple fact within this complicated problem; that is, the introduction of the synthetic opioid fentanyl has made this the deadliest drug epidemic in American history.

Fentanyl is 30 to 50 times more powerful than heroin, which is obviously lethal. Just 2 milligrams of this substance--that is equivalent to a few grains of salt--is enough to kill most people. This synthetic opioid has contributed to or caused 30,000 of the 50,000 opioid overdose deaths in the United States since 2017, and it is killing Pennsylvanians at an even higher percentage.

As is the case with most illicit drugs, the vast majority of this is not actually coming from within the borders of the United States; the vast majority originates outside our borders. So cooperation with the governments of other countries is essential if we are going to make progress in ending this scourge.

There are some countries that are extremely helpful. Canada and Mexico are, unfortunately, important transit points for drugs into the United States. Their governments work closely with ours and, I think it is fair to say, are doing all they reasonably can and continue to strive to do more to end this devastating influx. But fentanyl is particularly difficult because such tiny quantities are so lethal, and the fact is that not all foreign governments are as cooperative as they could be and they should be.

It is well known that the primary source of the fentanyl that is on the streets in Pennsylvania and across America--the source is ultimately China. China has been cooperating in some important ways. China shares advance electronic data on mail parcels, and that is helpful. As of May 1 of this year--a few weeks ago--China agreed to schedule fentanyl as a class that is prohibited in China, and that forgoes the need to schedule every conceivable variant of the chemical. That is a good development. But we can't be sure that China is going to follow through on its commitment--the one I just mentioned is very recent--and they still don't do all they should on pill presses. They also have a history of breaking agreements with the United States.

Maybe even more importantly, we don't know what other countries might decide to tolerate fentanyl production within their borders and look the other way when it arrives in the United States.

Simply, there have to be consequences for countries that knowingly allow the production of fentanyl in their own land, to then be exported to the United States, and that do not--I am referring to the governments--cooperate with us as fully as they could and should be.

That brings me to the bill I introduced. It is called the Blocking Deadly Fentanyl Imports Act. It is a bipartisan bill that I introduced with Doug Jones. I want to offer that as an amendment, to get a vote on this bill we are considering right now.

I should point out that since 1983, Congress has utilized the Foreign Assistance Act as a way to deal with this kind of problem. Specifically, this legislation--the Foreign Assistance Act, the existing law--forbids certain categories of U.S. foreign aid from going to countries that don't assist us sufficiently in our effort to control illicit substances.

There is a finite number of illicit drugs that are on the list. They include heroin, marijuana, cocaine, and methamphetamine and its precursor chemicals. Congress has periodically updated the list and expanded the list as times have changed. In 2005, the House and Senate voted to add methamphetamine and its precursors. Senator Jones and I and a number of our colleagues believe it is past time that we add fentanyl to this list, especially since it is arguably the most lethal drug in the world today.

Our bill would do a couple of things. It would add fentanyl to this list on the Foreign Assistance Act, the illicit substance list. That would then require the State Department to identify those countries--at the moment, China--that are the most significant sources of illicit fentanyl and fentanyl analogues.

Then we would toughen the requirements in determining whether or not another country is, in fact, sufficiently cooperating with the United States. We only toughen the requirements for those countries that are found to be significant sources of fentanyl, not the other drugs already on the list but those countries determined by our State Department to be significant sources of fentanyl. For that small set of countries, if the President finds that one or more of the following three criteria are not being met, then, those countries would face the risk of having these forms of financial aid withheld.

These are the three criteria we want them to meet: No. 1, whether they have in fact scheduled fentanyl and analogues as a controlled substance in their country; No. 2, whether steps are being taken to actually prosecute people who are illegally trafficking in fentanyl; and the final criteria we would add is whether or not they require the registration of pill presses, because we know that unregulated pill presses have been found to be used for production of counterfeit pills that actually contain fentanyl.

That is the criteria that would get a country crosswise with us as a consequence of this legislation. What would the consequences be? The legislation contemplates that if a country is not doing enough with respect to the existing list of illicit narcotics, then, they would stand to lose various forms of foreign aid from the United States, specifically, economic development grants, development finance aid, health aid, agricultural aid, and military aid.

It is important to note there are other categories of aid that we provide to foreign countries and more precisely to entities within those countries that would not be affected by this. They are not affected under current law, and they would not be affected under our bill--aid such as products-related assistance, disaster relief, food aid, medical aid, and aid to refugees. Existing law doesn't interrupt those forms of aid even with bad-acting governments, and our bill wouldn't either. In addition, even the categories of foreign aid that could be shut off and that would be shut off are subject to a Presidential waiver. If, for whatever reason, the President believes it is more important that we continue even those forms of aid, then, under our amendment, the President could do so.

Again, to just sum up, the simple thing here is that a country that knowingly tolerates the production and export of fentanyl and is not as cooperative with our government as they could be in stopping it shouldn't be getting all kinds of U.S. foreign aid. That is all.

That is what our amendment would do. The majority on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee supports this. The State Department made some suggestions that we accepted. Some of the suggestions included that we drop the reference to precursor chemicals because that might capture too many countries that shouldn't be captured because they are not the precursor chemicals used for the purpose of producing illicit fentanyl. We acknowledged that, and we changed it.

I would again stress that the waivers are available to the President in the event the country ought to get those waivers.

So let me remind my colleagues that this is the worst drug crisis in American history. Fentanyl is at the heart of it. We should hold accountable countries that are not doing enough to stop this poison from leaving their country and coming into ours.

I am not asking for passage here and now, but I am asking for a vote. Let's have an up-or-down vote. I would be happy to set the vote at a 60-vote threshold. Let's send a message to any country in the world that there will be consequences for them if they choose to go down this road.

With that, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside amendment No. 862 and call up my amendment No. 900.

Mr. President, very briefly, I hope the Senator from New Jersey will continue to engage with us. There is a possibility that we are not as far apart as it may appear.

Let me be very clear. It is an absolute fact that every country in the world would not be affected by this legislation at all. Whoever at the State Department suggested that chose not to read the language or chose not to understand it. Our legislation would affect a very narrow category of countries that are determined by our State Department to be major sources of fentanyl. At the moment, there is a grand total of one that I am aware of that would qualify for that designation. Nothing else flows from this. There are no consequences unless you first meet that criteria. So that alone makes it obvious that it couldn't possibly apply to every country in the world.

I would also underscore the categories of aid that would be subject to being withheld in the event that a country is, in fact, a source of fentanyl and is not cooperating with us--our economic development grants, development finance aid, health aid, agricultural aid and military aid are all forms of aid that I think are entirely reasonable to withhold. The categories that I think the Senator from New Jersey is concerned about we exclude from the risk of being withheld, because I acknowledged the Senator's point. There are categories of foreign aid that don't go to foreign governments. They go to NGOs. They go to folks on the ground who are actually advancing a cause we believe in. For instance, there is the democracy development fund. We wouldn't affect that even if a country is a major source of illicit fentanyl and not cooperating with us fully. We recognize that this category of funding doesn't help that government. It helps us with the hope that we could change that government. I am not convinced that we are as far apart as it may appear to be.

I would remind everyone that I am only seeking a vote. I am not asking for unanimous consent for the amendment itself. I hope we can get back to the business of actually debating substance and voting in this body. Sometimes the minority leader has suggested that we have become a graveyard of legislation. Well, I am just proposing that we have a debate and have a vote. I hope we can get to that.

Madam President, later today I believe the Senate will be considering nominations of three Board members for the Export-Import Bank, and this is a very important and, I think, unfortunate development.

Since 2015, the Ex-Im Bank Board has not had a quorum. The confirmation of these three nominees will change that and give them a quorum, and that matters for a number of reasons. Perhaps the principle reason is that in the absence of a quorum, such as the way we have been operating for these last 4\1/2\ years, the Ex-Im Board cannot approve transactions without a quorum, and it requires Ex-Im Board approval to do a deal over $10 million. So for these last 4\1/2\ years, the Export- Import Bank has been in existence and operating, but at a very much smaller level than what it had done previously, and what, I am afraid, it will again resume.

Let me explain why I oppose confirming this quorum to the Board of the Export-Import Bank. First of all, as I will explain, I think that with a quorum there is a very real risk that the Ex-Im Bank returns to business as usual, which is a form of crony capitalism and taxpayer subsidy of companies far and wide.

Historically, the fact is the Ex-Im Bank has used the American taxpayer to subsidize some of the largest and best connected companies in the world, including governments that are very unfriendly to the United States. So I want to describe my policy objections to the Ex-Im. I want to rebut some of the arguments that proponents of the Ex-Im Bank make. I want to walk through a little history to remind my colleagues about the folks who have blocked what I think are very commonsense efforts to make some meaningful reforms. Then, finally, I do want to discuss a path forward. So let me walk through my concerns, my objections to the way Ex-Im Bank has operated in the past when it is in full-blown operation mode and with a quorum on the Board.

First of all, it has been a series of risky bets for taxpayers. The Ex-Im has sometimes claimed it only takes risks that private lenders are unable or unwilling to take. Well, we should stop right there and ask ourselves, if private lenders are unwilling or unable to take a risk, why should taxpayers be forced to take that risk? Yet, at the same time, the Ex-Im Bank also claims it only makes safe bets. Well, it is impossible to do both.

The Bank cannot take only those transactions so risky that no one else will do it and at the same time be doing only safe transactions. It is pretty obvious. The fact is, Ex-Im Bank wins business by systemically underpricing the risk. That is why borrowers

go to the Ex-Im Bank, instead of any number of private lenders that would not offer deals on the same terms as the Ex-Im Bank. No, because they have shareholders to answer to--Ex-Im Bank, not so much.

Proponents of the Ex-Im Bank point out that the Bank isn't drawing any money from the U.S. Treasury so everything must be OK--not so clear. First of all, right now we have the best economy in decades. My goodness. I would hope they would not be drawing on Treasury with an economy booming the way it is.

As recently as 2014, the last year in which the Ex-Im Bank was fully operational, the CBO report suggested that the Ex-Im portfolio, their loans and guarantees on their books, were underwater by $2 billion. Remember, we have heard this before. Remember, Fannie and Freddie, two other inventions of the Federal Government. They were very profitable until they weren't. Then they ended up costing the taxpayers $200 billion.

Another objection I have is the fact that Ex-Im Bank necessarily picks winners and losers in our economy. I don't think any entity of the Federal Government ought to be doing it. It is a great deal for businesses that get the support of Ex-Im Bank, but it provides an unfair advantage to beneficiaries over companies that do not get that support. In the process, it can destroy jobs. This isn't just hypothetical; this is real. This has happened, and we know it because we have heard testimony. We have seen examples. One famous such example is a case where Air India, the national airline of the country of India, used Ex-Im Bank financing to subsidize its purchase of Boeing jets. That is very nice for Air India because they get lower cost financing on their biggest ticket item, the jets they fly. They were able to lower the fares they charge on flights from New York to Mumbai. That is great if you are Air India. It is not so great if you are Delta Airlines, an American company that employs Americans and happens to compete on that exact same route, but Delta could not get access to Ex- Im financing to buy its Boeing jets. Why would we do a thing like that, have taxpayers subsidizing a foreign airline that is competing directly against a U.S. airline? That is the kind of thing Ex-Im does. There is also a history of waste, fraud, and abuse.

Ex-Im Bank has not been very well run for a long period of time. Over many years, there have been a number of issues raised by the Office of the Inspector General. Ironically enough, supporters of Ex-Im Bank have blocked my efforts to get a new inspector general confirmed. Makes you wonder, why do these proponents not want an inspector general on the job inspecting the practices of the Ex-Im Bank? In 2015, an employee pled guilty to accepting bribes to push unqualified loan applications. Maybe one of the most fundamental reasons I object to the Ex-Im Bank is our economy doesn't need the Ex-Im Bank.

Now, some Ex-Im supporters would have you believe that without the Ex-Im Bank, U.S. exports would just collapse. Well, the reality is, U.S. exports are higher today than they were in 2014, certainly, the last year when the Ex-Im Bank was fully functional. As a matter of fact, now, you know, 4\1/2\ years since the Ex-Im Bank was fully functional, we have the strongest economy of our lifetime, despite the fact that the Ex-Im can only do tiny transactions. This is no surprise because, even in its heyday, Ex-Im financed a very tiny percentage of all U.S. exports. Typically, it is less than 2 percent. So 98-point- something percent of all U.S. exports managed to get sold without Ex-Im financing, but yet we are to believe that without Ex-Im financing we cannot have exports?

Interestingly, even the companies that benefited the most from Ex-Im Bank haven't apparently suffered since it has been virtually closed. Consider the case of Boeing. According to a Mercatus study, Boeing was the biggest seller of exports financed with Ex-Im subsidies in 2014, the last year in which Ex-Im was fully functional, and nearly 40 percent of all Ex-Im deals by dollar value were used to finance Boeing aircraft.

Now, the Ex-Im proponents often argued that companies like Boeing would take a huge hit without a fully functioning Ex-Im. Instead, Boeing has consistently had record deliveries and multiyear back orders since Ex-Im stopped doing deals that would finance Boeing aircraft. In fact, during the years that Ex-Im Bank has been virtually closed, Boeing has recorded record sales.

In late 2018, prior to the recent problems they have had with one category of aircraft, the Wall Street Journal reported that Boeing suppliers could not keep up with the huge demand for Boeing aircraft, despite the fact that nobody could finance an aircraft from Boeing through the Ex-Im Bank. Now, why? Why is that? How could that be? It is because Boeing was making great products; demand was strong; and there is plenty of private capital available to finance great products being used for very productive purposes.

I think Boeing is proof that the Ex-Im Bank wasn't acting as the lender of last resort, filling in where private markets could not or would not. Ex-Im Bank was acting as the lender of first resort, crowding out the private sector lenders. As soon as the Ex-Im Bank's funding was constrained so it would not fund aircraft, well, private money came flooding into the market. Yet we still have proponents argue that Ex-Im Bank is the lender of last resort, steps in when private financing is unavailable, but, again, no matter how you look at it, this just doesn't add up. It doesn't add up in the example of Boeing, when we look at an American manufacturer that sells its products, and, in the past, some of those purchases were funded through the Ex-Im Bank, but it also doesn't hold up if you look at it the other way around. Look at who, in 2014--again, the last year in which the Ex-Im Bank was fully functional--were the top recipients of the Ex-Im taxpayer subsidies, who was it that was borrowing the money so they could make these purchases? Well, it was all entities that have easy access to private money but some pretty surprising entities, nevertheless.

The No. 1 borrower, the No. 1 consumer of U.S. taxpayer subsidies through Ex-Im Bank was Petroleos Mexicanos, a state-owned oil company in Mexico. It is a huge company from a really large country that can easily access private markets.

Do you know who is No. 2? Kenya Airways. Kenya Airways, owned by the Government of, you guessed it, Kenya.

Do you know who is No. 3? Air China, of all places, a totally state- owned airline of a country that last time I checked is not terribly friendly to us, but it gets worse.

Do you know who ranks No. 4? No. 4 in terms of accessing Ex-Im financing in 2014--the last year in which they were fully operational-- according to a study by the Mercatus Institute, the VNE Bank, state owned by the Russian Government, by the way, under sanctions now for bad behavior they have engaged in. So all four of these are state owned in States that have easy access to plenty of private lending, but, of course, they go to Ex-Im because Ex-Im will offer them a better deal, a subsidized deal.

No. 5 is a good one too. No. 5 is not a state-owned company. No. 5 is Roy Hill mining. Royal Hill Holdings owns mining. It is not state owned. Instead, it is owned by the richest woman in Australia, a multibillionaire. Are we to really presume that she cannot arrange for financing for part of her enormous conglomerate? Really, the richest woman in Australia? She is probably a really lovely woman. This is not a criticism of her; it is a criticism of us. We are going to allow U.S. taxpayers to take more risks underpricing and funding acquisitions by some of the richest people in the world and countries that are downright hostile to us.

Of course, all of these governments and all of these companies can finance their acquisitions privately, but who would not take a U.S. taxpayer subsidy if it is offered to you? The question is, Why are we OK with that? How can it be OK to force American taxpayers to take a financial risk for these entities, state-owned companies, including those owned by China and Russia? It is unbelievable.

My concern is, if we restore a quorum later today, we are going to go right back to this because we haven't enacted any reforms. We haven't insisted on any reforms as a condition of reestablishing this quorum.

We hear sometimes from the proponents that we just have to have Ex-

Im funding because it has to level the playing field. China has an export subsidy bank. They have used that aggressively, and so we ought to emulate the Chinese so we will have a level playing field.

Well, among the unbelievable ironies in this whole story, guess who is a big recipient of U.S. Ex-Im subsidies? It is the Chinese export bank. You cannot make this stuff up. That is a fact. It is not just Air China. It is not just the state-owned airline.

In 2014--again, the last year in which Ex-Im was fully operational, which apparently they are going to return to--there were 17 transactions where the primary borrower is the Export-Import Bank of China.

So here we are, we are funding the Chinese export bank, which we cite as the reason we need an export bank. It is unbelievable.

In 2014, the Ex-Im Bank also funded a deal with Huawei, which we have all come to appreciate is a very significant national security threat to the entire Western world, especially the United States. Of course, what more can you say about subsidizing Russian- or state-owned businesses? There were multiple deals back in 2014 where the Ex-Im Bank funded Russia. I already mentioned VNE Bank, now sanctioned, and two deals with Spur Bank, also sanctioned.

In any case, I think this whole argument, that if some other country is engaged in this behavior, therefore, we have to--I think that is a really weak argument. Think of all the things the Chinese Government does, intellectual property theft, forced technology transfer, bribery, and corruption. As a matter of fact, in Malaysia, the previous corrupt Government of Malaysia stole billions of money from an investment fund, and China offered to use their Ex-Im Bank to help cover up the graft, which indirectly we were facilitating by doing transactions with that Chinese Ex-Im Bank. I trust that supporters of the Bank do not want the U.S. to emulate all of these kinds of nefarious activities. I am sure they do not, but the same argument could apply.

So with all of these concerns in mind, I have been advocating for reform of the Ex-Im Bank since joining the Senate. Let me be clear. I would rather not have an Ex-Im Bank, but if we are going to have one, and if we are going to reconstitute a Board and allow them to do large- scale business, I think, at a minimum, we ought to make some sensible reforms. Unfortunately, proponents of Ex-Im Bank in this body and in the other body have blocked almost every effort to do so. One small reform that many of us have been clamoring for, for years, would be to have the administration, whatever administration, work to pursue a mutual disarmament. The argument that we hear most frequently is we need Ex-Im Bank because other countries have export-subsidizing banks. Well, OK, how about having a mutual negotiation to phase these out, right? Well, the Obama administration did absolutely nothing about it, and we have a lot of trade talks going on right now under this administration. I have not heard one word about encouraging a wind down of everybody's mutually unfortunate export subsidy vehicles.

That brings me to the history of the nomination. A while back, President Trump nominated Scott Garrett, a very well qualified, bright, and capable guy, and an avowed reformist. He was a skeptic about Ex-Im Bank but was committed to executing his responsibilities as President under the charter and under the law but was going to insist on reforms.

By the way, had Scott Garrett been confirmed, Ex-Im would probably be up and running now. But the proponents of the Bank didn't want the reforms, apparently, so they scratched Scott Garrett's nomination.

Despite that, I continued to try to find a reasonable way forward. One of the things I proposed was confirming Kim Reed as President. Let me say a word about Kim. I think she is a very capable person. She is very intelligent, very knowledgeable, and has a terrific reputation and great integrity. My proposal was to confirm Kim Reed because she has committed to the kinds of meaningful reforms the Bank needs.

She and I and my staff walked through six very specific categories of reform. We did that privately in my office. We did that publicly at the Banking hearing. We talked about adding transparency to how the Ex-Im Bank operates. We talked about taxpayer protections that would be implemented to reduce the risks taxpayers currently take. We agreed that we should move in the direction of protecting domestic companies, such as the example I gave where Delta was put at a competitive disadvantage against Air India. We agreed we should encourage private financing to be first in line rather than the Ex-Im Bank. We agreed that we should be cracking down on any bad actors. We also agreed that there should be a mutual reduction in reliance on credit export agencies globally.

On that basis, I was willing to confirm Kim Reed and give her a chance to implement some of these reforms and prove they are actually being implemented, at which point I would support restoring a quorum so that a reformed Ex-Im would be back in business. But that deal was blocked by proponents of the Ex-Im Bank here in this body. It is very hard to conclude anything other than that those folks never want these reforms to take place.

I am still open to working with the new President when she is confirmed, and the new Board. We have a reauthorization that is presumably on the agenda for later this year. But I am going to oppose all the nominees today because we are going ahead and putting the cart before the horse. We are reopening Ex-Im Bank on a full scale without first implementing the reforms, and that is backward.

I appreciate the conversations I have had with Kim Reed, and I trust that she actually sincerely does want to implement some of these reforms. I hope she can. I look forward to working with her to make sure that if we do, in fact, go through a reauthorization process, it codifies the reforms that require codification. But I feel very strongly that we are doing this backward. That is the reason I am going to vote against all the nominees today.

The Ex-Im Bank, unreformed, is an example of crony capitalism that puts U.S. taxpayers at risk and subsidizes some pretty unsavory characters. I am pretty disappointed that we are moving ahead with this today. I hope that at least we will be able to codify the necessary reforms in the reauthorization.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, earlier today, the Senate invoked cloture on the nomination for the next Director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency. The nominee is named Mark Calabria, and I just want to say he is an extraordinarily qualified and capable man. I hope this body will overwhelmingly confirm him.

He is a Ph.D. economist. He has tremendous work experience in the field of housing finance, which of course is the domain of the Federal Housing Agency. He has worked at HUD, the Banking Committee, and now he is the chief economist to Vice President Pence.

I am certainly looking forward to working with Dr. Calabria on housing finance reform, the great unfinished work of the financial crisis, and I urge my colleagues to vote to confirm him later today.

Unrealized Gain Proposal

Mr. President, I also wanted to say a few words about an idea that has been floated by one of our colleagues. The idea has been floated by my friend--he is my friend, and he is a good man--Senator Wyden from Oregon. He is the ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, and he is a very good man with a very bad idea, and I want to explain why I believe the idea that he has floated is so mistaken.

Fundamentally, his proposal is that we change our Tax Code so that we would impose taxes on unrealized investment gains every year.

Currently, we impose taxes on investments only when the asset is sold. If an asset is purchased, it is later sold at a higher price. The difference is the gain, and we impose what we call a capital gains tax on that gain--but only when the gain is actually realized.

Under Senator Wyden's proposal, if an asset goes up in value, even though it hasn't been sold, the fact that it has gone up in value would require that increase in value to be taxed. The investor would have to pay a tax.

There is another element of his proposal, which is that these taxes that he wants to impose on these phantom gains would not be at the capital gains tax rate that is currently enforced but rather at personal income tax rates instead.

The current capital gains rate is 23.8 percent. That is the top. That is the

highest capital gains rate that is paid. The highest personal income tax rate in our Tax Code is 37 percent. So in some circumstances, this would be a huge tax increase.

Let me explain why I think both of these are very bad ideas--taxing unrealized gains and taxing all gains at ordinary income rates.

First of all, let's take the idea of taxes on unrealized gains. These are the paper gains. This is a market-to-market appreciation that is unrealized if the investor doesn't actually sell the asset. Well, there is a good reason that our system has never imposed taxes on unrealized gains; there are several, but one is the value of the asset could go back down.

One very widely held asset in America is stocks--stocks that you can buy on an exchange, a share of a company--and stocks famously go up and down. So I think it strikes most people as unreasonable to force people to pay a tax on this notional gain on a stock without having sold it when that stock could go back down. The gain could be completely lost, but you would still pay the tax.

There is another problem with this; that is, the tax would be imposed without a liquidity event for the investor. In other words, the investor hasn't sold the asset, doesn't have the cash. What if the investor doesn't have enough cash to pay the tax bill on it? This risk alone would have a chilling effect on investment. It would discourage people from making the investment in the first place because they would have to wonder and worry about what kind of tax bill they will incur even if they don't sell the asset.

Yet another problem with this is the complexity and difficulty of actually implementing this. It is pretty easy to determine the value of a stock, but there are other categories of investment that are much more difficult to value, like real estate or a small business.

So imagine an entrepreneur buys a small building and builds it out and creates a restaurant, and that is his business. He is operating a restaurant. It may be profitable; it may not be. But what if real estate values in that neighborhood happen to go up? Well, here you might have a struggling entrepreneur trying to make ends meet in his restaurant, and the IRS is going to come along and say: Oh, you owe us a whole lot of money because we think the land on which you are operating has gone up in value.

What good does that do for the restaurant operator or the people working for him, the jobs being created? It is not a good idea at all.

There is another aspect to Senator Wyden's proposal, and that is that he would use a higher rate. He would like the top rate of 37 percent to be imposed, at least in some cases, on these capital gains, whether or not realized.

So the question is, Why do we have a lower tax rate on capital gains than we have on ordinary income, other sources of incomes? Well, there are several reasons for that, as well--good reasons. One is we don't exclude from our calculation of an investor's gain the component of that gain that is attributable only to inflation. Think about it. If you make an investment in something and the inflation rate is just 2 percent a year, well, 10 years later, that is going to nominally be worth like 25 percent more than it was when you bought it, but you don't have any real gain; that is just a reflection of the fact that dollars are worth less.

So as a sort of rough justice for the fact that you nevertheless get taxed on the full gain, even the nominal gain, the gain that is not real, the gain that is just inflation, at least it is taxed at a lower rate to make up for that.

There is another factor, and that is most investments are in an asset that itself generates income, and that income is taxed. So, for instance, a stock--a stock is a share of a company; a company has to pay tax. So imagine an investor who invests in a company and that company makes $100 of income. That is the profit for the business. Well, the first thing that business has to do is pay 21 percent of that to Uncle Sam. That is the tax on corporate income. Well, that leaves $79 left over for the investors, and the investor has to pay 23.8 percent on that. That works out to about $19. So at the end of the day, on a $100 hundred gain, the investor is able to go home with only $60. That is a 40-percent effective tax rate to the investor, despite the fact that the nominal rate applied on the investor's gain is only 23.8 percent. The combination--and that is what you really have to look at-- is more like 40 percent. That is higher than any individual income tax rate that we have in our entire code.

Of course, a gain on such an asset occurs only when investors generally believe that the after-tax value has gone up.

So I think it would be a big mistake to go down this road. I think it would be a big mistake to tax unrealized gains. As it is now, gains are taxed. They are taxed at the time in which they are actually earned-- they are actually realized--and it would be a mistake to raise the tax on this. Both of these ideas, and certainly in combination, would absolutely, certainly have a chilling effect on investment. They would diminish the willingness of people to invest in new businesses, in growing business, in startup business, and a chilling effect on investment means a chilling effect on economic growth.

So this proposal, I think, is misguided. It comes at a time when the tax reform that we have recently passed, which actually encourages investment, is clearly working. Our tax reform has generated a tremendous surge in investment in equipment, in technology, in new business. We have seen tremendous growth in our overall economy as a result.

In 2018, our economy grew at 3 percent--the best since 2005. With a strong, growing economy, we have seen terrific results for the people we all represent. Unemployment is at its lowest rate in 50 years. African-American unemployment is the lowest that has ever been recorded; Hispanic unemployment, the lowest ever recorded; youth unemployment, the lowest rate in many decades. Wages are now growing more rapidly than they have in over 10 years, and they are accelerating, and the wage growth is strongest among lower income workers.

Clearly, the reforms we implemented have been an incentive for more investment, and that has led to more growth. I sure wouldn't want to see us do anything that would disrupt the fact that we have created an environment where there is now so much opportunity and where work is paying so much more than it has before.

As I said, Senator Wyden is a good man, but this is a bad idea. I certainly hope we don't move in this direction.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to mark a very special day for the Sikh religion and the Sikh community across America and in Pennsylvania--and this is the holiday of Vaisakhi.

Although the youngest among the major religions of the world, Sikhism has emerged as a distinct socio-religious community. By the numbers, it is, I believe, the sixth largest religion in the world, with 30 million adherents worldwide, and approximately 700,000 Sikhs have chosen to make their home in the United States.

A large number of those Sikhs live in my State of Pennsylvania. In fact, there are several Sikh places of worship across Pennsylvania. They are known as a Gurdwara, and they are located in and around Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Allentown, and Erie.

Sikhism itself was founded in the 15th century in South Asia on the principles of equality, justice, and respect for all human beings.

Sikhs pray twice a day--in the morning and in the evening--and they pray for the welfare of mankind.

Over a period of 239 years, Sikhism was established by 10 gurus. The first among them was Guru Nanak. These gurus were learned, spiritual guides devoted to improving the moral well-being of their followers and the communities in which they lived.

In 1699, the 10th and final guru--Gobind Singh--founded a fellowship of soldier saints called the Khalsa Panth. Today, Sikhs celebrate this occasion with the holiday that they call Vaisakhi. This year, Sikhs across the United States and around the world will celebrate Vaisakhi on April 14.

For Sikhs, Vaisakhi is a very special time. It is a special time to celebrate and share their faith with their friends and their neighbors. The occasion is marked by dancing and parades. Everyone is welcome to attend these celebrations, and they attract Americans from all religious, cultural, and ethnic backgrounds.

Vaisakhi celebrations are a really vibrant affair, and members of the Sikh community wear bright orange or yellow festive clothes to mark the occasion. These colors represent the spirit and the joy of the celebration.

It is interesting to note that when Vaisakhi is celebrated in the Sikh homeland of Punjab, the gold and yellow wheat fields are ready to be harvested.

This year, the Sikh Coordination Committee East Coast has organized a parade in Washington, DC, on April 6 to commemorate Vaisakhi as National Sikh Day. The theme of the parade is Sikh identity, Sikh culture, and the Sikh way of life. Thousands of Sikhs from all over the United States will be here participating and celebrating.

I came here this morning because I want to add my voice as one wishing the Sikh community great luck and great joy at this parade and in the very joyous celebration of Vaisakhi.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I rise to discuss two economic issues this evening. The first is a reaction to a proposal that comes to us from our colleagues on the other side of the aisle. Let me preface this with the observation that I am pretty sure we are living through the strongest economy in the United States in my adult lifetime. It has been fantastic for the people I represent.

Our unemployment rate is pretty much at a 50-year low. African- American and Hispanic unemployment is the lowest that has ever been recorded. The youth unemployment rate is extremely low. It is at historically low levels. Our economy has accelerated, and wages are growing exactly as we said they would. It is very simple. The demand for workers has grown so much that employers are being forced to bid ever higher for the services of the workers.

Now we are in a tremendously enviable position of having more job openings in America than there are people looking for work in America. It is fantastic. This is exactly what we want to have happen.

Last week, the President was right when he said that our economy is the envy of the world. It is totally true.

So what do our colleagues on the other side of the aisle propose to do in light of the fact that we have this fantastic economy? Well, Senator Sanders and Senator Schumer joined up and made a proposal that we adopt legislation that would severely restrict the ability of American companies to buy back their own stock. This is just the latest iteration of a socialist tendency that seems to be growing on the far left. This is a horrendous idea.

I suppose we shouldn't be surprised when we hear a Socialist-leaning idea coming from a self-described Democratic Socialist or a Socialist Democrat--whatever the description is--but I am surprised to hear this coming from the Senate minority leader.

Let's talk about this a little bit. First of all, what is a stock buyback? It is not that complicated. It is when the owners of a company take some or all of their money out of the company.

Let's think about it this way. A business is owned by its shareholders, and the shareholders hire a management team to take their money and invest it in a way that will generate a return for the investor, for the shareholder. That is the role of the management team.

So why would they buy back their own stock? The reason they would buy back their own stock is that sometimes it happens that the management team of a company is just not able to deploy any more capital in a way that would generate a better return than what is generally available in the marketplace. What sometimes happens is companies might make huge investments; they may be investing tremendous amounts--record amounts-- in expanding their capabilities, expanding their production, more R&D, and expanding their staff, but they can reach a limit as to how much they can expand and how much they productively invest at any given point. If they have more money--more cash--than they can productively deploy, they have an obligation to return that to the people who actually own it; that is, the shareholders, the investors. That is their obligation.

Shockingly, Senators Sanders and Schumer are suggesting that companies be forbidden from being able to return some portion of their excess capital to their shareholders unless the company first complies with a list of political demands that Senators Schumer and Sanders are advocating.

Let me tell you why this is such a bad idea. I will give you three reasons. No. 1, it is a disturbing and profound attack on freedom. No. 2, it would be terrible for the economy. And, No. 3, it would hurt the very people they presumably intend to help. Let me go through them in order.

First of all, as far as freedom goes, whose company is it? To whom does a given company in America belong? I have always thought they belonged to the shareholders of those companies--the people who saved up and invested in them, the people who have launched those companies, and the people whose capital made it possible. So, of course, it should be within the rights of the people who own a company to decide what to do with the profits after all expenses have been covered and taxes have been paid. That is what we are talking about here.

I have a question for my colleagues. The question is, What principle confers on politicians the right to control whether and when and under what circumstances an investor can withdraw his own money from a business in which he invested? I don't know what that principle is.

I will say, to me, it seems exactly equivalent to confiscating the property of somebody--in this case, their ownership in a business--and redistributing that confiscated asset to whomever they choose. That strikes me as pretty close to the definition of socialism. It clearly is an attack on the economic freedom that underpins our entire economy, an entire market economy.

My second point, and related, is this would be terrible for the economy. It would do great harm to an economy that is doing quite well right now. The main way it would be so damaging is it would scare away capital.

Just stop and think about it. Our economy thrives when people are willing to invest in existing businesses, in new businesses, and in startup businesses, but that investment is an absolutely essential part of a thriving economy. Well, people are much less likely to make an investment if Congress makes it harder to take that investment out. So what we would do is we would dry up sources of capital for companies that need that capital because investors would understandably say: Well, we are heading down the road of putting all kinds of limits on my ability to ever get my money out. I think it may be good to just park it and not invest it.

That would be a very bad development.

The proponents of this idea of restricting companies this way say they want to ``incentivize productive investment.'' I have to laugh because I have a secret for our colleagues. You see, the free enterprise system already provides an incentive for productive investment. It is called the profit. That is the whole idea. So we don't need to punish people for making an investment as a way to incentivize productive investment. In fact, it will not work at all.

I think some of what they have argued displays a little bit of confusion about how this works. In their argument about why something has to be done, they say that 90 percent of profits go to buybacks and dividends. What else would you use it for? I mean, you first have to cover all of your expenses before you have a profit. So you could have record amounts of research and development, record amounts of expansion, records amounts of employment, and growth in employment, but after all of that is covered, only then do you have the profit. That is what is left over. And after you have covered all of those things, why wouldn't you have buybacks and a distribution to the investors?

That raises this question: Exactly what problem is it that our colleagues think they are solving here? We are running at record high levels of investment in our economy. Capital expenditures have gone through the roof in response partly--largely--due to the change in the tax law that we made. The buybacks that have been occurring have coincided with record levels of investment. What is the problem here?

By the way, as I pointed out earlier, wage growth has accelerated at the highest rate we have seen in many, many years. I really don't understand what problem they think we are solving.

By the way, there is an alternative to distributing excess capital to shareholders. The alternative is keeping the capital trapped in the company where it is not being put to its most productive use. You see, one of the great dynamics of a market economy is that by returning excess capital to shareholders, the shareholders get to decide what new idea deserves to be funded by recycling this capital. Whether it is in the form of dividends or stock buybacks, we encourage this capital to find a new home--a new startup, a new idea, or an expansion of an existing business. The capital is constantly being redirected to the best ideas, as long as you allow it to happen.

Finally, this idea would be very harmful to the people it is, presumably, meant to help. About 40 percent of all equities in the United States are

held in pension and retirement accounts. These are the accounts of teachers and cabdrivers and truckdrivers and folks who work at factories and do every other job that our economy depends on, who put a little money away. It may be in a 401(k) plan, in an IRA, or in an employer-sponsored pension plan; these folks own an awful lot of the stock in America. Well, buybacks are good for their investment because, in some cases, it returns cash that can then be redeployed. In other cases, it provides a bid; it provides upward pressure on the stock price, which is good for the value of their savings. Over time, if the stock gets retired, then the diminished supply gets that much greater a share of all of the future earnings. This is completely a win-win for savers and investors.

Let me just conclude by saying it is a very, very bad idea for America to take any steps down the road toward socialism. This is very much an idea of that ilk. In fact, it is a big step in the direction of a collectivist socialist economy, and we should reject this out of hand.

U.S. Trade

Mr. President, I also want to touch on an unrelated topic, but it is an important one; that is, the ongoing discussion we are having in this Congress and across the country with respect to trade.

I think most of us in this Chamber agree that international trade is very good for the United States. I know it is very good for Pennsylvania.

I think we all understand that if we impose tariffs on imported goods, that is a tax that American consumers have to pay on a product or a service just because it originates somewhere else. If you add up the impact of the tariffs that this administration has already applied, according to the Congressional Budget Office, that is already going to take one-tenth of a percent off of our GDP, off of our economic growth. That is assuming no further tariffs occur, which is unknown at this point.

In particular, I want to address a category of tariffs that are known as section 232 tariffs because that is the part of the trade law which justifies these tariffs. This is an old law. It is a Cold War-era trade law that is designed to allow a President to impose tariffs when he believes there is a national security threat that requires these tariffs, these taxes on some foreign product for some reason that affects our national security.

In my view, the recent imposition of these 232 tariffs on aluminum and steel were not really about national security. They had other motives and other purposes, and, in my view, they have done much more harm than good.

If you look at tariffs on imported steel, you might believe that it is helpful to the people who are in the steel industry. We have about 140,000 Americans employed at steel mills. It is possible that the tariffs are helpful to those companies and those employees at some level. The problem is, we have 6.5 million people in companies that use many, many multiples, and everybody who works in that sector of our economy across a wide range of industries is put at a competitive disadvantage when they have to pay that tax on imported steel and aluminum.

Some examples come to mind. Allegheny Technologies is a company in western Pennsylvania that last year had to pay $16 million in taxes on the steel they imported. They had no choice but to import it because of the unique nature of that steel. It is threatening one of their production facilities.

American Keg is the only steel keg maker in the United States and makes beer kegs in Pennsylvania. They had to lay off one-third of their workers in March of last year because they are not as competitive as they need to be.

Colonial Metal Products is a small manufacturer. They use steel in fabrication. Their entire workforce is at risk.

The list goes on and on because fundamentally these taxes make many companies that use steel and aluminum less competitive.

That is not the only problem. As we all know, many American exporters are subject to retaliation by companies that experience these tariffs. So there are a lot of problems.

I have introduced legislation that is meant to address this. One aspect of this that I think is very important is that the Constitution unambiguously assigns to Congress the responsibility for managing our economic relations--our competing trade relations with other countries. In the Constitution, that explicitly includes the responsibility for deciding whether and to what extent we should impose tariffs on the products of other countries. Yet for years Congress has just let administration after administration take this responsibility that the Constitution gives to us.

So what my legislation does is pretty simple. It says, let's restore to Congress the responsibility that the Constitution gives to Congress. Let's make sure that national security-related tariffs are only imposed when Congress says they should be imposed.

The legislation has 11 original cosponsors, roughly even between Republicans and Democrats. Senator Warner is the lead Democrat on this bill, and Senators Sasse and Hassan are also original cosponsors. Four of the cosponsors are from the Finance Committee, which has jurisdiction over this issue. There is the House companion, which is also bipartisan. There are 61 organizations, business groups and others, that have endorsed this from the outside.

It is important to make the point that our legislation, while it is designed to restore to Congress this important responsibility, doesn't eliminate the ability of a President to invoke section 232 and impose tariffs if there is a genuine threat to American security. What the President needs to do is explain the threat, make the case to the Congress, and under our legislation, there is a mechanism that requires expedited consideration of the President's request. It can't be filibustered. It doesn't take 60 votes. There is a strict timeline. So this can't languish on a shelf somewhere; Congress has to respond.

One other feature that is important in this bill is that the executive branch determination of whether there is a threat to national security would no longer be conducted by the Commerce Department, as it is now; it would move to the Department of Defense. My view on that is very simple. The Department of Defense is the entity within our executive branch that is best qualified to determined threats to our national security.

I am hopeful that we will grow our support and be able to get a vote on this legislation.

I should point out that there are other legislative approaches. There are other ideas on 232. There is one bill that, like mine, would shift the responsibility for evaluating the threat from the Commerce Department to the Defense Department, but the difference with some of these other pieces of legislation is they contemplate a disapproval resolution. They simply observe that Congress can pass a law to prevent or rescind a 232 designation, but these alternative bills would do nothing to restore that responsibility to Congress today. We could pass a law if we had the votes, and we could override a Presidential veto. We could pass a law to rescind any kind of tariff. The alternative legislation doesn't change that fact. What my legislation does is it would require the affirmative consent of Congress before the tariffs can go into place. That is a fundamental difference.

So I think, for the sake of expanding trade, but importantly, in my mind, for the sake of restoring the constitutional responsibility that is assigned to Congress, we ought to pass this legislation.

With that, 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 unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10 a.m., Tuesday, February 12; further, that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and morning business be closed; further, that following leader remarks, the Senate resume consideration of S. 47 and that the Senate recess from 12 noon until 2:15 p.m. to allow for the weekly conference meetings; finally, that all time during recess, adjournment, morning business, and leader remarks count postcloture on S. 47.

If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order.

Thereupon, the Senate, at 7:24 p.m., adjourned until Tuesday, February 12, 2019, at 10 a.m.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the FIRST STEP Act. I think this is a very important bill and important legislation. A lot of people have worked very hard on it, and there are only good intentions behind this legislation. I know it is an attempt to improve our criminal justice system generally, to reduce recidivism among offenders, and to increase public safety. Those are the goals. I am sympathetic to all of those goals, and I am seriously considering supporting this act. I want to see how this amendment process plays out, but I recognize that a lot of good work has been done here.

I want to begin by saying that I am also sympathetic to the legitimate concerns that have been raised about this legislation by law enforcement officers. I have spoken with people across

Pennsylvania who protect us every day who have some concerns about this. I am glad to see there were changes made along the way--changes that address some of the serious concerns I and others have raised. I think there is still room for more improvement. That is why I support the three modest amendments Senators Cotton and Kennedy have proposed.

One of the amendments will simply ensure that all violent felons-- such as carjackers and criminals who assault law enforcement officers and sex offenders--will not be eligible for the earned time credit. That is a good amendment, in my view.

A further feature is to notify victims of crimes before the prisoner who committed the crime is released. I think that is a reasonable provision for victims, to give them a chance to have their voice heard before the perpetrator is released.

Finally, another feature is to simply require the Department of Justice to track the outcomes. Let's make sure we know a few years from now, if this passes and is signed into law, whether we have reduced the recidivism rate. We should have that information.

These are commonsense amendments. I support them and urge my colleagues to do likewise. My real purpose is to highlight one of the amendments I have filed and hope I am going to be able to get a vote on. My amendment concerns especially victims of crime but specifically victims of child abuse, sexual assault, domestic violence, and other violent crimes, and the need to end Congress's longstanding injustice to these victims.

The FIRST STEP Act does a lot, especially for people who have committed crimes. Unfortunately, it doesn't do anything that I am aware of for the victims of crimes. These two things are not mutually exclusive. We have an opportunity here with this amendment to address something very substantive we can do for crime victims. Specifically, Congress should stop what I think is an unconscionable annual raid on the Crime Victims Fund. Since fiscal year 2000, Congress has diverted literally billions of dollars from the Crime Victims Fund by using a budget gimmick to withhold money from victims and the organizations that help victims. Here is how it works:

Every year, the Crime Victims Fund collects money from Federal criminal fines and penalties. There is no taxpayer money involved. These are criminal fines that result from convictions.

The fund was created in 1984 with a very simple principle in mind; that is, the money the Federal Government collects from those convicted of a crime ought to be used to help those who are victimized by the crime. Under the Federal statutes, the money collected in 1 year is supposed to be disbursed to victims of crime the next year. Unfortunately, starting in 1999, Congress began to systematically withhold some of the money that is supposed to go to the victims, effectively shortchanging the victims--people who, through no fault of their own, were victims of a crime.

You might ask, why would people do a thing like that? The reason it is done is because the Federal Government has bizarre and ridiculous budgetary rules. One of them holds that when you shortchange victims of crime this way, when you refuse to allocate the criminal penalties to victims as you are supposed to, you get to pretend for budgetary purposes that you are saving taxpayer money. It is totally untrue. It is not factually saving taxpayer money at all, but you get to pretend that it is. So in pretending that those savings have been achieved, it allows you to spend more money elsewhere, and there are few things Congress likes better than spending money. So this money, which is supposed to go to victims of crime, is instead spent on completely unrelated discretionary items in appropriations bills year after year.

How much, you might ask, does this matter? Does this actually add up to anything meaningful? Astoundingly, over the last two decades of this practice, Congress has used this gimmick to add $82 billion in unrelated Federal spending that has all gone to increase our deficit and our debt, all because every year they withheld money that was supposed to go to victims of crime.

Where did it go? The money could go to anything that Congress decides to spend it on, anything in the Commerce-Justice-Science approps bill. I will give one example. In 2014, Congress gave victims less than 6 percent of the money they were supposed to give to victims of crime-- again, not taxpayer money; criminal penalty money. It used the remaining $11.8 billion for other spending. That year, the CJS bill funded $360,000 for a NASA study that paid individuals $18,000 to lie in bed for 70 days, $1.75 million for a PBS documentary to promote a New York Times bestselling book, and $150,000 so that a game designer could develop a zombie-fighting web game. These are just a few examples. This is beyond egregious.

Because of this disgraceful behavior on the part of Congress, it has been much more difficult for victims of crime to receive the services they are supposed to get. A lot of the Crime Victim Fund goes to people who are helping some of the most vulnerable in our society. Now, in part because this money is not fully allocated as it should be, abused children sometimes have to wait weeks before they can receive the full medical and emotional services and care they need. There are rape victims who are not able to obtain the prophylactic medications they need to prevent them from contracting HIV/AIDS. Victims fleeing domestic violence are often unable to find a bed for themselves and their children. This is all because Congress refuses to allocate the money it is supposed to allocate to these victims. We can fix this. We can fix it. We can fix it this afternoon.

In fairness, in the past few years, the extent of this gimmickry, this terrible practice, has diminished, and I give a lot of credit to Senator Shelby. The chairman of the Appropriations Committee has decided to increase the appropriations in recent years to something approximating where it should be. But still there are billions that have not been allocated to victims, and there is no guarantee whatsoever that the next year, the year after, or at any point in time, Congress won't resume massively shortchanging victims as it has in the past.

What I think we need is a permanent solution to this, and my amendment will provide the fix we need. It is identical to a bill I have already introduced, which is called the Fairness for Crime Victims Act of 2018. This bill is endorsed by many, many victim advocacy groups. Last year, virtually identical legislation was unanimously passed out of the Budget Committee. Let me say that again. Not a single Republican, not a single Democrat opposed my legislation in the Budget Committee. All it does is returns honesty to the Crime Victims Fund by ensuring a steady stream of funds--the very funds from criminals that are supposed to go to victims and their advocates. It would simply ensure that they get what they are supposed to get.

As the Senate considers the FIRST STEP Act, I think we should take this opportunity to end this unconscionable raid on the Crime Victims Fund. If we are going to do something to help criminals, we should also do something to help victims.

All I am asking for is that we have a vote on this. If people disagree with me and they think we should continue this practice, OK, vote no, but let's have a vote. At a moment when we are doing so much for criminals, I think it is reasonable to do something for victims.

Unanimous Consent Request--Amendment No. 4120

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and call up amendment No. 4120.

Mr. President, I am not shocked, but I am extremely disappointed. One of the things that is so disappointing and frustrating about serving in this body is, it was once a body where a difference of opinion would be litigated on the Senate floor, including culminating in a vote, and we would decide as a body whether we wanted to proceed in a certain direction. Now, our friends in the minority are refusing to even allow the vote to occur.

I am not asking for a guaranteed outcome. I am not asking for any outcome. I am simply asking that we have a chance to debate and vote on whether victims of crime across America are going to get the allocation they are supposed to get.

In recent years, the situation has improved. If that is the commitment of my friends on the other side, they should be willing to enshrine that improvement in law, but they are not, which might speak volumes about where this is headed.

I am very disappointed that we are not going to get a vote on this amendment today. I do, however, hope we will be able to vote on and pass the Cotton and Kennedy amendments.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I wish to recognize William Glanville of Milford, PA. Mr. Glanville is a U.S. Navy veteran who served in World War II. I am pleased that he will soon be honored by his fellow veterans from Pike County and the surrounding region for his lifetime of service, dedication to his nation, and commitment to his fellow veterans as a longtime member of the American Legion.

Born and raised in Carbondale, PA, Mr. Glanville enlisted in the U.S. Navy in 1943 and eventually volunteered to join the then newly formed Underwater Demolition Teams, UDTs--the forerunners of the U.S. Navy SEALs. Known as frogmen, UDTs were an elite force established during World War II to fulfill a specialized mission, including to conduct beach reconnaissance, submarine operations, and lay and clear underwater mines. UDTs would participate in numerous conflicts in the decades following World War II.

Mr. Glanville was first assigned to a UDT deployed to the European Theater, where he worked with his fellow frogmen to clear the beaches of Normandy prior to D-Day, undoubtedly one of the most important assaults conducted by the Allied Forces during the war. After this operation, Mr. Glanville was assigned to the Pacific Theater where he participated in missions at Guadalcanal, Iwo Jima, Saipan, and Borneo. After the Japanese surrender on August 15, 1945, Mr. Glanville's UDT unit completed the underwater survey of the USS Missouri in preparation for the surrender ceremonies that took place on September 2, 1945. Through their heroic action during World War II, men like Mr. Glanville played a critical role in the Allied victory and laid the foundation for today's modern naval special warfare units.

Following his retirement from the Navy in 1955, Mr. Glanville returned home to Carbondale but worked in New Jersey as a construction equipment operating engineer until his retirement. He then moved to Pike County, PA and became actively involved with the Marsh Kellogg American Legion Post 139 in Milford. As a member of Post 139, Mr. Glanville held numerous leadership roles, including executive board member, judge advocate, adjutant, second vice commander, first vice commander, and twice as commander. In 2016, he was named commander emeritus for his enduring service to the post and his community.

William Glanville's life is distinguished by his dedication to service and his possession of exemplary character traits such as fidelity, honor, and humility. He is a man who, in his youth, chose a path that took him to among the most dangerous parts of the globe in the defense of freedom. He participated in some of our Nation's most important military operations and did so knowing that he might, like so many of his brothers and sisters did over the course of the war, pay the ultimate sacrifice for his country. I am pleased to honor his accomplishments as his fellow veterans recognize him for a lifetime of dedicated service to his nation and his community.

Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to say a few words about a colleague, a friend, a mentor, and a man whom I admire very, very much and for whom I have so much respect, my colleague Senator Hatch.

In Pennsylvania, as in many States, along the sides of the roads in various towns, you often see these commemorating plaques of historically significant places. In Pennsylvania, there are these that are of beautiful cast aluminum. They are painted blue, and there is gold lettering. They tell you something unique about little boroughs, towns, villages, or sometimes sights in big cities all across the Commonwealth.

There is such a commemoration at the house at which Betsy Ross made the first American flag. There is a marker that signifies the spot at which President Lincoln gave the Gettysburg Address. There is the site of the first World Series in Pittsburgh, PA.

Now, I am not a member of the commission that makes the decision about these things, but if I were, I think you could make a great case for a current and unique Pennsylvania success story. Many of my colleagues already know that Chairman Hatch is actually a son of Pennsylvania. He began with very humble roots in the great city of Pittsburgh, PA, where he attended McGibney Elementary School and grew up in a hardscrabble neighborhood.

He developed an amazing tenacity, which we have all seen and come to know, that has stayed with him to this day. As a matter of fact, my understanding is that the tenacity started at an early age. I understand there was a season during which a young Orrin Hatch, on the Baldwin High basketball team, managed to foul out 15 times in 1 season. A pretty tough and tenacious guy on the basketball court he was. Yet he was not just a good athlete.

The city of Pittsburgh helped to nurture in Orrin Hatch his love for music. He was a regular attendee at, among other things, the Pittsburgh Symphony Orchestra at the old Syria Mosque in Oakland, which I like to think contributed a little bit to his lifelong love of music.

He was a hard-working guy from the beginning. In high school, Orrin Hatch worked his summers as a wood lather, and he was a card-carrying member of the AFL-CIO. The modest income he earned from that job helped to put him through school.

Yet, if you had to pick one place to put the marker that would be calling attention to this wonderful son of Pennsylvania, it might actually be a chicken coop in the Pittsburgh area because, while he was struggling to make ends meet right after college, Orrin Hatch renovated the chicken coop in his parents' backyard, and he turned it into a little two-room cottage. That is where he lived with his young family. That is where they scraped by while he was attending the University of Pittsburgh School of Law on a scholarship.

The future Chairman Hatch graduated from that law school. He practiced law in Pittsburgh for 7 years and

was recognized as a formidable attorney in Pittsburgh, in Western Pennsylvania, before leaving for Utah, where he would ultimately launch what then looked to be improbable but would turn into being this enormously successful career in government.

Of course, the challenge, if you were going to put one of these markers up is this: What would you say? There is just so much to say about Chairman Hatch. It is hard to encapsulate his success in this body, certainly on a marker or even in a speech, but let me try to touch on a few of the high points.

It is amazing how long he has been so accomplished in this great body. Before I had even graduated from college, Senator Hatch had already worked to successfully pass one of the initiatives for which he has become well-known.

In medicine, as the Presiding Officer knows, we have a term called orphan conditions. This really refers to very rare diseases, diseases that afflict fewer than 200,000 Americans. While they are narrow in the scope of any particular disease, cumulatively, they do affect quite a significant number of Americans. They are conditions like cystic fibrosis, multiple myeloma, and ALS. Because any one of these orphan conditions affects relatively few people, the economics of developing a treatment for one really didn't work. From 1973 to 1983, the FDA actually only approved 10 orphan therapies over 10 years for all of the hundreds and hundreds of orphan diseases that had afflicted millions of people cumulatively.

Senator Hatch recognized this problem. As chairman of the Committee on Labor and Human Resources, which was the predecessor to the HELP Committee, Senator Hatch worked across the Chambers and across the aisle with Representative Henry Waxman. In 1983, they passed the Orphan Drug Act, which increased the incentives for developing drugs for these rare but, really, problematic conditions.

Since that time, there have literally been hundreds and hundreds of orphan products that have been approved and have come on the market. While that law has been updated over the years to reflect the changing technology and changing dynamics in medicine, the fact is the Orphan Drug Act that Senator Hatch authored as a relatively new Senator has undoubtedly made a profound difference in saving lives and in improving the quality of life for millions of Americans who previously had little or no hope. It was a very, very big deal.

The very next year, Chairman Hatch achieved the passage of another really monumental law in the healthcare space. It is officially called the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act, but everybody around here simply refers to it as Hatch-Waxman. This is the legislation that really laid the foundation for the generic drug industry that we see today.

Really, when you think about it, this has been an astonishing-- really, revolutionary--innovation that has been enormously helpful for American consumers. If you go back to 1984, only about 19 percent of all of the drugs that were dispensed in America were generic, and over 80 percent were branded drugs. That is important because branded drugs are vastly more expensive than generic drugs. By 2017, largely as a result of the legislation that Senator Hatch authored, that dynamic had completely flipped. In fact, it had more than flipped. By 2017, branded drugs are less than 15 percent of all of the drugs dispensed, and generic drugs, the low-cost alternative, are over 85 percent of all the drugs dispensed in America. This one change alone results in saving American families billions of dollars a year on their healthcare costs.

The list of Senator Hatch's accomplishments is a very, very long one, and I couldn't go through all of it. I couldn't begin to. Again, just to touch on some of the other big ones, there is the creation of the Children's Health Insurance Program and the passage of the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act. All of this happened before I got to the Senate, some many years ago.

Then, in 2010, I was elected to the Senate, and I had this wonderful privilege shortly thereafter of working on the Senate Finance Committee with Senator Hatch as our chairman and our leader. It was a privilege for me, for a lot of reasons, not the least of which is, I had a chance to see up close, in person, and firsthand his leadership style and how effective he is. He is a role model for anyone who wants to have a successful career as a U.S. Senator.

He was tremendously productive on his work to repeal Medicare's flawed sustainable growth rate, which, year after year, plagued healthcare. There seemed to be no solution, but Senator Hatch figured that out. He was principally responsible for crafting and passing the CHRONIC Care Act. Anybody in the Senate could learn a lot from his focus on oversight of our Nation's foster care system, as well as his role in shaping the Finance Committee's response to the prescription drug abuse and the opioid crisis. It is a very, very long list of really, really important reforms and innovations in healthcare, but it is not just healthcare.

What I think will probably be one of Senator Hatch's most lasting legacies is the leadership he provided to make it possible for all of us to pass the most comprehensive tax reform in over 30 years.

Our Tax Code was broken for a long time. Without Senator Hatch's leadership of the Finance Committee, it would still be broken today. Instead, he helped us to take an outdated, uncompetitive Tax Code and transform it into a competitive, progrowth Tax Code, bringing down our corporate rate to 21 percent, reversing the trend of companies moving headquarters abroad, reforming our international tax rules to encourage investment domestically, and allowing businesses to immediately write off capital investment. That already has and will continue to lead to a surge of investment, which enhances worker productivity, which is a necessary precondition for wage growth, which we are now seeing. These are the fruits of Senator Hatch's labors.

He insisted that we lower taxes at every income level so virtually all Americans save on their Federal tax bill, and the result has led to the strongest economy in over a decade and, by many measures, much longer than that.

Consumer confidence is at an 18-year high. For the first time that I know of in American history, we have more job openings in America than there are people looking for jobs. Unemployment benefit claims are hitting a 45-year low. In fact, unemployment is the lowest it has been since 1969. These are unbelievable numbers. African-American unemployment is at an alltime record low. Hispanic unemployment is at a record low. Youth unemployment is at a 50-year low. As a result of all of this demand for workers, average hourly earnings are rising at the highest year-over-year increase in a decade. That story is true and was made possible by Senator Hatch.

It was roughly 50 years ago when the Hatch family left Pennsylvania for Utah. That was our loss. It is a big gain for Utah. They gained a great man, a good man, and a future statesman. I will insist that the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania deserves to take a lot of pride in having contributed, at least in helping to shape this good, kind, decent, honorable, and extremely influential man and his life.

I want to give my personal thanks to Senator Hatch for his leadership and for the fact that he has been such a good and honorable man. He enhances the reputation of this body, and he has set a great example for all of us to follow.

I wish my friend and mentor a very long and happy retirement.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to bring this Chamber's attention to an overlooked part of our Nation's shining legacy during the Battle of the Ardennes in World War II: the heroic actions of the 110th Regimental Combat Team--RCT--28th Infantry Division from December 15- 19, 1944.

As the last major German offensive on the Western Front, the Ardennes campaign was crucial for both sides. With the stakes high, the 110th RCT valiantly rose to the occasion. At a devastating cost, the 110th was instrumental in the American victory. Despite being thinly extended across the American front on the Luxemburg border, the 110th RCT held back and slowed the advance of nearly four reinforced German divisions. The Americans were outnumbered nearly ten to one, and were vastly outgunned in artillery and armor.

As records have shown, it was not the unit's weapons or numbers that kept them fighting at this critical juncture of the war but sheer bravery and strength of character. The U.S. Army Center for Military History wrote in 1965 that, ``without the gallant bargain struck by the 110th Infantry and its allied units--men for time--the German plans for a coup-de-main at Bastogne would have turned to accomplished fact. In the last analysis . . . the final measure of success and failure would be in terms of hours and minutes won by the Americans and lost to the enemy.''

While the 101st Airborne and 82nd Airborne raced to entrench at Bastogne, their defense of the city would not have been possible without the delaying actions of the 110th RCT. As the soldiers of the 110th RCT dug into the hillsides and small towns of Luxemburg, holding their position at all costs, the weight of the enemy attack proved deadly. By December 19, the 110th RCT made its last stand at Wiltz with just over 500 soldiers. Following the attack that day, the 110th RCT was effectively destroyed as a fighting force, and the few remaining survivors were sent to fill in other units.

The 4 days that the 110th RCT delayed the Germans proved vital, even as Bastogne was surrounded amid heavy fighting. It was not until nearly a week later, on December 26, when units from Patton's army finally started to break the encirclement and offer relief to the units in Bastogne.

History has shown the 110th RCT to be one of the unsung heroes in the opening days of the Battle of the Bulge, and its gallantry has garnered enthusiastic recommendations from senior leaders, commanding generals, and historians. I am pleased to honor and remember these heroes and provide proper recognition to the lineage of the unit, which resides today within the Pennsylvania Army National Guard.

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

Mr. President, winter has arrived in Pittsburgh. Today, 11 3-foot-tall wooden Stars of David make up a sidewalk memorial in the city's Squirrel Hill neighborhood, and they will be brought inside the Tree of Life Synagogue to protect this display of the city's grief from the snowstorm.

Pittsburgh, the Jewish community and our entire country were shaken by a horrific anti-Semitic attack that occurred on October 27, during Shabbat morning services. Members of three Jewish congregations were present: the Tree of Life, Dor Hadash, and New Light congregations. Eleven innocent people were senselessly slaughtered in the attack, and six others were wounded, including four police officers who responded to the attack.

Even within this act of evil, there were displays of amazing courage and humanity: the first responders, who rushed into danger to apprehend the shooter and protect others; the Jewish doctors and nurses who cared for not just the victims but the shooter as well. Like Dr. Jeffrey Cohen, president of Allegheny County Hospital--who is actually a member of the Tree of Life Synagogue--displayed an amazing, remarkable courage and humanity in visiting the shooter to ask him about his care and to try to make some sense of the attack.

After such an inexplicable event, all of us looked for the motivation of the perpetrator and asked why.

Well, let's be clear about what this shooting was about. It was a cowardly act of brutal violence, fueled by anti-Semitism, a corrupt and repulsive ideology that really betrays our most fundamental values and distorts history.

John Adams had an interesting quote. John Adams said:

If I was an atheist and believed in blind eternal fate, I

should still believe that fate had ordained the Jews to be

the most essential instrument for civilizing the nations.

They are the most glorious nation that ever inhabited this

Earth. The Romans and their Empire were but a Bauble in

comparison to the Jews. They have given religion to three

quarters of the Globe and have influenced the affairs of

Mankind more, and more happily, than any other Nation ancient

or modern.

Despite Judaism's incredible contributions to mankind and to our own country and our country's founding, anti-Semitism is still far too prevalent. We can't ignore it. We must condemn it. We must challenge it.

I think there is a lesson here from Dr. Cohen, whom I mentioned earlier. When asked how he could visit a patient with so much hatred, Dr. Cohen replied:

I thought it was important to at least talk to him and meet

him. You can't on one hand say we should talk to each other,

and then I don't talk to him.

I think Dr. Cohen's wisdom and insights in humanity could be useful for this body as well. I have spent a lot of time working with colleagues and others to try to find some commonsense solutions to address some element of the gun violence that plagues this country. Too often, it seems to me, we talk past each other rather than speaking with each other.

I know there are strongly held views on the Second Amendment, and I am one of the Senators who has strongly held views on the Second Amendment. I am a strong supporter of the Second Amendment, but I am also convinced

there is common ground among people who have different views on the Second Amendment.

In this session of Congress that we are wrapping, we overwhelmingly enacted legislation to improve NICS, the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, which is used to prevent the sale of firearms to people who should not have firearms. Now think about that. We all agree firearms should not be sold to criminals and the dangerously mentally ill. I have never heard any colleague in this body suggest that firearms should be sold to violent criminals or dangerously mentally ill people. No. We all agree, as does our entire society, that these are people who shouldn't have firearms. So we have a NICS system that is designed, when it works well, to identify people who should not be able to have firearms because they are convicted criminals or dangerously mentally ill, or both, and we in this body recently passed legislation to improve the effectiveness of that NICS system.

Since we all accept the premise of the NICS system, and we have in fact enacted legislation to improve the effectiveness of the NICS system, shouldn't we also agree to close the remaining loopholes in the background check in this NICS system?

One measure that I think ought to be a consensus measure, and I know has bipartisan support, is that using the NICS system, we should cover all commercial sales of firearms with a background check. This is just a commonsense measure that is entirely consistent and compatible with the Second Amendment.

The Constitution guarantees the rights of law-abiding people to own firearms, but there is no such right for violent criminals and those who are dangerously mentally ill. I am not the only one who believes that. None other than the very pro-Second Amendment Justice Antonin Scalia wrote that it is completely compatible with the Second Amendment to have regulations like a background check.

Senator Joe Manchin and I have introduced bipartisan legislation that would address this loophole, that would expand background checks. It is pretty simple. It simply says that all commercial sales of firearms, including those sales at gun shows and over the internet, need to be subject to criminal and mental background checks. If you pass the background check, you get to buy your gun, but if you fail the background check, then you are exactly the kind of person we have all agreed shouldn't be able to get a gun. This is just common sense. By the way, he and I built into this legislation a number of provisions to allow law-abiding gun owners to more fully exercise their Second Amendment rights.

So I hope my colleagues will join me in working to advance this commonsense, bipartisan measure to keep our communities a little bit safer. I have never suggested that this would end mass shootings in America--that would be absurd--but it might make it a little more difficult for someone who doesn't belong owning a firearm to obtain one.

I know in our country many people feel a deep sense of division. We saw it after the shooting at the Tree of Life. We see it sometimes in the debates here, including over gun safety, but this isn't the first time or even the worst time we have been divided.

Interestingly, Pittsburgh's Tree of Life Synagogue was founded in 1864 during the Civil War. When I was in Pittsburgh following the tragedy, the day after the attack, I attended a beautiful memorial service just a few miles from the Tree of Life Synagogue. The service was at the Soldiers & Sailors Memorial Hall. At that ceremony, Catholics, Protestants, Muslims, Jews, people from every walk of life were represented. People from the Greater Pittsburgh area united to support their Jewish neighbors.

It was fitting to gather at the Soldiers & Sailors Memorial. This memorial was founded by veterans of the Civil War in Allegheny County to honor the sacrifice and valor of those who were willing to die to save our country during that war. The very first soldier from Allegheny County to die in the Civil War was a married salesman in his early thirties from Pittsburgh. He died at the Battle of Williamsburg on May 5, 1862. His name was Jacob Brunn. He was Jewish. That didn't matter to Pittsburgh. The entire city turned out for his funeral, the entire city. As one historian put it, ``the city put religious and political differences aside to honor the man who was first to fall.''

I hope the Senate can also put aside some of our political differences and do something sensible. It is our duty, and it would be a fitting act of remembrance for victims of mass shootings--at the Tree of Life, Thousand Oaks, Sandy Hook, and all the others whose deaths from gun violence have scarred our country.

I yield the floor.