Floor Statements

Mr. President, last Friday was a dark day for American workers and a dark day for the American auto industry. On the very same day that General Motors laid off the entire

second shift at the historic Lordstown plant in the Mahoning Valley in Northeast Ohio, we got word that GM plans to build its new Chevy Blazer in Mexico. That is right--the company bypasses American workers, lays off an entire shift, and sends more jobs to Mexico. All this comes on the heels of the windfall GM got from the tax bill Congress passed last year.

GM now can bring some $7 billion in overseas cash back to the United States at a dramatically lower tax rate, they can immediately deduct the cost of any new investments in plants and equipment, and their overall corporate tax rate dropped by about one-third. They could use that extra cash to invest in Lordstown, to build more cars in America, but what do they do instead? They lay off 1,500 workers--1,500 Ohio workers, 1,500 families affected--in Niles, Ravenna, Kent, Reminderville, Youngstown, Girard, Lordstown, and all over the Mahoney Valley and beyond. That is just a year after they laid off the third shift--more than 1,000 workers--at the same plant. They have some nerve.

The workers at this plant are among the best in the world. The car they make, the Chevy Cruze, beat out the foreign competition in its class last year. For the 2018 models, J.D. Power and Associates named the Cruze among the top two cars in its class. They named the Lordstown plant among the six top plants in the Americas. Anyone who has been to Lordstown wouldn't be surprised.

Ten years ago, the Federal Government rescued the auto industry.

Eight years ago, I actually drove one of the first cars--with Governor Strickland and others--off the line, one of the first Chevy Cruzes coming out of the Lordstown plant.

Two years ago, I stood in Lordstown for the plant's 50th anniversary, and I saw the pride the community takes in that plant. GM estimated that more than 10,000 people--young and old, families with children, workers who had been there almost the entire 50 years, vintage car buffs, former workers--turned out to watch the parade and to celebrate the plant. The line to get into the plant for a tour stretched down the street and around the block. That is what this plant means to the communities it serves. That is what the auto industry means to the communities it serves. It appears General Motors has forgotten some of that. That is why we worked so hard to save this industry, including General Motors, after the economic crisis.

In addition to the Federal auto rescue, the State of Ohio gave GM more than $80 million in tax incentives. But now, after Ohio gave millions to this company, GM turns its back on Ohio--all while making record profits, all while reaping the rewards of the tax bill paid for by taxpayers.

As a country, as a State, we are invested in this industry. GM needs to invest in America and in Ohio. It needs to invest in the workers and in the communities that built this company and made it great. Instead of making plans to invest in Mexico, GM should be working with workers, with the union, with local officials--with all of us--to invest, instead, in American workers. We have invested in GM; GM should invest in Ohio workers.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, the images that we have seen from our own country over the past few days are shocking and heartbreaking. They don't reflect our values as a nation. I am glad the President is reversing course. I am glad that he is signing something, putting a stop to his administration's cruel, pointless, and heartless policy of separating children from their parents at the border. That is just the beginning of the work that needs to be done to undo the damage that the President's policy has inflicted on these children and to begin to create a more human and humane immigration solution.

Any parent can tell you that being separated from a child is one of the worst things you can imagine. We have seen pictures and heard the sounds of crying children--children who are still in diapers. When I first heard that

audio clip--I think all of us remember the first time we heard it--of children who were screaming and crying for their parents, I almost couldn't listen to it.

As an American, as a human being, as a father, as a grandfather, it was revolting. It should be hard to listen to. We should recoil at those terrible sounds. The second it is not heard, the second we shrug our shoulders and do nothing at the sounds of little children who are wailing, that is the second we lose our humanity. It is hard for us to listen to. If it is hard for us to listen to--if it makes us uncomfortable--that is nothing compared to what it must mean, to what it must feel like, and what those parents are going through.

Yesterday, the administration reported that some 2,300 children were taken from their parents at the border in just a single month. Everybody in this body has gone to a school, and probably everybody in this body has gone to a grade school to visit. Remember what it is like to walk down the hall or to walk into a gym or to walk into a classroom and see dozens or even hundreds of children. Think about that. Think of walking into a school and seeing happy children--lots of them, dozens of children--who are singing or talking or playing on a playground.

Now think of these 2,300 children who were taken from their parents at the border in a single month--from May 5 to June 9. For 5 weeks, there were 60 kids taken, every single day, on average. There were 60 kids yesterday, 60 kids the day before, and 60 kids the day before that. We don't know how many since June 9, but from May 5 to June 9, there had been 60 kids every single day.

Clearly, the President did the right thing. Clearly, the President did it under great political pressure. Clearly, the President never admitted he was wrong about it. That is not something he would do, unlike most human beings I know. Yet signing something today doesn't magically reunite those families overnight. It is not like these children now--as any of my colleagues who have watched children who are at a grade school, who will run out to the cars when their moms pick them up or run out to the playground, joyfully, when their dads visit. They will not magically reunite with their families overnight. Signing this order the President signed--oh, so clearly reluctantly--will not undo the trauma those children have endured.

We still don't have good answers as to what has happened to those kids or what kinds of conditions they are living under. We have heard reports of siblings who have been ripped from their parents that they can't hug each other. We have heard of staff being told they are not allowed to comfort these children by touching them and hugging them. Imagine that. A child is taken away from her mother, and you are not even allowed to comfort her. You are just supposed to let her scream. That is inhumane, un-American, and is counter to everything most of us--at least in this body, if not the White House--have been taught.

Dr. Colleen Kraft, the current President of the American Academy of Pediatrics and the past medical director of the Health Network by Cincinnati Children's in my State, warned that the toxic stress resulting from these separations can slow down brain development. She called it ``a form of child abuse.''

Today, I demanded answers from the Secretary of Health and Human Services and from the Secretary of Homeland Security about what they are doing to care for the mental, physical, and emotional well-being of the thousands of traumatized children in their custody.

This chapter isn't closed. You don't just say, ``Thank you, Mr. President, for finally doing the right thing. Everything is fine.'' We have to track those 2,300 children for that month's period. There have been almost 2 weeks since then and more children. We have to find these children, comfort them, and examine them. Pediatricians have warned that this is some kind of child abuse because it can slow down brain development, and these children have already seen horrors that the rest of us can't imagine.

Some of these parents are seeking asylum in America. They are fleeing violence, and they are just looking for a safe place for their children. Who knows how many of these children already were traumatized because they had lived in a war zone, because they had lived in an area with all kinds of violence from drug wars. They were pulled out of that and were traveling with almost nothing but the clothes on their backs and very little, with one or both parents, and went north, not knowing what was going to happen each day and seeing things that almost none of us growing up has seen. Then they were separated from their parents at the border.

The way we keep our country safe is by going after terrorists and violent criminals, not by turning our backs on families and children just like ours, whose only goal is to escape violence and persecution.

We have a lot of work to do to fix our immigration system, but tearing families apart will not solve anything. We need to come together, and we need to work on a bipartisan solution that recognizes we aren't going to deport 13 million people who are already here. We can secure our borders. We can create a pathway for people to earn citizenship if they follow the law, to have a job, and pay taxes.

My son-in-law, Alejandro, lives in Cranston, RI--the boyhood home of our colleague Senator Jack Reed. He was 10 years old--maybe 11 years old--when he came to this country. His mother was a journalist. She had her life threatened as a journalist in El Salvador. She fled their country to come to our country. The parents then went to New York. We embrace people like that--who are refugees, whose lives we can save, and who can contribute so much to our country, as Alejandro has and his mother has. His whole family has contributed to this country. He is the father of two of our grandchildren now.

This may be a complicated issue, but we are a country of values that protects people. We are a haven for so many people. We have made a difference in so many lives because of who we are and what our values are. Surely, it is a complicated issue, but the administration has only made it so much worse. It has added the challenge of having to undo the damage it has done in having to work to get those children back to their parents and help to make them whole.

I hope we are seeing the end of this heartlessness. I hope this isn't a one-step pullback by the President, and then there will be more attacks on immigrants and more attacks on children. We have a lot of work to do to pick up the pieces and reunite families. The administration needs to provide answers immediately as to how it is going to make that happen and end the cries of these children with comforting words and much more.

I close with this story.

I had a message on Facebook from an Ohioan. He had heard the tragic story of a 10-year-old with Down syndrome who was reportedly separated from her parents at the border. That is barbaric, but this Ohioan gives me hope. He wrote that he and his wife have a daughter with Down syndrome. They wanted to offer to take in the little girl and her mother and have them stay with their family in Ohio. Imagine that.

Those are the values of Ohioans. Those are the values of North Carolinians. Those are the values of Americans. They are not the President's values, who, because of whatever motive, has separated these families. That encompasses the State and the country I love--this family who wrote to us. I know there are so many more Americans out there who feel the same way--who practice compassion, whose hearts break for these children. It is time for their government to step up and reflect those values of this great country.

Mr. President, yesterday, I met a veteran from Massillon, OH, James Powers. Mr. Powers brought to my attention a problem he was having with the VA's accounting mistakes, and our conversation led to a bill I introduced with Senator Tester, a Montana Democrat, and Senator Boozman, an Arkansas Republican, the bipartisan Veteran Debt Fairness Act. Both Senators serve with me on the Veterans' Affairs Committee. Both Senators know how VA overpayment and debt affect veterans every day.

James retired 2 years ago, but he noticed that the Army was continuing to pay him both an Active-Duty salary

and retirement benefits. James caught the mistake. He did the honorable thing. He notified the VA it was overpaying him, but the VA continued to overpay him. Then it charged him twice to recoup the overpayments, and they garnished his benefits.

The staff in my office worked with the VA to resolve James's issues, but this should never have happened in the first place. It is fixed now. He had to go through that. To his credit, to James's credit, he wanted to make sure his experience, which was uncomfortable--or worse at times--would change policy and affect future veterans so they wouldn't have to go through this, which is why I admire him so much.

This story is too common. In 2016, the VA issued some 200,000 overpayment notices to veterans. When this happens, the agency often tries to get its money back by withholding some or all of the monthly disability payments our veterans have earned. Our veterans deal with enough stress already. They shouldn't be forced to pay for the VA's accounting mistakes.

Our bill would ban the VA from charging veterans for its own mistake in overpayments. It should protect veterans' payments who depend on their benefits by capping the amount the VA can deduct from a veteran's monthly payment at 25 percent. It would ban the VA from collecting debts that are more than 5 years old.

Our veterans sacrifice so much already to serve our country. I am the first Ohioan to ever serve a full term. I have been on this committee now for 12 years, the Veterans' Affairs Committee. I am on that committee because we should serve those who serve us. We should protect those who protect us. The veterans shouldn't be paying for the mistakes of the agency that is supposed to serve them.

Unfortunately, our bill was not included in the National Defense Authorization Act last week. Instead, we have an amendment to the MILCON-VA bill to require the VA to track down these overpayments and report to Congress on the scope of VA debt. We will continue to push for the Tester-Boozman bill, but I hope all of my colleagues will join me in supporting this bipartisan, commonsense step toward fixing VA overpayment and debt for America's veterans.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, earlier this year, the Commerce Department found the Chinese telecommunications giant ZTE guilty of persistently and willfully violating U.S. sanctions laws on North Korea and Iran. That is a pretty serious offense for a large company to commit. It found that the company then repeatedly lied about it and went to great lengths to cover it up.

In response, as we should, across party lines, our government took action and put a series of strict export and transaction prohibitions on ZTE in mid-April of this year. We did what we should do. A large international company--it happened to be Chinese in this case--broke the law, broke a serious law on sanctions and then lied about what it did, so we took action.

It is pretty galling to learn that early this morning, the Commerce Department announced yet another agreement with the Chinese telecommunications giant to enable it to interact with U.S. companies. They committed that kind of offense, then they lied about that kind of offense, and now we are saying: It is OK. You can come back into our country and do business with us.

What gives here? We can't allow a Chinese company or a company anywhere--I mean, I am not picking on China in this case, but China is a country we have had difficulty with. It is habitually breaking international trade laws and seems to have as much trouble with the truth as some people in the White House have. Yet we have allowed this Chinese company to violate U.S. law time and again, to lie about it time and again and get away with it. By turning a blind eye to ZTE's blatant violations, the Trump administration is putting Chinese jobs ahead of American jobs, putting Chinese national interests over America's national security. Why in the world would we do that?

ZTE is a Chinese company best known for making cheap smartphones, mostly sold in developing countries, although it also sells them here. That is important. It means a company that knowingly breaks U.S. laws could have control over information people have on their phones.

It is bad enough that we send this message: OK, you broke the law. That is bad enough. Then you lied about it. You broke serious international law, sanctions laws that protect our national security in part and protect the world from these countries--countries such as North Korea and Iran, which are bad actors. You broke the law by helping them, breaking sanctions laws, and then you lied about it. That is bad enough. Now we are not only not penalizing them, we are giving them an advantage when these companies could have control over information people have on their phones.

This company that cheated isn't a company that makes cars; this is a company that makes telecommunications equipment that can be used in an insidious sort of way against our own people. This could have real national security implications if that information is abused. As we have seen with recent revelations about Facebook giving Chinese telecom giants access to its data, private firms are not always careful with how they manage people's private lives and private data.

The administration's new agreement with ZTE reportedly emerged from direct discussions between President Trump and the President of China. I can't even imagine what those discussions must have been. Think about what the President of China had to defend, what his country did, what his company did. Yet the President of the United States was willing to say: Oh, we will forgive it. We are not really worried. We love you. We love your country. We love this company--even though it is prioritizing Chinese jobs over American jobs, and it is prioritizing Chinese national security interests over America's national security interests.

In a nutshell, America's national security must not be used as a bargaining chip in negotiations. I don't know if the President, talking to the President of China, said: OK, we will do this for you, and you did this for us. Whatever the ``you did this for us''--I don't know whether it means the President's business or the President personally or whether ``us'' means America's national interests, but I have not seen any of America's national interests that are getting favored in this whole transaction.

Trading American sanctions enforcement to promote jobs in China is a bad deal for American workers and a very bad deal for the security of all Americans.

Let's look at how we got here. Last year in March, ZTE agreed to a combined civil and criminal penalty and forfeiture of $1.2 billion after illegally shipping telecommunications equipment to Iran and North Korea, in direct violation of U.S. sanctions laws. They made false statements and obstructed justice.

I am not a lawyer. I understand that this is serious stuff--shipping telecommunications equipment to Iran and North Korea, which are two really bad actors in the world, two countries that virtually everybody on this Senate floor has spoken out against at one time or another. It violated U.S. sanctions laws--laws that this Senate passed close to unanimously. They made false statements. They obstructed justice. Then the Commerce Department determined that ZTE then lied about its crimes. How does it get more serious than that?

Commerce Secretary Ross said recently--the Commerce Secretary appointed by the President, Secretary Ross. I know him well. I like some of the things he has done, particularly in Cleveland. He said: ``ZTE made false statements to the U.S. Government when they were originally caught and put on the Entity List, made false statements during the reprieve it was given, and made false statements again during its probation.''

At least the company is consistent: They lie during this part of the process, and they lie during that part of the process, and then they lie during that part of the process. So we know that about this company's character.

These false statements covered up the fact that ZTE paid full bonuses to employees who had engaged in illegal conduct, and failed to issue letters of reprimand.

They break the law. They lie and lie. Then they give bonuses to the executives who lie. How much more can this company grind Americans' faces in the dirt as they lie, cheat, and steal, and then the American President, in a face-to-face meeting with China, says: It is OK. We don't mind. I speak for the American people. Do it again.

It fundamentally says: If you grind Americans' faces in this muck after all that China has done and this company has done to America's national interests and then you say ``We are not going to punish you,'' it pretty much says you are free to do it again.

Secretary Ross said:

ZTE misled the Department of Commerce. Instead of

reprimanding ZTE staff and senior management, ZTE rewarded

them. This egregious behavior cannot be ignored.

The President's Secretary of Commerce has said that we can't ignore it. He has said that they cheated, they broke the law, they lied, they lied again, and they lied again. They rewarded those lies and gave bonuses to those who lied. They never reprimanded them. That is what the President's Secretary of Commerce is saying. Then the President said: It is OK. It is OK. We don't mind. We will get something else for this.

That is why this spring, after Ross's comments, the Department of Commerce issued a law enforcement decision imposing a broad denial of export privileges on ZTE for its repeated violations of U.S. sanctions and export control laws.

These denial orders are law enforcement actions. Any changes to them should be decided independently. But that ain't happening here. The President is overruling a law enforcement decision--as he criticizes the FBI almost daily--made in the interests of America's national security, in part by people appointed to their offices by the President of the United States. He didn't just appoint the FBI Director; he didn't just select his Vice President; he appointed Mr. Wilbur Ross as his Secretary of Commerce. The Secretary of Commerce is saying, fundamentally: Mr. President, don't do this. This company needs to be punished.

Again, the President overrules a law enforcement decision made in the interests of America's national security, all in order to save jobs. That is at least a reason, but the problem with that is that the jobs saved are in China. They are not in Mansfield, OH. They are not in Cleveland, OH. They are not in Shreveport, LA, the Presiding Officer's home State. They are not in Toledo, OH. Think about that. The administration looks the other way for a company that broke the law, that threatened national security, and is doing it to protect jobs in Communist China, in the People's Republic of China. It defies all odds.

Can you imagine China saying: You know, I think we are going to hurt our national security so we can put some more jobs in Akron, OH. We are going to compromise our workers' interests so we can put more jobs in Zanesville, OH. It is OK that China is going to get a little hurt so we can get some more jobs in Chillicothe, OH.

I don't think they think that way. They do everything in their power. They steal our technology. They undermine our industries. They put our companies out of business. And then we do this. The only person I know who wants to do this is the President of the United States. The Secretary of Commerce doesn't like this decision. I am sure the FBI doesn't like this decision. I have yet to meet a Republican or Democratic Senator who says: Attaboy, Mr. President. Undermine our national interests. Protect Chinese jobs over jobs in Harrisburg or jobs in Ann Arbor or jobs in Madison, WI, or jobs in Atlanta, GA.

America's policies toward China--it might be an interesting idea to put Americans first, that our policies toward China should put our country first. That is what China does in reverse. That is why Congress needs to push back on this decision by the President and address it directly as soon as possible. The National Defense Authorization Act offers a chance to do that.

Senator Van Hollen inserted language into the CFIUS bill which received overwhelming support from both parties when we marked it up in the Banking Committee 2 weeks ago. That legislation is now in this Defense bill. With the settlement agreement announced by Commerce, that legislation will require some change, some tweaking, to make sure that it covers what the administration has already done and at the same time prevents the President from moving forward with this agreement. Senator Cotton, a conservative Republican; Senator Van Hollen, a progressive Democrat; Senator Crapo, a Republican and the chairman of the Banking Committee; and I, a Democrat and the ranking member of the Banking Committee, pressed for an amendment that would do that.

This bipartisan amendment would send a clear signal to the White House and, more importantly, would send a clear signal to the world that we don't agree with that behavior. It would send a clear signal that Congress disapproves of this most recent agreement.

It is inexplicable. Unless the President has some personal reason for doing this--unless it makes the President's business more profitable, unless it puts money in the pocket of his family or himself--and I am not accusing him because I just don't know--I can't figure out what all of this means. Why would you side with Chinese workers over American workers? Why would you side with Chinese national security over our domestic security?

I can't figure out why you would unroll, unspool, a decision by your own Cabinet member to punish this company for breaking the law once, twice, three times with Iran and North Korea, for lying about it once, twice, three times, and for giving rewards to those company officials who broke the law and then lied about it. I can't think of any other explanation as to why a President of the United States would possibly make a decision like that unless it was in his own, personal financial interest.

This bipartisan amendment would send a clear signal that Congress disapproves of that, so I urge my colleagues to support the Van Hollen- Cotton amendment.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, barely a day goes by that doesn't bring news of another consumer protection rollback and another handout to Wall Street, day after day in this body or downtown.

This weekend, we heard that the Federal Reserve plans changes to the Volcker rule--the rule that stops big banks from taking big risks with Americans' money. The month before, the Federal Reserve Vice Chair, Randal Quarles, said the Fed wants to loosen rules on foreign megabanks. Those are the banks like Santander and Deutsche Bank. These are banks headquartered abroad, but they abuse the public trust in this country and have been fined in the past. The Federal Reserve Vice Chair--who once was in the Bush administration, and prediction after prediction missed the implosion of the economy in 2007 and 2008--wants to loosen the rules on foreign megabanks. I don't even understand the logic, let alone the sensibleness of it.

Today, we learned that Mick Mulvaney is continuing his systematic dismantling of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau by disbanding the Consumer Advisory Board. It is a board of 25 advocates for American consumers and industry experts. It is required by law to meet twice a year, but Mulvaney now says they won't hold any meetings--not today, not tomorrow, not next week, not next month, period--they were supposed to meet with Mulvaney to advocate for American consumers, but they are done with that, I guess--not ever, until Mulvaney replaces all the members with his handpicked cronies.

Even though Federal law says: You have to meet with them--required by law to meet twice a year--Mulvaney said: I am not meeting with them until they quit and I get my handpicked friends of payday lenders, friends of Wall Street, friends of big banks, friends of financial service companies who think about politics and government and regulation the way I think. What is right about that?

Apparently, Director Mulvaney, who, as we know, has two jobs--Office of Budget and Management and also head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau--and that is peculiar, putting it mildly. He has two absolutely full-time jobs that he is supposed to do, apparently, although he has time to chat up payday lenders at golf resorts in the Bahamas, but he can't make time to meet with actual consumer experts, even though it is the law to do that twice a year. He doesn't like these consumer experts, so he is saying he is not going to do it.

The Board is supposed to advise the Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau on trends that they are seeing so the Bureau can stay ahead of scams and fraud. It is one more tool--or should be one more tool--to try to prevent corporations from scamming consumers before it happens.

For a change, let's stop the corruption and stop the back-scratching and

stop the favors for Wall Street before they happen rather than taxpayers bailing out these companies after they scam the public and then the public is left penniless in far too many cases.

It is also an opportunity for the Director to hear what kinds of consumer problems Americans are facing. Here is fundamentally the reason why. Pope Francis, soon after he assumed the papacy, admonished his parish priests to go out and smell like the flock. Go out and smell like the flock. In other words, go out among people and see what troubles them, see what their problems are, try to experience their lives as much as a well-paid public servant can, including a Senator, including a Congressman or Congresswoman, including a city council person, whoever. Go out and smell like the flock. So instead of Mulvaney going and hanging around payday lenders in Bahamas, maybe he ought to go out and smell like the flock. Maybe he ought to follow the words of Pope Francis and listen to the problems people have. One of the ways of doing that is listening to these 25 advocates for American consumers and industry experts. As I said, they are required to meet twice a year, and if he is not listening to them--he clearly isn't listening to people who can share some of these thoughts.

Similarly, when Lincoln was President, his staff wanted him to stay in the White House and win the war and free the slaves and preserve the Union, and Lincoln said: No, I have to go out and get my public opinion baths. Well, Director Mulvaney could use some public opinion baths. He could use some going out and smelling like the flock. Maybe he then would understand consumers' problems. But he really doesn't seem to want to do that.

Over and over again, he has used his position at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to do favors for corporate special interests rather than look out for the people he is supposed to serve. He canceled an investigation into the payday lending industry, which preys on consumers and traps them in a downward spiral of debt. We know how that happens. People don't genuinely get one payday loan. Their car breaks down, and they borrow $400 because they can't get to work. They will not be able to pay their rent if they can't get to work, so they borrow the $400 because they don't have $400 in their pocket. A quarter of Americans--more than that--don't have $400 of discretionary money in their pockets to pay for an emergency. They go to a payday lender. They can't pay them back right away, so they get another payday loan. They can't pay that back, and by the end, they end up paying $1,500. They never get out of that downward spiral. Does Director Mulvaney care? Apparently not. He is too busy hanging out with payday lending advocates and payday lenders themselves.

If that weren't bad enough, this week he ordered the Bureau to team up with those same payday lenders. He joined a lawsuit to delay a rule protecting consumers from triple-digit interest rates. Do you know why I say triple digits? Again, that is what happens. Almost nobody gets one payday loan. They simply can't pay it back quickly enough, so they get a second and a third. You don't have to be very good in math. Even Senators can understand this. If you are getting three, four, five, six payday loans, you are into paying triple-digit interest rates. If you borrow $300, you end up paying back $500, $600, $700.

He has gutted the Office of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau that was supposed to stop discrimination in lending. He has disbanded the team that protected student loan borrowers. Nobody who is even as conservative as anybody in this body might be, who is in the tank with Wall Street as much as anybody in this body might be--there are a whole lot of them in that category--nobody really believes that we created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to fleece consumers and to protect payday lenders, but that is what the new administrator seems to want. He has hired a bunch of political cronies. We know that. He has given them political salaries. We know that.

When he testified to the Banking Committee, sitting behind him were very well-dressed political cronies pulling down very big salaries, comparable to his salary and in some cases higher than Senators' salaries. I am not complaining about that; I am just saying that these are well-paid people who are political cronies who simply aren't looking out for consumers. It never ends. That is just the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

Step back and look at what is happening in Washington, and you see the same pattern--favors for Wall Street, favors for special interests, no matter what it costs American workers, no matter what it costs American families.

The White House looks like an executive retreat. It looks like a retreat for Wall Street executives, except when it looks like a retreat for drug company executives, except when it looks like a retreat for big bank lobbyists, or except when it looks like a retreat for payday lenders and Big Pharma lobbyists. That is the White House.

This place looks the same. The doors open wide around here for lobbyists from the big drug companies, for lobbyists from Wall Street, for lobbyists from the biggest insurance companies in the country--not so much for public interest. You can see that in this body.

Mick Mulvaney even admitted to a room full of bankers--get this. This is illuminating. It is illustrative. It doesn't shock me because I have watched him, and I have watched many people who are just like him here. Mick Mulvaney even admitted to a room full of bankers that he decided whom he would meet with based on campaign contributions. I am not making this up. He was a Congressman before. These are his words:

We had a hierarchy in my office in Congress. If you're a

lobbyist who never gave us money, I didn't talk to you. If

you're a lobbyist who gave us money, I might talk to you.

Hear that again. This is Mick Mulvaney, who is now in charge of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. And consumers aren't writing big checks to Members of Congress; it is the interest groups.

He said:

We had a hierarchy in my office in Congress. If you're a

lobbyist who never gave us money, I didn't talk to you. If

you're a lobbyist who gave us money, I might talk to you.

Those are his words. What was particularly troubling about that was he was telling a room full of bankers that story, and he was saying: Come to me. Come to me. Give us money.

Not him per se because he is not running for office now, but give Members of Congress money. Get involved. Make contributions. Come into their offices--don't give them the money in the office. That would be perhaps vulgar and illegal. But give these politicians money, and then they may do things for you.

As the head of Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, he was basically inviting these bankers: Give more money. Give more money. Give more money. Imagine that. Imagine that. Talk about the White House looking like a retreat for payday lending executives and Wall Street executives.

Now we are seeing how devastating those priorities are for American consumers. Think about the 3\1/2\ million victims of Wells Fargo's fake account scandal. Think about the servicemembers who had their cars repossessed while serving their country overseas. They come back from combat, they come back from service overseas, and their car has been repossessed. Why? Because the Bureau is not on the beat anymore to protect those servicemembers from those kinds of scandals. Think about the grandmother who ended up paying 300 percent on a $300 loan.

While Mick Mulvaney is looking out for Wall Street, who is looking out for the servicemember? Who is looking out for the grandmother? Who is looking out for the Wells Fargo fake account scandal victims?

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, last month in the Banking Committee, we passed bipartisan legislation to give our country more tools to respond to foreign investments from countries like China that pose a threat to our national security. I appreciate the Presiding Officer's interest in this issue also.

The Senate Banking bill was attached to the Defense bill in the Armed Services Committee later that week, and the House also passed a similar bill through a key committee at the same time. This is good news as we try to address threats to our national security, and I hope we can get this to the President's desk quickly.

The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States--so-called CFIUS--screens foreign investments for national security threats and blocks those that undermine our national security. But as countries like China have adopted new tactics and new techniques to acquire our critical knowledge and know-how, the laws that give CFIUS its authority haven't been able to keep up with technology; hence, the reason that Senator Cornyn and Senator Feinstein and Senator Van Hollen and Senator Crapo and I have worked on this. I want to thank them for introducing legislation last fall to expand CFIUS's authority to keep up with these new tactics.

The Banking Committee bill builds on their efforts to modernize CFIUS to make sure that it has the tools it needs to tackle today's threats. No country--not even close--no country has been more aggressive than the People's Republic of China in going after American technology in aviation, robotics, new energy vehicles, and others where the United States has established itself as a global leader for a long time.

In just 3 years, from 2013 to 2015--from the beginning of 2013 to the end of 2015--the number of Chinese acquisitions coming under CFIUS review jumped 38 percent. And China is getting more clever, more sneaky--you can choose the word you like--at finding ways to get around the rules to avoid review at all.

We have seen Chinese companies start to structure deals so that they can gain access to sensitive technology and information without triggering the CFIUS review. For example, if a Chinese investor wants to buy a controlling stake in an American company, CFIUS would review that deal and have the chance to block it. But if Chinese investors instead got seats on that company's board, they could still have access to the same sensitive technology without going through the CFIUS review. Or some foreign investors also might, for instance, decide to enter into a joint venture with an American company instead, giving them access to all of the technology and data and know-how but bypassing the CFIUS review process.

The American business may not even particularly like joining up with this Chinese company, but the Chinese company will coerce them into a joint venture as a condition. This is what China is really good at, and U.S. corporations have been too weak-kneed in succumbing to this as a condition for continued access to the Chinese market. They play for keeps. Our corporations play far too often for narrow profits, even if at the end it is bad for American national security and even if at the end it is bad for American economic security.

Our bipartisan bill will give CFIUS and our export control agencies the tools they need to ensure that these types of investments don't slip through the cracks. The bill strengthens the CFIUS review process, the export control laws, and enforcement of both, particularly when it comes to critical technology and investments from

State-owned companies. But, so often, and as important as these updates are, CFIUS was created only to deal with national security threats but can't do any more than that. Right now, we have no way to evaluate deals that may pose a threat to our economy.

In 2016, foreign direct investments in the United States totaled $370 billion. None of that--not a dollar of that--was reviewed to ensure it was in our long-term strategic economic interests. So while some of those investments were reviewed to protect our national security from Chinese threats, not one dollar was examined, was screened, was looked at, was reviewed to ensure that it was in our long-term strategic economic interests.

That is why I joined with Senator Grassley to introduce the bipartisan U.S. Foreign Investments Review Act. It would empower the Department of Commerce to begin screening all types of large foreign investments for their long-term economic impact and consequences for American workers and American businesses.

I thank Senator Grassley for working on this important legislation. Updating CFIUS is important for our national security. That is paramount, but we also need to expand it because it is important that our economic interests be protected.

We understand that the Chinese subsidize their energy, water, land, and capital. They often are state-owned enterprises. They are so often able to come into our markets and simply break international trade rules and put our companies out of business and throw our workers out of work.

(Mr. Kennedy assumed the chair.)

We have seen foreign investments here that have raised serious concerns, including worries that those companies are pursuing investments for the sole reason or the principal reason of undermining American industries and giving their own companies an unfair advantage. Again, some of these companies are owned or controlled by foreign governments. When it is Chinese, especially, their water, land, capital, and energy are subsidized, and it takes away our ability to compete because we don't do that.

We took a first step with an amendment in the CFIUS reform bill. For the first time, the Department of Commerce--in this bill that the Presiding Officer and I worked on in the Banking Committee--for the first time, the Department of Commerce will be required to study what American companies China is buying and in what sectors so we can begin to assess how big the threat is. Now we need to move forward with our comprehensive bill.

We surely know there are Chinese investments in the Presiding Officer's State of Louisiana and my State of Ohio. There are Chinese investments coming in that could, in fact, undermine our economic security, could cost our companies business, and could cause some companies to go out of business because of Chinese subsidies for their investments and ultimately put workers in Louisiana, Ohio, and elsewhere out of business.

It is simple. Before we do business with a foreign entity--whether the Government of China or companies subsidized by governments in that part of the world--let's make sure it will create jobs, let's make sure it will grow the U.S. economy, and let's make sure it will not undermine our national security or American industries. We are already behind when it comes to protecting our economy from Chinese investment.

I welcome investment from around the world, but I don't welcome it if it is going to undermine our national security, and I don't welcome it if it is going to put American companies out of business and American workers out of jobs. Senator Grassley and I will continue working to change that. It is time to move forward.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, last winter, this body passed a $1.5 trillion deficit-financed tax cut for millionaires, for billionaires especially, and for corporations that ship jobs overseas. More than 80 percent of the benefits will go to the top 1 percent of the wealthiest people by the end of this decade.

Two weeks ago, Congress passed another big giveaway to Wall Street, loosening taxpayer protections on big banks that had received a combined $239 billion in taxpayer bailouts. We know Wall Street can never get enough handouts. Too many people in this body, too many people down the hall in the House of Representatives, too many people in the Oval Office, too many people in Washington never get tired of giving these handouts away. From the day President Obama, almost a decade ago, signed Wall Street reform into law, a top Wall Street lobbyist said that it was halftime, meaning the game was not over, and they were going to keep fighting back.

Before the ink was dry on his signature, those lobbyists went to work trying to undo the rules we put in place to protect taxpayers and consumers. We are seeing the result of that lobbying in Congress, and we are seeing it at the agencies that are supposed to be policing our financial industry.

Last week, the Federal Reserve announced proposed changes to what is known as the Volcker rule. We put this rule in place after the crisis to stop big banks from taking big risks with Americans' money. Those complicated, risky bets were a big reason for the financial crisis that devastated our economy, cost millions of Americans their jobs, cost millions of Americans much of their savings, and left taxpayers on the hook to clean up Wall Street's mess.

Lehman Brothers invested heavily in toxic mortgage-backed securities, eventually leading to $32 billion in trade losses and the biggest bankruptcy in U.S. history. They took bank deposits, putting the U.S. taxpayer on the hook for those losses.

Hedge funds sponsored by Bear Stearns, which also took Americans' individual deposits, suffered massive losses on complex bets based on exotic subprime mortgages. During the crisis, Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley, and Citigroup also lost big on bets backed by subprime mortgages, and Goldman Sachs had to bail out a hedge fund.

Congress instructed the Federal Reserve to write strict rules to prevent that from ever happening again--to make sure that banks use the taxpayer safety nets to serve their customers, not bet against them.

Banks should be in the business of making investments in the real economy, not casino-style trades using families' checking and savings accounts. It took agencies more than 3 years to finalize the Volcker rule, which was completed in 2013 after the consideration of thousands upon thousands of public comments. Now they want to undo it all?

The rollbacks announced last week would gut core components of the Volcker rule. They would make it easier for banks to take speculative bets. The New York Times stated that the balance of power will tip immediately to traders from regulators. It will shift the power from watchdogs to the big banks themselves, from public servants who are looking to protect the public's interests to executives who are making tens of millions--occasionally, hundreds of millions--of dollars in their trading.

Instead of establishing strict limits on banks, the proposed rule changes will ask us to trust the banks to guard against risky trades. It says: Go ahead and police yourselves. Yet we know how well that turned out the last time.

The rule changes will allow banks to more easily place bets under the guise of so-called hedging. This increases the chances of yet another scandal like the London Whale episodes of 2012 when JPMorgan lost $6 billion in one bad bet. Do we want to make it easier for them to do it again with Americans' savings accounts? Why weaken the rules now?

It is not as if the banks are suffering under this rule. Think about how the banks are doing now. The FDIC released new data last month that banks increased their profits by 13 percent last year, and that is before accounting for the windfall from the tax bill. When you add in the tax bill, banks' profits went up 28 percent last year on top of the double-digit percent almost every year from 2010 and 2011 and 2012 and 2013 and 2014 and 2015 and 2016 and 2017.

The banking sector bought back $77 billion worth of stock last year. Last year, the CEOs of the six largest banks got an average raise of 22 percent. These were CEOs who were already making millions and millions of dollars. Keep in mind that the average bank teller in this country makes about $12.50 an hour. Yet the CEOs of these banks--some of them already making $10 million and $20 million a year--got a 22-percent increase.

This is not some dying industry that is crying out for help. If anything, it is an industry that needs a more watchful eye. The largest banks paid $240 billion worth of fines 10 years ago after the collapse. Wells Fargo can't go more than a few months without having a scandal. Deutsche Bank is struggling with poor risk management and inadequate capital.

So why put taxpayers and bank customers at risk? We have a pretty good idea why.

Just take a look who this administration has put in charge. The White House looks like a retreat for Wall Street executives. We have former OneWest banker Joseph Otting running the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. As if the Volcker rule rollback were not bad enough, he announced last week that he wants to get banks into the business of financing payday loans. Otting has other plans to gut the Community Reinvestment Act--a 40-year-old law that ensures that banks serve their communities.

Fed Vice Chair Randal Quarles recently gave a speech, saying that, just as we predicted, the Federal Reserve wants to loosen rules on foreign megabanks--these banks that are in this country, like Deutsche Bank and Santander and some of these big banks--that have, clearly, from time to time, abused the public trust. We are going to loosen the rules that regulate foreign banks in this country? He said last week's changes to the Volcker rule were just the start. He said it was the first effort to weaken the rule.

People like Randal Quarles--people who didn't spot the crisis the last time they were watchdogs, when they were in government 15 years ago, people who profited off the very crisis they failed to prevent-- may have forgotten what these risky bets did to so many families in this country. Maybe they have succumbed to the collective amnesia that affects more and more people in this town. Families in my State haven't forgotten. Workers' savings were wiped out. They watched college

accounts and retirement savings shrink and shrink. Hopes and dreams were dashed.

Americans can't afford to go back to the days when Wall Street gambled with their hard-earned money. The crisis has cast a long shadow over these families. Today, 4 out of 10 adults can't afford an emergency expense of $400. If your car breaks down and it costs $500 or $600, you don't have the money to do that if you are much of the American public. You go to a payday lender who charges you exorbitant interest rates. You go back and go back because you can't get ahead.

One in four renters pays more than 50 percent in income to keep a roof overhead. One in four renters pays 50 percent in income or more to keep a roof overhead. One bad thing happens in their lives--a child gets sick; they miss work for a few days; they can't make payments because they have had broken-down cars. All kinds of things can happen. They can be evicted, and many of them are. More and more workers have irregular schedules and incomes that vary up and down from month to month. It is those Americans we are sent here to serve.

It also comes back to whose side you are on. Are you going to stand with hard-working Americans or with risky Wall Street traders? We need to go home and listen a little more to the people we serve and a little less to special interests. That is how we create an economy that values work and that serves the common good, not by falling all over ourselves in this body to serve Wall Street.

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

Mr. President, last week, Pope Francis released an unprecedented document detailing what is wrong with our financial system. That the Pope thought it was that important to weigh in tells you a lot about where we are as a nation.

We have an economy, the Pope noted, that defines success by corporate profits and measures time in quarterly earnings reports. That is not how families think. Washington may think that way, corporate CEOs may think that way, but families mark time in school years, in 30-year mortgages, and in years left to save for retirement. That is why the Pope called our current financial system ``an inadequate framework that excludes the common good.''

Right now, working families are struggling in this country. The economic statistics may look rosy, but they mask serious problems that hold too many workers back and prevent entire communities from sharing in that growth.

The Pope warned last week that ``work itself, together with its dignity, is increasingly at risk of losing its value.'' Work is increasingly at risk of losing its value. Our economy simply doesn't value work the way it should.

Over the past 40 years, the link between productivity and wage increases has eroded. Profits have gone up, CEO compensation has gone up, worker productivity has gone up, but wages have been stagnant. Workers simply don't get the help they should in compensation. Workers simply don't share in the wealth they create for stockholders and the wealth they create for executives and the wealth they create for CEOs.

Wages have ticked up a tiny bit recently, but, looking at the long run, they have been largely flat. Think about this: If there are 100 people in the Galleries, if they are average--maybe they are, maybe they aren't. If there are 100 people in the Galleries, 44 of them can't afford an emergency expense of $400. Think about that. If they are a $15-an-hour worker and their car breaks down and it costs $600, what do they do? They go to get a payday loan, and we know what happens when they do that. Forty-four percent of American adults can't afford an emergency expense of $400.

This is even more troubling: One in four renters in this country spends at least half their income on housing. If one thing goes wrong in their lives--if their child gets sick--they are unlikely to have sick leave or vacation days. So if their child gets sick, they either send their child to school sick or they stay home with their daughter or son and lose a day's pay. And if they are spending 50 percent of their income on housing, what happens? They are likely to be evicted, likely to be foreclosed on if they own their home and then their lives really spiral down.

In light of all that, this Congress thought the best thing to do was pass another giveaway to the big banks because Wall Street hasn't done enough. This body can't help itself. They fall all over themselves. The lobbyists going in and out of Leader McConnell's office, and the Wall Street lobbyists--the White House increasingly looks like a retreat for Wall Street executives. This body just falls all over itself. We always have to help Wall Street. Over the next 7 or 8 years, 80 percent of the tax-cut bill that was passed last year will go to the richest 1 percent of the country, as if they need the help.

The giveaway to the big banks the President is going to sign tomorrow comes on the heels of a $1.5 trillion--how much is a trillion? A trillion is 1,000 billion. How much is a billion? A billion is 1,000 million. It was a $1.5 trillion deficit-financed tax cut for millionaires and more likely billionaires who control one political party in this body. It was tax cuts for billionaires and corporations that ship jobs overseas. Apparently that is just not enough, so this week, the House passed a bill loosening taxpayer protections on big banks that received a combined $239 billion in taxpayer bailouts. Think about that. It weakens stress tests for all large banks. It opens the door to less oversight of foreign megabanks.

This bill also eliminates data-gathering that guards against mortgage discrimination. We are bringing back redlining. There has been no racial discrimination in housing in this country, apparently, so let the banks and let the government that sometimes goes along with the banks get that red pencil--it is done with computers now--and draw around those neighborhoods so that those families--often people of color but not always--can't get equal access to home mortgages.

The Congressional Budget Office, which is the independent, nonpartisan scorekeeper, confirmed that this bill that just passed would increase the likelihood of a big bank failure and a financial crisis and would add $670 million to the deficit.

What problem exactly is this Congress trying to solve?

One of my favorite quotes is from Abraham Lincoln. He was in the White House, and his staff wanted him to stay there and win the war and free the slaves and preserve the Union. He said: No. I have to go out and get my ``public opinion baths.''

When I go back to Cleveland, where I live, or when I see my grandkids in Columbus or when I go anywhere else in the State, I go out and listen to people, and I try to get these public opinion baths. Never once have I heard somebody say: You know, Senator, with the problems we have, the first thing we have to do is weaken regulations to help Wall Street. I never hear that. The only people who say that are bankers and a bunch of politicians who are all well compensated, who have very good healthcare paid for by taxpayers, and who do what the banks want them to do.

The FDIC--the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation--released new data this week. Banks increased their profits by 13 percent over the last year. Of those 100 people in the Galleries, how many of them got a 13-percent raise last year? Well, banks increased their already strong profits by another 13 percent. It has happened almost every year this decade, since Congress bailed out the banks 8 years ago. That 13 percent is not even counting the windfall profits they got from the windfall tax bill. When they take the tax bill into account, banks profits went up not 13, not 15, not 20, but 28 percent.

The banking sector bought back $77 billion worth of stock last year. Do you know what that means? That is all about raising compensation for the biggest stockholders and the CEO. The average bank teller in this country makes $26,000 a year. Bank profits are up. CEO compensation is up. They are all doing very well. They got a big tax cut. The average teller makes $26,000.

At my high school reunion in Mansfield a couple of years ago, I sat across the table from a woman with whom I graduated. She has worked as a teller in a large, well-known bank for 30 years, and she makes $30,000 a year. She has worked there for 30 years. But the bank CEOs are doing very well--

millions and millions of dollars in compensation.

If these banks fail again, it will be those tellers, it will be the middle manager, it will be the millions of other American taxpayers who will be called on to bail them out. That is why we did Wall Street reform--Dodd-Frank--several years ago. We passed a law that created important protections for the financial system, for taxpayers, for homeowners, to hold banks and watchdogs accountable and prevent another crisis.

Do you know what? The day that bill was signed, the chief Financial Services--do you know what the chief bank lobbyist in this city did? The day it was signed, he said: ``You know, it is halftime.''

What does that mean? ``It is halftime'' means that you might have passed this law that we didn't like--we, Wall Street--but we are going to fight like hell to weaken the rules to implement the law. And once we get a Republican majority and we have a majority leader and, further down the hall, a Speaker of the House who does whatever Wall Street asks them to do, then it will be time to come back and weaken the laws.

That is what happened with the election of this President and the election of the majority leader and the Speaker of the House. It is time to go back to Wall Street and say: How can we help you, sir? It is almost always a sir.

Another bank lobbyist, when he talked about these negotiations, said: We don't want a seat at the table; we want the whole table.

Wall Street greed knows no bounds. That is why it is a huge concern that the White House looks like a retreat for Wall Street executives. Special interests are getting the whole table. The President is signing the big bank giveaway into law.

Here is the last point I want to spend a little time on. They are trying to install yet another Wall Street nominee with the troubling record of dismissing the harm Wall Street inflicted on Main Street-- Jelena McWilliams, who is listed as Ms. McWilliams of Ohio, my State. I would like to support a fellow Ohioan. She hasn't really lived in Ohio very long. I know she has moved back. But I would still like to support a fellow Ohioan. She has been nominated to be the Chair of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, but she has never supported the need for strong rules and tough supervision for the banking system.

At her nomination hearing, she declined to acknowledge the role that excessive bank borrowing played in causing the 2008 collapse. What are we going to do? On whom are we going to blame the bank collapse, the economy going into the toilet, the fact that millions of Americans lost jobs, millions of Americans had their homes foreclosed on, and billions and billions of dollars were lost from seniors' retirement accounts? We are going to blame that on them? Wall Street, of course, had nothing to do with it.

Right now, the Fed is considering a proposal to weaken protections and give a $120 billion windfall to the eight largest banks. Even former Chairs and Vice Chairs of the FDIC appointed by Republicans, two people I admire--Sheila Bair, who used to be chief of staff for Bob Dole, appointed to the FDIC by President Bush and kept by President Obama; and Thomas Hoenig, another Republican from the Kansas City Fed and a Republican regulator--they have opposed this proposal. But Mrs. McWilliams refused to do so.

On issue after issue--payday lending at banks, cost-benefit analysis, the Volcker rule--she has shown no independence from this White House that looks like a retreat for Wall Street executives.

The FDIC was designed to be independent and nonpartisan. We don't need another rubberstamp from Wall Street's agenda on the FDIC board, particularly when we have no commitment to move the nominations for Democratic seats. We need independent thinkers at these agencies who are willing to push back against a big-bank agenda.

Last week, Fed Vice Chair Randall Quarles gave a speech saying--just as we predicted--the Federal Reserve wants to loosen rules on foreign megabanks. So it is not just that we are doing favors for Wall Street, but we are doing favors for these multi-decabillion or hundreds of billions of dollars foreign banks. We decided to make it easier on them.

Yesterday, former OneWest banker Joseph Otting announced that he wants banks to get into the business of payday loans. They have always said they have nothing to do with these payday loans. Well, they do. Otting has other plans to gut the Community Reinvestment Act--a 40-year old law that ensures that banks serve their communities. And we could spend hours detailing what Mick Mulvaney is doing to the Consumer Protection Bureau

In closing, I will go back to the Pope's message. He noted that ``while most of [the financial industry's] operators are singularly animated by good and right intentions, it is impossible to ignore the fact that the financial industry . . . is a place where selfishness and the abuse of power have an enormous potential to harm the community.''

A little selfishness, a little abuse can have massive consequences when it comes to the financial system. Families in Ohio can't afford that risk. It is our job to protect those families.

The Pope said: ``Those entrusted with political authority find it difficult to fulfill to their original vocation as servants of the common good.''

We should listen a little more to the people we serve, and we should listen a little less to Wall Street. We should break the addiction to Wall Street money. We should break our allegiance to Wall Street interests. That is how we create an economy that values work and create an economy that serves the common good and not corporate special interests.

I ask my colleagues to vote against the nomination of Ms. McWilliams.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, first, I want to add my comments to those by my friend from Florida, Senator Rubio, about China.

I remember years ago, when I was helping to lead the opposition to China's admission into the World Trade Organization, when American CEOs came to this body and said one after another to Members of Congress that they wanted access to billions of Chinese consumers when what they really wanted was access to hundreds of millions of Chinese workers. U.S. companies, as part of a business plan, consistently shut down production, whether it was in the Florida Panhandle or whether it was in Northeast Ohio, and moved those productions overseas. They enriched that Communist government and gave China the wherewithal that Senator Rubio talks about now.

That is the importance of the CFIUS legislation we did yesterday in the Banking Committee that Senator Crapo, Senator Van Hollen, and I worked on. It is the importance of many of the issues that Senator Rubio raised, so I thank my colleague from Florida.

Mr. President, I rise to oppose the nomination of Brian Montgomery. He has been nominated by the President to serve in the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development as an Assistant Secretary of Housing and as the Federal Housing Commissioner.

If confirmed, Mr. Montgomery would oversee the Federal Housing Administration, the FHA, which insures loans for homeowners, multifamily rental buildings, and healthcare facilities originated by HUD-approved mortgage lenders; oversees HUD's Housing Counseling Program; and provides rental assistance for over 1.2 million low-income seniors, individuals with disabilities, and families.

We are considering this nomination at a time when the Nation faces all kinds of housing challenges. Thanks to a deep shortage of affordable rental housing--think about this--a quarter of all renters, of all households, are paying more than half of their incomes for housing. That means, if anything goes bad in their lives--if their cars break down on the way to work or if their children are sick, and they have to decide to send their children to school anyway or to stay home and lose a day's pay and get behind on their rent--then everything will go bad for them.

Far too many creditworthy borrowers still struggle to access sustainable credit in the mortgage market, particularly in communities of color. In February, the Center for Investigative Reporting released data showing that people of color were far more likely--in some cases, more than five times as likely--to be denied conventional mortgages. They found this data in 61 metropolitan areas around the country. It is not limited to only a few places.

Mr. Montgomery, in his having served previously in the position for which he has been nominated, would bring both valuable experience and an appreciation for the importance of the programs he would lead if he is confirmed. He has spoken about the value of the FHA as both a responsible engine of homeownership and a countercyclical tool to ensure that mortgage credit remains available. He has also supported the Office of Housing's affordable housing program. That is the good news.

The bad news is that I am concerned that Mr. Montgomery, in the interest of making the FHA a better partner to the mortgage industry after having served in the industry as a board member or adviser, will lose sight of the interests that FHA and consumers have. Following his previous tenure at HUD, Mr. Montgomery cofounded a consulting firm that provided a range of services to financial services companies, services that included helping FHA participants minimize penalties from HUD enforcement actions. He also sits on the boards of companies whose businesses could be affected by FHA and Federal housing policies.

Perhaps more troubling is that Mr. Montgomery has stated concerns about ``excessive'' Federal enforcement efforts against mortgage lenders in the years following the mortgage crisis, including pursuing claims under the False Claims Act.

In late last year, the Trump administration's Department of Justice noted ``the False Claims Act serves as the government's primary civil remedy to redress false claims for government funds and property'' and further noted that recoveries under the act are ``a message to those who do business with the government that fraud and dishonesty will not be tolerated.''

The False Claims Act was cited in several post-crisis Federal enforcement actions, including a $1.2 billion settlement with Wells Fargo in 2016 and in a 2014 settlement with JPMorgan Chase for ``knowingly originating and underwriting noncompliant mortgage loans submitted for insurance coverage and guarantees'' at the FHA.

Obviously, fraud has no place in FHA programs. However, without a strong

signal that fraud and dishonesty will not be tolerated, some lenders who don't play by the rules will, once again, push the envelope with damaging effects to families and taxpayers.

I hope that Mr. Montgomery proves me wrong and that under his leadership, HUD will emerge as a strong advocate for consumers and affordable housing and assisted families. It is hard for me to believe that, though, when you look down the street at the White House, and the White House, frankly, looks like a retreat for Wall Street executives and those connected to those financial interests.

Consumers and families need an advocate at HUD. So far, the administration's response to our rental housing shortage, unbelievably enough, has been to propose the slashing of billions from housing programs and the raising of rent on low-income, HUD-assisted families, seniors, and people with disabilities. After all, as the HUD Secretary said--after giving this tax cut where 80 percent of the tax cut, of the $1-plus trillion, went to the richest 1 percent of people in this country--they had to make cuts to the cleanup of Lake Erie, which Senator Klobuchar and I care so much about; they had to make cuts in Head Start; and they had to propose raising the eligibility age for Social Security and Medicare. They had to make these cuts. That was part of the deal of a tax cut for the rich. So it is just a little hard for us to buy in to some of their reasoning.

The administration has been dismantling consumer protections and eroding fair housing enforcement at HUD and the CFPB. Just yesterday, Congress passed legislation making it harder to detect and protect against violations of fair housing laws, particularly reverse redlining, as if we didn't deal with that issue decades ago. We all should come to agreement that redlining is wrong. It devastated borrowers and communities during the crisis, and it hasn't gotten a whole lot better.

I hope Mr. Montgomery, when he is confirmed, will use his office to advocate for housing solutions that work for our families and our communities. These matters are far too important for too many Americans to do otherwise.

I oppose his nomination. I hope I am wrong. I hope he actually does the things that someone in that position at HUD should do.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank the journalists of this country, who are not enemies of the people and who do their jobs every day, explaining complicated issues and fighting every day to do things as straightforwardly and honestly as they can. So I start 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, when we look at what this body has done over the past year and a half, when we look at what the U.S. Senate stands for and what the 100 Members of the Senate have done in the last 18 months, unfortunately, one thing is really clear: Corporations get handout after handout while ordinary Americans get the shaft.

Corporations are doing really, really, really well, especially those companies that shut down production in places like Mansfield, Toledo, Lima, and Gainesville and moved production overseas; those companies are rewarded. They are rewarded because down the hall, often in the dead of night, lobbyists gather in the majority

leader's office and write tax legislation, write healthcare legislation, and write consumer legislation that always helps the richest and the biggest and the most profitable in our country and leaves out the middle class, working families, and low-income Americans.

We saw it with the tax bill. Eighty percent of the benefits over the course of this bill--80 percent of the benefits, $4 out of every $5--go to the top 1 percent of earners in this country. Reports show that corporations have funneled their tax savings to executives and investors over workers by a three-to-one margin.

The people who wrote this tax bill promised us that the money saved by large corporations--their tax rates were cut from 35 to 22 percent and other kinds of tax goodies were bestowed on the largest corporations in this country. They promised the tax savings would go to higher wages for workers and investments in communities that produce more jobs. Do my colleagues know what happened not too many weeks ago? General Motors near Youngstown, OH, announced they were laying off 1,500 workers.

General Motors saved billions of dollars under the tax bill, but that money didn't go to Youngstown or Ohio or the workers, and it didn't go to investments in communities; it went to the executives in higher compensation. Right before the tax break, the five top-earning executives at General Motors brought home $100 million last year. That was before the tax cut, before taxes were raised on all of you in the middle class. Taxes are raised on working families over time, and the tax breaks go to the richest people in this country.

We saw it with the tax bill. We saw it with the rollback in protections for consumers. It is easier for big banks and payday lenders to take advantage of their customers and deny those customers their day in court when they are cheated.

We see it in healthcare legislation when Members of this body--well- paid U.S. Senators, well-paid, get good benefits, good healthcare coverage--were willing to vote time and again to take that healthcare coverage away from consumers. In Ohio alone, 500,000 people right now-- over the course of the last few years--have gotten opioid treatment for their addiction because they had insurance under the Affordable Care Act. These Members of the Senate have tried to take it away from them.

Now the question is: Are we going to see it again? Are we going to see the bias in this body for the wealthiest, largest corporations on a tax bill, on a bank bill, on a healthcare bill--are we going to see it again with net neutrality? Are my colleagues going to allow corporate special interests to shut down the free and open internet or, for once--for once--is this body going to stand for the people we serve?

Net neutrality rules keep the internet free from corporate interference. Protecting those rules is vital to protecting free speech and consumer choice and access to public information.

But last December, the FCC--the Federal Communications Commission--on a party-line vote, where there is a majority of Republicans on this Commission, voted to repeal those rules by one vote, allowing internet providers to slow down internet speeds and offer better connectivity to the highest bidder.

I don't know any individual in Dayton or Cincinnati or Gallipolis or Bellaire, OH, who has said to me: I don't want net neutrality; I want corporations to be able to charge different rates and stick it to people with low incomes and offer something better to those people who are wealthy. I have never heard anybody say that.

I know companies that benefit from changing the net neutrality rules; I don't know any individuals who want to do that. But it is not individuals and the middle class that control this body or control the Federal Communications Commission. It is the people who represent the largest corporate interests.

We know that without net neutrality rules, broadband providers can charge customers more for faster speeds, squeezing out startups, squeezing out nonprofits and rural consumers--consumers who can't afford to pay an extra fee. They could be forced to pay for internet packages the way we do cable packages--paying more for popular sites and to have pages load faster. Anyone who has ever been on the phone negotiating packages with their cable company knows how frustrating it can be and knows where this could be headed.

High-speed internet is expensive enough as it is. Customers already have too few choices. In some cases in Ohio, for instance, people in my State have no choice at all. I will never forget that not too many years ago I was talking to a high school sophomore who told me she lives in very hilly Appalachia, Southeast Ohio, and she told me that she can't really study at home because she doesn't have access to the internet, to any kind of high-speed internet, because she lives in a valley. She goes to her grandmother's up on a hill to study so she can do her school work the way she needs to. If we don't stand up to the Federal Communications Commission, if we don't stand up to these big telecommunications companies, if we don't stand up and do the right thing here, that will continue to be a problem and increasingly be a problem for far too many Ohioans. A free and open internet that levels the playing field for entrepreneurs and startups to compete with big corporations is what we need to have.

So many of my colleagues love to talk about their support for business, but the question is which businesses. It is small businesses that drive job creation. It is small businesses that create two-thirds of all net new jobs. These are the companies that will be hurt the most if the biggest corporations--again, in this Senate--are allowed to gouge them for internet fees.

This shouldn't be partisan. Nobody separates themselves as Republicans and Democrats out in my State on these kinds of issues, but here it is partisan. Here it is partisan because, first of all, the administration looks like a retreat for Wall Street executives, with this huge--this very decided bias toward the wealthiest people in this country. We know that on issue after issue, this body always sides with the largest corporations, but small businesses will be the ones that are hurt the most, as I said.

It shouldn't be partisan. We know the internet is vital to modern life and modern businesses.

Today I spoke to a woman from Cleveland, OH, a small business owner named Helen Quinn. She and her husband, Jesse Mason, started Mason's Ice Cream as a food truck that would go to local farmers markets. Using tools from Google and others, they were able to grow a following for their business. In 2014 they had reached a point where they had been successful enough that they were able to buy an old, iconic walkup ice cream shop in Ohio City, a neighborhood west of downtown Cleveland, not far from where I live. They are now operating full time. They employ local Clevelanders. They partner with other small businesses in the neighborhood.

This Friday, Helen and Jesse will join me in Cleveland for the Grow with Google summit to talk to other small businesses and entrepreneurs and job seekers about the best techniques for using the internet to grow businesses and find jobs. I would bet any amount that there will not be one person there--not one entrepreneur, not one job seeker, not one business owner--who says: Oh, I want to relax these net neutrality rules. I want to side with the big corporations instead of allowing free and equal access to the internet.

Why would we want to make that harder and more expensive? Rolling back these net neutrality rules will hurt the very people all of us claim we want to help--small businesses, startups, students, Americans looking for jobs. Those are the people who will get hurt.

Many large corporations will do well under this bill. That typically is the motive and mission for people who come out of the majority leader's office, these lobbyists who are always working on these issues to help corporate America. But rolling back these rules will hurt those very people we claim to want to help--again, small businesses and startups and entrepreneurs and students and Americans looking for jobs. That is why today we are filing a petition to get moving on a bill to overturn this disastrous decision and reinstate net neutrality rules.

It is another question fundamentally, as pretty much every debate here is, of whose side you are on. Are my colleagues going to stand, again, with the biggest telecom corporations as they stood with the big corporations that outsourced jobs, as they stand with Wall Street, as they stand with Big Tobacco, as they stand with the Koch brothers, as they stand with the big healthcare companies that deny insurance and deny healthcare to working families? Are they going to stand with them--with big telecom companies that slow down the internet, slow down the economy to pad their own bottom lines? Are we going to stand with the people we serve--with hard-working Americans and small businesses and students and entrepreneurs who need access to the internet?

The internet doesn't belong to a wealthy few. This Senate too often belongs to a wealthy few. It shouldn't. A lot have opposed those efforts. We know, though, that the internet should not belong to a wealthy few. The internet belongs to the people we were sent here to represent.

I hope my colleagues will join me and sign this petition to protect a free and open internet.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that privileges of the floor be granted to Rachael Hartford of my staff for the remainder of the day.

Mr. President, everyone in this Chamber knows how bad the opioid epidemic is. In my State, we have the second highest number of opioid deaths per capita in the country next to West Virginia. In my State, we also have more people die of opioid overdoses than any other State in the country. On average, 11 people died yesterday, 11 will die today, 11 will die tomorrow, and 11 will die on Thursday of opioid overdoses.

Last month at the Cleveland City Club, I called for a comprehensive, coordinated, and sustained public health campaign to fight addiction through education, prevention, treatment, and recovery.

We know from history that we cannot arrest or execute our way out of this crisis, whether in Montana or in Ohio. I met with law enforcement officers in every corner of my State. They shoulder a huge burden. They all tell me the same thing: They need resources to fight this. That is why I joined Senator Portman and a bipartisan group of our colleagues on the POWER Act--to get State and local law enforcement the high-tech tools they need to effectively screen for dangerous opioids, such as fentanyl.

We also know from history that those enforcement tools are just one piece of this fight. We need a comprehensive approach, and that means recognizing how important treatment and rehabilitation are. We don't write off thousands of Ohioans struggling with addiction. We simply don't write off entire communities. That is where drug courts come in. These courts are partnerships between law enforcement and treatment providers. They are spearheaded by judges who see the same people back in their courtrooms over and over again for drug offenses. These judges realized that traditional court proceedings simply were not working. They weren't curing people's addictions. Fines and jail time don't cure a medical condition. So judges set up these special courts where participants agree to enter treatment programs and are strictly supervised by law enforcement. If they successfully complete the program, instead of going to prison, they have a graduation ceremony.

We have seen this model work successfully for veterans. There are hundreds of these courts across the country, which are built around counseling and treatment. Veterans who get into

trouble with the law often face unique issues, such as PTSD.

My office recently visited the first Federal Veterans Court in the Southern District of Ohio, in Dayton. We saw the difference it made in the lives of men and women who served this country. The court was created by my friend, Judge Michael Newman, with the support of Chief Judge Edmund Sargus. It works with the VA to help address the issues veterans are struggling with. My staff met with Page Layman, a veterans justice outreach coordinator who helps the participants in the program. He talked about how one of the participants in the court had limited transportation options and lived in a rural area, so Mr. Layman drove to meet him at the local library. Judge Newman reports that 49 veterans have graduated from the program with their charges dropped and are now leading healthier lives.

We have the same opportunity with drug courts. The Ohio Office of Criminal Justice Services studies these courts. They found that drug courts enhance treatment, increase collaboration in the community, and save taxpayers money.

My staff and I met with judges across Ohio who are helping people break the cycle of drug use and crime. Earlier this year, we talked with Hocking County Municipal Court Judge Fred Moses while he was in town as a State of the Union guest of Representative Steve Stivers of Ohio. He started an innovative drug court program just outside Chillicothe, OH, in 2012. As a judge, he saw the opioid epidemic coming years before most folks in Washington saw it. He started the first medication-assisted drug court program certified in my State. Five years later, his programs are reuniting families, cutting down on repeat offenses, and helping participants get jobs.

He and his staff are improving the lives of people in Southeast Ohio and serving as a model for other drug courts around the State and country. Since the program began, more than 30 other judges have visited Hocking County to learn about its success. Now we are seeing similar success all over Ohio.

Tuscarawas County has two drug courts--COBRA, in the Common Pleas Court, and the New Philadelphia Municipal Recovery Court. Judge Elizabeth Lehigh Thomakos runs the COBRA court, which held its 125th graduation. One graduate said:

When I couldn't get clean, you helped me get clean. You

guys believed in me when I couldn't believe in myself.

Another:

My daughter has her mamma back. A healthy mom, hard-

working, motivated, goal-oriented mom, who smiles again and

is grateful in all she does. By this program shaping my

future, it has also shaped hers.

The Recovery Court in New Philadelphia is run by Judge Nanette DeGarmo VonAllman. She hears so many stories like that one. She told the Times Reporter--the newspaper in Tuscarawas County--``We try to give them and their families hope: that treatment works and people do recover.'' Programs all over Ohio and all over the country are offering families that hope.

In Cleveland, the Cuyahoga County Drug Court, under Judge David Matia, has graduated more than 300 people. Both that court and the Cleveland Municipal Drug Court operate under the Stephanie Tubbs Jones Greater Drug Court umbrella, named for my former colleague.

In Marion, OH, Common Pleas Court Judge Jim Slagle, a longtime friend of mine, held a graduation ceremony for eight graduates at the end of last month. Jennifer, one of the women who spoke, talked about her granddaughter. She said:

The most challenging part was admitting I needed this.

When she found out her granddaughter was going to be placed in foster care:

I knew I had to do something. I needed to get myself

together. I had to do it for her.

She has now been clean for 2 years. She has custody over her 18- month-old granddaughter.

These are the kinds of success stories we hear all over the State and all over the country. If we are successful in this fight, hundreds of thousands of fewer Americans will use opioids, but we will also have hundreds of thousands more who have used opioids but whose lives are not lost or ruined. They are going to be living with and managing their addiction. That is why we need to expand and build on these approaches.

I am also working with my Republican colleague, Senator Capito of West Virginia, on bipartisan legislation--the CARE Act--to combine existing resources from the Departments of Labor and Health and Human Services to fund combined addiction treatment and workforce training efforts.

I hear the same thing from mayors from New Philadelphia, Middletown, Chillicothe, and Piqua: Employers can't fill openings because workers can't pass drug tests. Ohioans struggling with addiction--even those who have completed successful programs like these drug courts--can't find jobs. Our bill will help those Americans continue their recovery with good jobs that provide stability.

The government is spending money on drug treatment, mostly through Medicaid, and the government, through the Department of Labor, is spending money on job retraining. Why not put them together so that people, while they get clean and get whole, are ready to go to work because they have had that job training?

I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting the CARE Act and finding ways to support successful drug court programs around the country.

Mr. President, tomorrow the Senate will vote to move forward with the President's nominee to join the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. It is a new low that sets a dangerous standard for judges who have the power to make critical decisions that impact the everyday lives of the people we serve.

Take a look at Judge Michael Brennan's record. At his hearing, he refused to acknowledge the ways our criminal justice system is biased against Americans of color. He made statements condoning judicial activisim. He argued that judges are justified in not following precedent if they feel it was incorrectly decided. Think about that for a minute.

I am not a lawyer, but I understand this about our courts: A judge who feels no obligation to follow precedent laid out by higher courts is not a judge; that is someone who has ceased to be bound by any standards guiding a judge. Precedent is the backbone of our legal system. Saying that judges can disregard it if they feel it is incorrect would be a radical departure. Think about how this could work. In a Brennan court, it could be OK for a judge not to follow a Supreme Court decision like Brown v. Board of Education, which desegregated schools, as long as that judge--in this case, I guess, Judge Brennan--believes the case was incorrect. If you disregard precedent, decades of legal progress could be rolled back. The well- established rights of so many Americans would be at risk.

During his hearing, Brennan claimed he was only talking about precedent from the same circuit, but the article where he originally made these arguments made no such distinction then, and Brennan even admitted that at the hearing.

We cannot entrust the people we serve to a judge who can't be trusted to follow settled law.

Brennan would also be the first judge in more than 35 years to be confirmed over the objection of a Senator from his home State. Think about that. That doesn't even account for the backstory that I am going to mention. He would be the first judge in 35 years to be confirmed over the objections of a Senator from his home State. Senator Baldwin from Wisconsin has not returned her blue slip on Brennan. In departure from Senate tradition, Republicans had a hearing and are now allowing a vote on Brennan's nomination despite not having a blue slip from Senator Baldwin.

The seat Brennan is nominated for has been vacant since 2010. Why? Because Senator Johnson, now the senior Senator from Wisconsin, did not return a blue slip on President Obama's first nominee to fill this seat. This body honored Senator Johnson's blue slip and was not going to confirm that nominee because the blue slip had not been returned. That was following the

precedent of this Senate--decades of precedent. The nominee therefore did not receive a hearing, let alone a vote. Now Republicans are refusing to show Senator Baldwin the same level of courtesy and respect.

We have a blue-slip procedure in place not out of courtesy to Senators personally but to the Americans we serve. Senator Baldwin represents the people who will be most affected by Judge Brennan's decisions. She opposes his nomination. Her blue slip should be respected.

The people served by the Seventh Circuit and Americans all over the country need judges who will follow the law. To be sure, Judge Brennan is not that judge. We can do better. We should do better. I ask my colleagues to oppose his nomination.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Madam President, I thank the Senator from Montana for the unanimous consent request.