Benjamin Cardin

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I regret that my colleague has raised the objection. Let me point out that this bill has been pending in previous Congresses. We have gone through all of the challenges my friend has already talked about. There are real problems that are occurring in our States. We had billboards in minority communities highlighting voter fraud in an effort to intimidate African-American voters. We have seen information sent out with wrong dates of elections. We have seen robocalls pretending to be from a particular campaign when they are from the opposite campaign in an effort to intimidate voters from participating. We can always find reasons why we shouldn't consider legislation, but the truth of the matter is that we have given the OK in our system for some to say it is all right to try to intimidate voters from voting-- something I would hope this Congress would want to go on record to say it should have no place in America, particularly when it is targeted at minority communities in an effort to reduce their numbers. I regret my colleague has objected, and I hope that we will have a chance to take up election security legislation. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CARDIN

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 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. CARDIN

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

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, I move to proceed to S.J. Res. 53.

Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, I know of no further debate.

Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, as the senior Senator from Maryland, I want to comment on the remarks by Leader Schumer about the great loss we had that we learned about early this morning--the death of Congressman Elijah Cummings. I found out about this as I awoke this morning. It is a sad day for Baltimore, for Maryland, and for our country. Two days ago, I had a chance to talk with Maya Rockeymoore Cummings, Congressman Cummings' wife, to inquire as to how the Congressman was doing. She explained to me that he was still in the hospital but he was using every ounce of energy he had to carry out his responsibilities as chairman of the Oversight Committee and as a Member of the House of Representatives. We all know that he used his energy every day on behalf of the people he represented. Our Nation has lost one of the great champions for social justice. What a powerful voice he was for those whose voices would otherwise not have been heard. It is a great loss. It is a great loss for the people of Baltimore--his record of accomplishment on behalf of our city and our region is well known--and it is a personal loss for me. I first got to know Elijah Cummings when he was elected to the Maryland General Assembly. I was speaker of the house. I recognized that here was a person coming in with incredible talent. I gave him an opportunity to use that talent, and he used it so effectively on behalf of the people of his district as a member of the Maryland General Assembly. Congressman Cummings and I have a lot in common. We both attended the same public high school in Baltimore City, Baltimore City College High School--different years. He graduated from the University of Maryland Law School, and I also graduated from the University of Maryland Law School. We served together in the Maryland General Assembly, and we served together in the House of Representatives. God gave him the talent to communicate like no one I have heard. There was incredible passion in his voice. I had the opportunity to see firsthand what he was able to accomplish on behalf of the people. What a legacy. He used every moment. He achieved the high position of chairman of the Oversight Committee but never lost his sense of purpose for the people he represented. He went home to Baltimore every night. You could see him in the community every day at schools and at church. He never lost the passion for the people he represented. What a legacy he has left for all of us. We can't fill the void that has been created by Congressman Cummings' passing, but all of us need to step up and help carry out that legacy of public service. It is a terrible loss for the people of our community and a terrible loss for our Nation. Our prayers go out to Maya Rockeymoore Cummings and his family in this incredibly difficult time. We will commit ourselves to carrying on the legacy of a great American, our friend Elijah Cummings. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I come to the floor to talk about S.J. Res. 53. We will have a chance to vote on that tomorrow. I am joined by my colleague from Maryland, Senator Van Hollen, and my colleague on the Environment and Public Works Committee, Senator Whitehouse from Rhode Island. I also want to thank Senator Carper for his leadership as the senior Democrat on the Environment and Public Works Committee in regard to this resolution. This resolution will be voted on tomorrow. It deals with the CRA-- Congressional Review Act--vote in regard to the Trump administration's affordable clean energy rule. That is probably a misnomer. It is what I call the dirty powerplant rule. The CRA would repeal that so that we can go back to the Clean Power Plan that was promulgated under the Obama administration in 2015. Let me explain what the Trump-era rule would do. First, it would repeal the Clean Power Plan that was issued in 2015. That plan had real results in it. It set limits on a powerplant's production of dangerous carbon. It made meaningful progress. The rule promulgated by President Trump's administration would repeal that and substitute it with a plan that would be a powerplant judgment in each powerplant--coal-burning only--and would not take into consideration the powerplant mix of individual States. The previous rule allowed the States to figure out how to reach those goals. So a State could do a mix. They could start using natural gas. They could start using renewable energy. They could meet their goals that are set with a reduction of about one-third of these dangerous carbon emissions but with local discretion on how to reach those goals. The rule that was promulgated that I am seeking to reverse allows only efficiency per coal powerplants, does not allow the mixing of the different technologies, and prohibits the States from pursuing market- based plans. I am going to tell you, in my region of the country, we have what is known as REGI, which is a compact to reduce carbon emissions. We do it by energizing market forces so that we can get to friendlier sources of energy, which, by the way, has helped our region not only reduce carbon emissions but create green energy jobs, which is in our interest. Let me point out from the beginning that the powerplants are the largest stationary source of harmful carbon emissions. Why should everybody be concerned about it? We know its impact on climate change. We have seen the harmful impacts of climate change in America, from the wildfires out West to the flooding here in the East. We have seen the problems not only in our own community but throughout the world. In my own State of Maryland, we have had two 100-year floods within 20 months in Ellicott City, MD. The list goes on and on about the impact of climate change. We see the coastal line changing in our lifetime. We are seeing regular flooding. We are seeing habitable land become inhabitable. All of that is affected by our carbon emissions, and the Obama-era Clean Power Plan did something about it. The rule that we will have a chance to vote on tomorrow would do nothing about it. We see this as a public health risk. I can't tell you how frequently I have heard from my constituents who have someone in their family who has a respiratory illness: What can we do for cleaner air? Children are staying home from school because of bad air days. Parents are missing time from work. Premature deaths. All that is impacted by clean air. I talk frequently about the Chesapeake Bay. I am honored to represent the Chesapeake Bay region in the U.S. Senate, along with Senator Van Hollen, and we treasure the work that has been done. It has been an international model of all the stakeholders coming together in order to clean up the Chesapeake Bay, and we are making tremendous progress on dealing with the sorts of pollution coming from runoff or from farming activities or development. But, quite frankly, we have not been successful in dealing with airborne pollutants that are going into the Chesapeake Bay. In Maryland, we are a downwind State. We need a national effort here. Maryland could be doing everything right, but if the surrounding States are not, we suffer the consequences. That is why the Clean Power Plan was so attractive in dealing with this issue, because it dealt with it with national goals. Establish how to attain them by the local governments. That is the way it should be. Let me give the numbers. The Clean Power Plan that is repealed by the rule under the Trump administration would have reduced dangerous carbon emission by about one-third. We believe the rule that was promulgated by the Trump administration could actually increase dangerous emissions. Let me use EPA's regulatory impact analysis. Looking at CO2--carbon dioxide--the Agency says that the Trump rule will reduce it by 0.7 percent. That is less than 1 percent. The Clean Power Plan issued by President Obama--19 percent. SO2s under Trump are 5.7 percent; under the Obama rule, 24 percent. NOX emissions under the plan that was promulgated under the Trump administration are 0.9 percent--less than 1 percent. Under the Clean Power Plan, it is 22 percent. We really are talking about whether we are serious about dealing with dangerous carbon emissions or whether we are going to at best maintain the status quo; at worst, make things even worse. It saddens me that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are embracing the ACE rule, since it threatens to reverse much of the progress we have made in reducing air pollution--progress their conservationist Republican predecessors helped to spur. The Clean Air Act amendments, which established the sulfur dioxide--SO2-- cap-and-trade program, were adopted in 1990. This was never a partisan issue; cap-and-trade was originally a Republican idea. George Herbert Walker Bush was President. It passed the House of Representatives by a 401-to-21 vote. It passed this body, the U.S. Senate, by an 89-to-11 vote. It has been highly successful. During George W. Bush's Presidency, the EPA determined that the SO2 cap-and-trade program had a 40-1 benefit-to-cost ratio. The Supreme Court held in Massachusetts v. EPA that the EPA has a responsibility to regulate these carbon emissions. So that is exactly what was done in 2015, which is now being jeopardized because of the regulation that was issued under the Trump administration. I had a chance to serve in the State legislature. This is an affront to federalism. Innovation for green energy and jobs is prohibited under the rule that I am seeking to repeal. It is prohibited. That is why 22 States and 7 local governments have filed suit against this regulation. But we can act. The Congressional Review Act allows us to take action in this body, and that is why I filed that so we can take action. If we allow this rule to go forward, it will delay the implementation of carbon emission reductions--delay it. If we vote for the CRA, we will be back on track. We have already seen the U.S. leadership challenged in this area with President Trump's decision to withdraw from the Paris accord--the only nation in the world that has done so. Who has filled that void? Quite frankly, it has been China. Do we want to cede our leadership globally to a country with a controlled government economy like China or do we want to reassert U.S. leadership? We are going to have a chance to do that tomorrow with a vote in the U.S. Senate. I urge my colleagues to support the Congressional Review Act resolution I have filed, S.J. Res. 53. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, during National Hispanic Heritage Month, we are called to honor the contributions of a critical community--that of Hispanic Americans. Now accounting for 60 million individuals in the United States, these men and women are an essential pillar of our society. Although this group has grown significantly in recent decades, individuals of Hispanic descent and culture have been with our Nation since its very founding. Hispanic identity is a complex concept, at least with respect to how many in the United States traditionally understand race and ethnicity. The word ``Hispanic'' stems from ``Hispanic,'' the Latin name for the ancient Roman colonies on the Iberian Peninsula that also serves as the origin for the modem state of Espana, or Spain. It was there that the Spanish or Castilian language, culture, and people developed out of the convergence of Phoenicians, Greeks, Romans, Celts, Basques, Visigoths and Arabs, in addition to Christians, Muslims, and Jews. The story does not end there. Along the hallowed walls of the U.S. Capitol Rotunda are two paintings by John Vanderlyn depicting key historical scenes. In 1492, the Spanish Catholic Monarchs King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella agreed to sponsor the journey of Christopher Columbus in search of a passage to the East Indies. Columbus failed at this goal, but, as the Landing of Columbus illustrates, he did land in the island now named San Salvador in the Bahamas. This voyage prompted the Spanish exploration and colonization of the Americas, including North America, reaching as far as Mississippi in 1541, as depicted by William Henry Powell's Discovery of the Mississippi by De Soto, and even deep into the Pacific Northwest. Even then, however, we are still missing other key elements of the story. The Spanish were not alone. They encountered vast empires, the Aztecs and the Incas, in addition to hundreds of other peoples, from the Mapuche in Argentina to the Maya in Guatemala. Colonization was a bloody process that uprooted and killed millions of indigenous people. Moreover, the Spanish brought millions of Africans to the Americas as part of the Atlantic slave trade. Men, women, and children had to struggle in cruel and terrible conditions as the property of others. Nevertheless, it is undeniable that the indigenous and African communities have helped make the Hispanic community what it is today, whether it's in culture, art, music, food, language, or even the genetic makeup of the people themselves. Significant portions of the Hispanic community can trace their descent to these two groups--at least in part, if not entirely. The exploration and colonization that would lead to the creation of the Hispanic world in the Americas would, in turn, set the stage for English to do the same later, beginning with the first permanent settlement in Jamestown, VA, in 1607. Eventually, these English colonies would sever themselves from the British Empire and form the United States of America. But Spanish colonies would continue to influence our Nation throughout our history. Multiple territories, such as Florida, Texas, California, and Puerto Rico, became integral parts of our country. Others, inspired by the principles of the Enlightenment and the examples of the American and French Revolutions, became their own independent countries. They have since been our neighbors in the Western Hemisphere and some of our most critical partners in trade, security, and championing the virtues of democracy. Congress established National Hispanic Heritage Month from September 15 to October 15 in recognition of the pivotal contributions and legacy of this community that traces its roots to Spain, Mexico, Central America, South America, the Caribbean, and further beyond. Millions, such as the Hispanos of New Mexico and the Tejanos of Texas, are the descendants of settlers who have been on these lands for centuries. Starting in the twentieth century, millions of individuals from across the Hispanic world have come to our Nation as immigrants. Since 2000, the Hispanic population in Maryland has more than doubled, now accounting for half a million people, or nearly 10 percent of all Marylanders. Our State is home to a diverse community of individuals with origins from across the Hispanic world, with sizeable populations of Mexicans, Puerto Ricans, Guatemalans, Salvadorans, and Peruvians. Yet we must recognize that this community faces distinct challenges. Instability continues to hamper the abilities of already fragile states in our hemisphere, and dangerous conditions abroad prompt many to leave everything behind to pursue a safer existence. As the Hispanic-American population has grown, racism, hatred, and naked xenophobia have unfortunately grown with it. Given these trying circumstances, we must recognize the obligations that arise from our shared humanity to assist those in need and to welcome and celebrate our differences. Hispanic Americans have done so much to support and make the United States of America the exceptional nation that it is today. They have made groundbreaking discoveries and innovations in science and technology. They have shown us new ideas, art and music, and cuisine. They have created new products and jobs as entrepreneurs and business owners, and they have led our communities as dutiful elected representatives of the people. They have fought and are fighting today to protect our way of life and to promote our interests and ideals abroad. During National Hispanic Heritage Month, we celebrate this community's countless contributions, but not necessarily as something new. Hispanic Americans have played an important role in the American story since its very beginning.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I am here today to advocate on behalf of Maryland's four Historically Black Colleges and Universities that face a funding cliff next week. Without the immediate passage of the FUTURE Act, Bowie State University, Coppin State University, Morgan State University, and the University of Maryland Eastern Shore face a collective $4.2 million funding shortfall when the Higher Education Act's authorization for mandatory funding for these institutions lapses. This clean, bipartisan, 2-year reauthorization gives us breathing room to continue to negotiate the full reauthorization of the Higher Education Act without holding these historically underfunded institutions hostage. Our HBCUs and minority serving institutions know that they can count on this mandatory funding each year to strengthen their course offerings in in-demand STEM programs, make infrastructure improvements, and provide academic counseling and student support services to first generation and historically underrepresented students. This potential lapse in the authorization for mandatory funding is exacerbated by the inability of Congress to provide a fiscal year 2020 budget on time, leaving institutions in even more of a financial planning crunch. Throwing the budgets of these institutions into chaos directly harms their ability to serve their students and communities. If this mandatory authorization were to lapse, schools could not count on mandatory funds to backfill spending at a later date. Institutions would have to make decisions about reducing levels of academic services, delaying needed infrastructure investments, or make staffing decisions. This is an unnecessary obstacle that our HBCUs and MSIs do not need to face. I urge this body to join with the House of Representatives and pass the FUTURE Act to ensure this mandatory funding remains in place.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, earlier this month, I went to Joint Base Andrews, which, as I think many of you know, is not far from here. It is where the President boards Air Force One. The mission at Joint Base Andrews is broad. The Air Force does an incredible job in service to our country. I went there to take a look at the Child Development Center. The Child Development Center that I visited was first constructed in 1941 not as a childcare center but for other purposes. It has had serious challenges, as the Air Force put in their request to build a new childcare center--a new child development center. I visited classrooms that had to be closed because of a sewage backup, which happens regularly and flows into the kitchen area of this particular facility. I saw the results of a roof that had collapsed during a heavy snowstorm that now has been replaced, but the use of that part of the building is compromised. I saw the concerns expressed about pest control, about an HVAC system that does not work properly, and about a facility that doesn't have the capacity they need in order to deal with the needs of our Air Force personnel. It was for that reason that the Air Force has made this one of their top priorities in military construction, to replace this 1941 facility. Through the competitive process that is used under the Department of Defense, this project rose to a top priority and was included in the President's budget and approved by Congress at $13 million for a replacement. Let me read from the Air Force's justification in requesting these funds. It says: Not providing this facility forces members to use more expensive, less convenient and potentially lower quality off- base programs. These off-base child development centers typically cost $9,400 more than on-base, creating a severe financial strain on military personnel. Quality of life will be severely degraded, resulting in impacts to retention and readiness because Airmen and their families will not have a safe and nurturing environment for child care. That will be the consequences if we don't replace the structure. Why do I talk about that? Because this was one of 64 projects that were included in the President's emergency power transfer, taking this $13 million from the replacement of a child development center and using it for his wall. It was one of three projects in Maryland. We had $66.5 million. There was another project at Joint Base Andrews dealing with hazardous material, the place where they unload hazardous material. They want to do it away from where the President's plane flies. That makes abundant sense. That was cut and transferred over to the wall. For those of you who have been to Ft. Meade--an incredibly important facility--try to get there when you have a traffic problem. It is almost impossible. Part of the moneys that were transferred was to alleviate those concerns--the traffic. The President took 64 projects--$3.6 billion, including this Child Development Center at Joint Base Andrews, to use to pay for his wall. He told us during the campaign that this was being done in an effort-- that Mexico would pay for it. We now know that the airmen families at Joint Base Andrews are going to pay for this wall--$9,400 more per child because they don't have a safe facility. This facility has a hard time passing accreditation considering the situation. That is not me telling you this; this is the Air Force telling you this. Yet those funds were taken away. Why were they taken away? Because the President used his emergency declaration power to do this. I believe this was an unconstitutional abuse of power. Let me quote from the President himself. This is what the President said in the Rose Garden in announcing the so-called emergency. I am quoting the President of the United States: I could do the wall over a longer period of time. I didn't need to do this. But I'd rather do it much faster. Is that an emergency? Is that contradicting the direct dictate of Congress? Let me just remind my colleagues of the Constitution, article I, section 9, clause 7. It is the Congress that has the power of the purse strings. We are the ones who appropriate the money, not the President of the United States. He carries out our instructions. Yet he uses, by his own words, something he wanted to do for himself rather than a national emergency to transfer those funds. It is wrong. It is not just this Senator saying it is wrong; we got a letter from several Senators, former Senators and former Members of the House-- Republicans--who commented on this. The signatories to this letter include Senator Danforth, Mickey Edwards, Chuck Hagel, Jim Kolbe, Olympia Snowe, and Richard Lugar. They are respected Republican Members of this body. Let me quote from their letter. Our oath is to put the country and its Constitution above everything, including party politics or loyalty to a president. . . . The power of the purse rests with Congress . . . if you allow a president to ignore Congress, it will be not your authority but that of your constituents that is deprived of the protections of true representative government. This is not about loyalty to a President or a party loyalty; this is about exercising the constitutional responsibilities of the article I legislative branch of government. We just took a vote. We can do something about it--S.J. Res. 54, terminating the national emergency. We got a majority of the Senators who voted for it, 54 to 41, so it will move forward. We expect this will not be the last word, and that is why I am taking the floor time now. We are going to have another opportunity to do this. We may have an opportunity to override a Presidential veto. We are going to need more support. I urge my colleagues to please look at the Constitution of the United States we took the oath to uphold. Look at Members who have served here in the past who are warning us that this will come back to haunt our constituents in their constitutional checks and balances, having the Congress be the people's body here--not the President of the United States--in passing laws and making appropriations. Let us do the right thing. Let us exercise the checks and balances that are in our system. Let us see this S.J. Res. 54 become law. Let us reverse this emergency declaration. Let's do it for the Constitution. Let's do it for the U.S. Congress. Let's do it for the men and women in our military service who are being denied the necessary military construction projects, including those service men and women at Joint Base Andrews who need a child development center that protects the welfare of their children. For all those reasons, I hope this becomes law. With that, Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CARDIN

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

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, in February of this year, the House of Representatives passed what is known as the universal background check in regard to gun sales. Since that time, the Senate has had no action whatsoever on gun safety issues. Leader McConnell could bring this bill to the floor, and I am confident we have the support to pass it. I do hear from many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that we are waiting for the President, and unless the President signs off on a bill, they are not interested in bringing it up. The last time I checked the Constitution of the United States, the first article of the Constitution provides for the legislative branch of government, and that is us. We make the laws, not the President of the United States. It is up to us to deliver and consider legislation and pass legislation. Yet there is no action from the floor of the Senate. Leader McConnell will not bring up gun safety legislation. Every day we wait--every single day--100 people in America die from gun violence. That is why many of us are frequently speaking on the floor of the Senate about the need to consider gun safety legislation. It has been over 200 days since the House took bipartisan action on the universal background checks. Since that time, we have seen many mass shootings, including on August 3 in El Paso, August 4 in Dayton, and August 31 in Odessa. There is no action on the floor of the Senate. Every day, there are people dying in our communities and in our homes from gun violence. Yet there is no action on the floor of the Senate. The United States is an outlier among the developed nations in the world. We have 10 times, 20 times, 30 times more instances of gun violence than in developed countries in the world. We have more guns in private ownership than the people of developed worlds, more suicides, more mass shootings, more gun violence. Yet there is no action on the floor of the Senate. The issue is kind of simple. Inaction is not an answer to gun violence in America. Americans are expecting us--the Members of the Senate--to consider gun safety legislation. We want the majority leader to bring that bill to the floor today before another 100 people die. Let us take action. I mentioned several times the bill that passed the House of Representatives over 200 days ago, the universal background checks. Let me just talk a moment about why that bill needs to be considered and passed as soon as possible. In 1993, we passed the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act. It provides for a presale check as to whether an individual is entitled to own a handgun. As I am sure my colleagues are aware, the Supreme Court of the United States has determined that the Second Amendment is not absolute. If you have been convicted of a violent crime, if you have mental issues, you are not entitled to have a handgun. The Brady presale check determines whether you fall into those categories, and they will deny you the right to buy a handgun if you do. Since its inception in 1993, 3 million sales have been stopped. It works. It is compliant with the Supreme Court, and it doesn't interfere with legitimate Second Amendment rights. It was passed in 1993. It is now 2019. Sellers of handguns have figured out a way to get around the 1993 law with private sales, gun shows, and internet sales. We didn't have internet gun sales in 1993. We need to close those loopholes. Here is the situation. Some States have done this. In the States that have done it, we see that the results are favorable. There is less gun violence in those States that have passed universal background checks. However, let me just tell you about the State of Maryland. Of the guns that are recovered from crime scenes in Maryland, 53 percent are guns that were acquired in a State outside of Maryland. We need universal background checks in order to provide the types of results that can keep our communities safer by keeping guns out of the hands of people who are not entitled to have guns. How do the American people feel about this? There are 90-plus percent who believe that we should have universal background checks. Yet there has been no action on the floor of the U.S. Senate. The Republican leader will not bring the bill to the floor. This is a bill that should have been passed a long time ago. Every day that we delay, there are another 100 deaths from gun violence. We shouldn't stop there. We should deal with assault-style military weapons. When someone has one of these assault weapons, within a matter of seconds, he can shoot off multiple rounds and kill multiple numbers of people. Even if you have those who come to the rescue--if law enforcement is on the scene or people are able to deal with the circumstances--in a matter of seconds, you can already have multiple casualties. We need to get rid of these military-style weapons in private ownership. When you talk to law enforcement officers and ask them what they fear the most when they go into a situation in which someone is armed, it is the assault weapons they fear. It is not fair to our law enforcement officers, who put their lives on the line for us and who rush into harm's way, to allow for these types of weapons to be available to the general public. We can do something about it. Let us take up legislation that restricts the private ownership of assault-style weapons. There has been no action, though, on the floor of the Senate. The Republican leader will not bring up any issues on gun safety. I could add legislation with regard to the large-capacity magazines. We see that. They are used in mass shootings because you can shoot off multiple rounds without reloading. Again, as we have seen in mass shooting circumstances, it has added to the number of deaths. It is not inconveniencing the public to restrict that type of capacity from being out there, which is known to cause harm by those who want to create a situation of mass casualties. Again, there has been no action on the floor of the Senate by the Republican leader. We have bipartisan legislation that would identify those individuals who pose extreme risks so that there is a red flag placed on those individuals that prevents them from being able to purchase handguns-- bipartisan legislation. Our States are acting, but there has been no action on the floor of the U.S. Senate. The Republican leader will not even bring that up. We could go over a whole host of other issues, such as mental health and earlier identification--those types of services. There are a lot of things we can do. I would hope that the one option that would be off the table would be that of doing nothing, but that seems to be the Republican leader's preferred option--to let this issue rest without there being any action taken by the Senate. It has been over 200 days since the House of Representatives acted, but there has been no action here on the floor of the Senate. I urge all of my colleagues to impress upon the Republican leader that it is well past time for us to consider gun safety legislation. Let us bring these bills to the floor. Let us not wait for the President of the United States. We are the legislative branch of government. Let us act and do the right thing to keep our communities and our homes safer. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, let me thank Senator Schatz for his comments. I hope every Senator will follow the points he is making because I think they are critically important. First and foremost, we are talking about the appropriate power of the legislative branch of government. We have the power to appropriate. We are the article I branch of government. We have appropriated money for border security. We have appropriated money for military construction. Congress clearly intended the monies that we appropriated for military construction to go to our military installations and our military families. We made that conscientious decision. Now the President is transferring funds from military construction that help our service personnel to the border wall. I say that because it is an unconstitutional grasp of power. It compromises the checks and balances that are in our Constitution. It is an abuse of power, but it is also affecting the quality of life of the men and women who have voluntarily agreed to join our military to protect our country. We can give you many examples. We are talking about $3.6 billion of funds that were taken from military construction that are now being used by the President to fund the border wall. It is not Mexico that is paying for this wall; it is the men and women who are serving our Nation who are going to pay for this wall and our military service. That is outrageous, and every Member of the Senate should be concerned about that. Let me talk about my own State of Maryland and the military construction projects in Maryland that would be directly affected. There is a road project at Fort Meade for $16.5 million. Fort Meade is just a few miles away from the Nation's Capital. For any of you who have had the opportunity to travel between Baltimore and Washington, it is about halfway when you come to Fort Meade. You will notice the challenges of trying to get onto Fort Meade's base. The mission being done at Fort Meade is a national security priority for this country, and these roads are critically important for our national security. It has been backed up a long time. Now, thanks to the President--if this goes forward--it will be backed up a lot longer. The second cut is $37 million to Joint Base Andrews for a HAZMAT cargo path. This is a matter of safety for the men and women who work at Joint Base Andrews. I hope all of you are familiar with Joint Base Andrews, which is located just a few miles from here. The Air Force is there. Many of us go through that facility. It is critical that they have the facilities to protect our Nation's Capital and protect the Members and personnel who use that facility. The President, again, is taking away from the safety of the mission at Joint Base Andrews. The one issue I want to talk about that really highlights the hypocrisy of this transfer is the cut of $13 million to a child development center at Joint Base Andrews. I want to read for my colleagues the justification given by the Air Force for this request. I am quoting: The existing child development center was originally constructed as a medical clinic in 1943, renovated to serve many purposes over the last 74 years and is inadequate for current needs. Presently, base child development center has over 37 children on a waiting list for enrollment. The existing facility has suffered from sewage backups, a leaking roof, HVAC failures, along with mold and pest management issues. Work orders continue to pile up despite heavy focus from [engineers], making it more difficult to ensure accreditation each year. The bathrooms are constantly flooding and drainage issues in [the] kitchen result in monthly backups. The justification continues by saying that the child development center ``either needs to be recapitalized due to condition, or taken out of service.'' Then they wrote: IMPACT IF NOT PROVIDED: Not providing this facility forces members to use more expensive, less convenient and potentially lower quality off-base programs. These off-base child development centers typically cost $9400 more than on- base, creating a severe financial strain on military personnel. Quality of life will be severely degraded resulting in impacts to retention and readiness because Airmen and their families will not have a safe and nurturing environment for child care. This is the Air Force's justification for this project. As they point out, it will cost military families an additional $10,000 a year. Who is paying for the wall? Our military families are paying for the wall, not the Government of Mexico. That is what is involved here. We cannot let this go forward. Every Member of this body should be aware of what is happening. I just mentioned three of the projects that are on that list of $3.7 billion that are being transferred to fund the wall that Congress intentionally provided the money for military families. That is wrong. We should stand up for our military families. I enjoy the fact that we all say we support our military. We are very proud of their stepping forward to defend us, and now we are telling them they have to pay an extra $10,000 for childcare. That is what is involved here. I hope every Member of this body will voice their opposition to what the President is attempting to do. I yield the floor.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues Senators Collins, King, Brown, Markey, Murphy, Menendez, Klobuchar, Blumenthal, Hassan, Jones, Van Hollen, Casey, Baldwin, Harris, Murray, Rosen, and Kaine to recognize the week beginning September 8, 2019, as National Direct Support Professionals Recognition Week. Direct support professionals are an invaluable part of our Nation's healthcare system, caring for the most vulnerable Americans, including the chronically ill, seniors, and those living with a disability. Direct support professionals include, among others, those whose titles include home caregiver, personal care assistant, home care worker, or home health aide. These varying titles speaks to the broad areas of support that are integral to the work of direct support professionals. With the assistance of direct support professionals, these individuals can perform daily activities that many people take for granted, such as eating, bathing, dressing, and leaving the house. The work of direct support professionals ensures that these individuals can be active participants in their communities. Let me share with you the experience of Marian Mulbah-Poquee, a direct support professional who was recognized this year for her incredible work and dedication when she was given Maryland's Direct Support Professional of the Year Award by the American Network of Community Options and Resources, ANCOR. Marian has been described as ``a tireless advocate for her ladies,'' providing the women she serves with the space and choice to lead full and independent lives. Marian supports her clients by teaching them skills that enable them to participate in their communities to the fullest extent possible. For example, Marian teaches her clients safety skills, gardening, and basic home care so they can spend more time living independently. Marian also encourages her clients to actively participate in civic life. This was best exemplified by a trip her clients took to Annapolis last year for Developmental Disability Day. Marian supported her clients as they met with and engaged their local representatives to discuss issues that affect the disability community in Maryland. Marian's commitment to simultaneously supporting and empowering her clients to actively participate in the public sphere speaks to the very core of what defines direct support professionals. Marian's story describes a career that is fulfilling, but one that oftentimes is not easy for Direct support professionals like her. The hours are often long, and the wages are low. The job can be physically laborious, as well as emotionally draining. The reward for direct support professionals, however, is that they are able to improve the lives of individuals with disabilities and help fulfill the promise of the Americans with Disabilities Act by making it possible for these Americans to participate in their communities to the fullest extent possible. In our country, we are incredibly fortunate to have millions of service-oriented individuals who are willing to rise to the task of becoming a direct support professional. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the employment of DSPs is projected to grow by an average of 41 percent from 2016 to 2026, compared to a 7 percent average growth rate for all occupations during that period. The demand will only continue to increase over time; the Baby Boomer generation will result in the doubling of the population of adults ages 65 and older by 2050. The increased demand for direct support professionals has created shortages in some areas, which can place strains on patients and their families or result in medical issues that could have been avoided. Unfortunately, direct support professionals are often forced to leave the jobs they love due to low wages and excessive, difficult work hours. Many direct support professionals rely on public benefits, and some must work multiple jobs in order to provide for themselves and their families. Now, more than ever, it is imperative that we work to ensure that these hardworking individuals have the income and emotional support they need and deserve. I urge my colleagues to join me and Senators Collins, King, Brown, Markey, Murphy, Menendez, Klobuchar, Blumenthal, Hassan, Jones, Van Hollen, Casey, Baldwin, Harris, Murray, Rosen, and Kaine in expressing our appreciation for the critically important work of our country's direct support professionals, in thanking them for their commitment and dedication, and in supporting the resolution designating the week beginning September 8, 2019, as National Direct Support Professionals Recognition Week.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I join with many of my colleagues to make a pretty simple request, and that is, the issue of gun violence in this country requires us to take action. The Senate needs to do what it has historically been in place to do. The Presiding Officer is in his first term, and I am in my third term. The U.S. Senate is the place in which we debate and vote on issues, the greatest deliberative body in the world--at least that is what I thought I was running for. It is time for Leader McConnell to bring up gun safety legislation-- well past time to bring up gun safety legislation--and for us to act and do something about gun violence in this country. Yes, we hope the President will lead, will provide that leadership that we hear about after every one of these mass shootings--that the President is engaged. We need his leadership to bring us together on sensible gun safety legislation, but if not, we still have the responsibility here in this body to act. We call upon Leader McConnell to bring forward sensible gun safety legislation. The United States is an outlier on gun violence. When you compare the amount of gun violence in the United States to that in the other developed countries of the world, in every category, multiply it times 10, 20, or 30--more likely for gun violence episodes here in the United States than other developed countries of the world. We have far more private ownership of guns in this country than other industrial nations of the world. We have far more mass killings. We have far more gun-related suicides, and the list goes on and on and on. So we need to take action. This is one area where we don't want to be the outlier. We want safe communities, and inaction is not an answer. Yes, there are many things we could do. Look, the people of Maryland and the people throughout this country have been victims of this gun violence. In my own State of Maryland, we had a mass shooting in June of last year at the Capital Gazette--outrageous. People trying to do their jobs were killed. We have had, of course, school shootings. It is time for this Congress to take steps to reduce this risk. Inaction is not an option. What should we do? As my previous colleague said, there are a lot of things we should be doing. We should take a look at whether it is reasonable for there to be private ownership of military-style weapons. I think there shouldn't be. That is certainly a bill we can bring up. We have seen these assault weapons used in a lot of mass attacks, where you have multiple casualties in a matter of seconds, where there is no possibility for law enforcement to respond to keep people safe during that short period of time. We should get rid of the high-capacity magazines. I know the House is working on that. That is something that, again, is not necessary for the purposes of recreation. We should identify extreme-risk individuals and be able to put a flag on their ability to purchase a weapon. We need to invest in mental health. All of that is important. The bill we can pass today is a universal background check. The House has passed it. It has been here since February of this year. For 7 months, that bill has been here--universal background checks. It was passed with a strong bipartisan vote in the House of Representatives and is consistent with the Second Amendment. The Supreme Court has said the right is not absolute, that certain individuals are not entitled to have firearms because of what they have done. Since 1968, we have provided forms to determine whether individuals are entitled to own a firearm or not. Of course, in 1993, we passed the presale process for licensed dealers because that is where guns were being purchased back in 1993. So if you buy a gun from a licensed firearms dealer, you have to go through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. As my colleague has said, it takes a matter of seconds. You can get cleared or not cleared, and it works. Three million guns have been denied a transfer as a result of this check, but there are loopholes in it because of the way commerce is handled today. It doesn't cover private sales. Internet sales weren't even available back when we passed these laws. We have to close those loopholes, and it will save lives. States that have closed these loopholes have a lower amount of gun violence than those States that have not. We need a national answer to this. A person from Maryland can go into Virginia or West Virginia where the laws are different. We need one Federal law to deal with closing this loophole. Today and every day in this country 100 people are killed through gun violence--every single day. We can't wait. We have to act. That is what this body is best at. So I encourage President Trump to lead on this issue. I know he had some meetings this week. I encourage our leader to allow this body to take up the universal background check bill that passed the House of Representatives by a strong bipartisan vote. Let us get that done. Let us tell the people of this country that we will not be silent and we will not be inactive in regard to the amount of gun violence in this country. I yield the floor.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise today to urge the Senate to confirm the nomination of Stephanie Gallagher of Maryland to be a U.S. District Judge for the District of Maryland. This is a noncontroversial nomination which the Senate should be able to confirm in short order. Judge Stephanie Gallagher brings tremendous experience to the courtroom as a sitting U.S. magistrate judge in Baltimore, as well as being a former prosecutor, private law firm attorney, and judicial law clerk. Her strong roots in the Maryland legal community, tremendous understanding and respect for the rule of law, and willingness to volunteer her time in service outside the courtroom make her an exceptional nominee. I was pleased to recommend Judge Gallagher's nomination to President Trump, along with Senator Van Hollen. I must note for my colleagues that I originally recommended Judge Gallagher's nomination to President Obama along with Senator Mikulski, back in 2015, given the impending retirement of Judge William Quarles in 2016. Judge Gallagher's nomination has actually been favorably recommended by the Judiciary Committee on three separate occasions, in 2016, 2018, and now in 2019. Most recently, on June 20, 2019, the Judiciary Committee favorably recommended Judge Gallagher to the full Senate for confirmation by a vote of 21-1. I want to thank Senator Van Hollen for working with me to ensure we seek out the best attorneys in our State for Federal judicial vacancies, which are lifetime appointments and one of the most important obligations we have as U.S. Senators. We have recommended judicial nominations to the President that have made Marylanders proud of our Federal courts. Stephanie Gallagher, of Baltimore, MD, has been a U.S. magistrate judge in Baltimore since April 2011. As a magistrate judge, Judge Gallagher works closely on a daily basis with district court judges, the very position she has been nominated for today. In her current position as a magistrate judge, Judge Gallagher convenes settlement conferences, resolves discovery disputes, and prepares reports and recommendations on dispositive motions. With the consent of the parties, Judge Gallagher can take jurisdiction over civil cases. In consent cases, she becomes the presiding judge, making all rulings in the case and overseeing the trial. In this capacity, she has presided over civil bench and jury trials. She has served as the criminal duty judge on a rotating basis with her colleagues, where she presides over preliminary proceedings in felony cases and handles misdemeanor cases, including those occurring at Federal military installations in Maryland. Previously, Judge Gallagher was a partner and cofounder at Levin & Gallagher LLC, now Levin & Curlett, for 3 years, served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in Baltimore for 6 years, and was a litigation associate at Akin Gump in Washington, DC, for 2 years. She practiced in a wide variety of legal issues, including complex civil litigation, employment disputes, constitutional issues, criminal defense, and criminal prosecution. Judge Gallagher began her legal career as a law clerk for then-Chief Judge J. Frederick Motz of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland from 1997 to 1999. She received her J.D. in 1997 from Harvard Law School, graduating cum laude, and received her B.S. in government from Georgetown University in 1994, graduating magna cum laude. The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts has declared this Maryland seat as a judicial emergency, based on the length of the vacancy and the caseload of the court. Judge Gallagher was given the rating of unanimously well qualified by the American Bar Association's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary, which is their highest possible rating. Judge Gallagher brings tremendous experience and credentials to the courtroom as a sitting U.S. Magistrate Judge in Baltimore, as well as being a former prosecutor, private law firm attorney, and judicial law clerk. Her strong roots in the Maryland legal community and fantastic understanding and respect for the rule of law make her an exceptional nominee. I was pleased to recommend Judge Gallagher's nomination to both President Obama and President Trump. I am confident that she will serve the people of Maryland extremely well once she is finally confirmed for this lifetime appointment as a U.S. District Judge for the District of Maryland. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this nomination and confirm Judge Gallagher.

Mr. CARDIN

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

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, first, I want to compliment the leadership in being able to come together on a budget agreement. This was a good day for the Senate, a good day for Congress, and a good day for the American people. We now have predictable spending caps not only for the fiscal year that begins October 1 but for the following year. This is good news. It provides the predictability we need in order to have early process for the consideration of the appropriations bills. When we return in September, it is our anticipation that the House and Senate Appropriations Committees will be hard at work, and we will have an opportunity to get our work done prior to the beginning of the fiscal year on October 1. I want to explain why I think this was the right vote and why I proudly supported it. It provides a reasonable growth rate for discretionary spending. If you look at the trend line over several decades, you will find that discretionary spending has become a smaller and smaller part of the Federal budget. We held back on discretionary spending in this country, whether it is defense or nondefense needs, and those needs have grown. We have not kept up with the needs of funding these programs. This budget agreement will now give us the opportunity to set priorities and move forward with many important programs that are funded by discretionary spending. Once again, discretionary spending has grown much slower than the growth rate of our budget, generally. It is a reasonable expectation that we can meet the needs of the people of this country by allowing some growth. What does it mean? Well, this past week, the Environment and Public Works Committee has recommended a transportation reauthorization bill for service transportation that would grow by about 10 percent. I think everyone in this Chamber understands that we have tremendous unmet needs in transportation infrastructure in this country. These caps give us a better opportunity of meeting those types of needs. Tomorrow I will be in the city of Bowie--which is not far from here-- meeting with the mayor who has a simple request: His drinking water pipes need major maintenance or replacement. There is not enough capacity within the ratepayers in order to be able to do that work. He needs the Federal partnership, State-revolving funds, or other areas in order to help fund a modern water infrastructure so we have safe drinking water in our community. These budget caps, again, give us the opportunity to move forward on programs like that so the Federal Government can help us meet our needs. I am proud, in the State of Maryland, that we have the National Institutes of Health located and headquartered in our State. We are all very proud of the work they do. They are unlocking the mystery of diseases in this country. We need to fund them. At the present time, so many worthwhile grant applications go unmet and unfilled that could discover how we could deal with some of the most dreaded diseases in our country. Funding NIH is in our national interest, but we have been held back because of the budget caps that have been in place. This allows us now to move forward with that priority. This is the year we prepare for the census. We only do that every 10 years. We take the census of our country. This budget will allow the Census Bureau to have the tools so we can accurately count the people in this country. Why is that important? The Constitution says it is important. It is important so we have proper legislative representation in the congressional districts as well as in the State legislatures. That gives us the numbers so the communities are properly represented and so their voices can be adequately heard. It is also used for distribution of Federal funds so proper distribution can be made to the people of this country. I can go on with a whole list of issues that are important. Each one is important. We will set the priorities, whether it is childcare or dealing with our veterans. We all talk about how we want to do what is right for our veterans. We know there are a lot of unmet needs. This budget will allow us to move forward in that area. I am proud to represent the State of Maryland that has major urban centers. This bill will allow us to deal with some of the challenges we have in our urban centers. I also represent rural Maryland. This bill will allow us to move forward with their needs. We will be able to move forward on education, which should be our top priority. It is a great equalizer in this country. Now the appropriators have to make those judgments on the priorities, and we will have to reconcile between the House and Senate and get the President's signature. That is what we should be doing--setting the priorities for our country but having a reasonable pool of money to deal with discretionary spending. We have been denied that for many years. Now we have the opportunity to do what Congress should do and set the priorities for this country. In addition, we have the drug problems. I probably have more meetings in my State on dealing with the drug crisis. It is in every community in Maryland and this Nation. I hope we will see increased Federal participation in that area. Another part of the budget agreement was to extend the debt limit for 2 years. This, to me, is one of the absurdities of what we do on debt limits. We incur money--we incur debt--and then we put a limit as to whether we will pay for the bills we incurred. You don't default on your debt. That is not what America is about. We have to control what we spend, but we have to pay for what we spend. We have to honor our debt. Our credit ratings were at risk. The Secretary of Treasury made this one of his top priorities. I agreed with him on this issue. Now we no longer have the fear that America will not honor its debt. The bill also gets rid of sequestration. Good riddance. This was put in as a placeholder for us to deal with the budget deficit. It didn't work in that way. All it did was cause uncertainty, and in many respects, it would have required across-the-board cuts. That is not the way we should do business. We have to make decisions. Sequestration could have been used for us to avoid making the tough decisions. We have to do that ourselves. The bottom line is the budget agreement gets rid of that and gives us a much better chance of avoiding a government shutdown, which makes absolutely no sense at all, and of, hopefully, not having to deal with continuing resolutions. Continuing resolutions put us on autopilot because we can't pass a budget. Now, I hope we will be able to pass budgets and avoid not only shutdowns but continuing resolutions. I want to emphasize this point. Discretionary spending has become a smaller part of the overall budget of this country. It has been a shrieking song. So why do we have growing deficits? By the way, discretionary spending is at historically low levels in this country. Revenues, unfortunately, are also at historically low levels. In other words, we are not raising the traditional amount of revenue that is necessary for us to pay our bills. I come from a family who believes you have to pay your bills. I think it is wrong for us to spend money today and ask our children and grandchildren to pay for our current spending. We should have the courage to provide the revenues that are necessary to pay our bills. Instead, what have we done? We have cut revenues again and again so our deficit today is not sustainable. We have to deal with it. The major culprit has been these irresponsible tax cuts, the last of which went primarily to the wealthiest people in the country. According to the Congressional Budget Office, it will add $1.9 trillion to the deficit over the next decade. That is the culprit of the deficits, and that is what we should be dealing with. I have heard a lot of my colleagues come in here and lament this agreement. They have said it is going to add to the deficit. Some of these people are the same people who voted for the tax cut. Let's be direct about this. We have to have the revenues that are necessary to pay for what we incur in spending. Yes, there is another area in which we can do better, and that is in healthcare spending, much of which is mandatory spending, not discretionary spending. These are the appropriations that have to be made. We can do a much better job of reining in the cost of healthcare. We had a chance to do that this week, but we didn't take full advantage of that. I am a member of the Senate Committee on Finance. We passed a bill to deal with the escalating costs of prescription drugs. Today, in Maryland, I have been told one out of every four healthcare dollars is spent on medicines. We pay so much more in America for medicines than do the other industrialized nations of the world. Yes, we have recommended to the Senate body a bill to deal with the cost of prescription medicines. It will deal with the issue of putting a cap on the escalation of the current drug prices. It will put a cap on the out-of-pocket costs that the people on Medicare Part D will have to pay. That is good. Those are two good things. We had a chance to really make a difference by eliminating the prohibition in the current law that prevents Medicare from negotiating the costs of medicines. Think about that for one moment. Where else do we do that? We tell businesses they can't leverage all of their buying to get the lowest possible prices, and we tell Medicare it can't leverage the total market it is paying in order to get the best price on prescription medicines. What does that mean? That means we are overpaying. Whether you are paying it in Part D premiums, whether you are paying it in private insurance premiums, or whether you are paying it as a taxpayer, we are paying too much for medicines. It is the primary reason the international price on medicines is so much lower than what we pay in America. We had a chance to deal with it this week, and we didn't. We will have another opportunity when the bill comes to the floor, and I hope we will do the right thing by removing the prohibition that is in the current law on negotiating price. I am very pleased we got this budget agreement done. No, I am not pleased about the deficit, but I recognize that we need to deal with revenues and that we need to deal with costs like prescription drugs, which were not part of today's vote. I hope, when we return in September, the good will we have used in order to get this budget agreement done will continue and that the appropriators will be able to reconcile their appropriations bills before October 1 so we will not need continuing resolutions and so there will be no threat of a government shutdown. I hope we will have the same type of bipartisan commitment by which people have expressed their outrage on the growth of the deficit in order to deal with the real causes of the deficit. We will have a chance on prescription medicines to deal with those costs. Let's have the courage to sit down and make sure we raise the revenues we need in order to pay for our expenses. I yield the floor.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, an unusual event occurred yesterday in the Environment and Public Works Committee--a major bill reauthorizing America's transportation infrastructure for 5 years passed the committee by a 21-to-0 vote. That is the way we should be able to operate on a subject that I think enjoys universal support in the Senate; that is, making sure the Federal partnership for infrastructure is not only reauthorized but also increased because we know the infrastructure needs of this country have only gotten more challenging. I want to start by complimenting the leadership of the Environment and Public Works Committee. Chairman Barrasso and Ranking Member Carper worked very closely together on this bill, including the input of all members of the committee as well as Members of the Senate. The Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure, chaired by Senator Capito, and I am the ranking Democrat on the committee, also worked very well in developing this Transportation Infrastructure Reauthorization Act. As I pointed out originally, the needs are urgent, and the leadership of the committee recognized that. In every one of our States, we know the unmet needs of infrastructure, maintaining our existing infrastructure, and replacing our bridges that are falling down, dealing with our transit systems, dealing with the needs to deal with congestion. We know there are so many issues out there, and it is important for us to give a clear signal that we intend to have a long-term reauthorization, 5 years, so there is predictability, so our States and local governments know that these projects that require longer term planning will have a Federal partner that is available and reliable. It also increases the funding, the first year by 10 percent and increases it by certain percentages thereafter, recognizing we need to do more. There are several new initiatives building on existing programs that I think are worthy of mentioning. Let me just go over a few of the real highlights of this infrastructure bill. First, it has a climate change title. This is the first time we have done this--a separate title to deal with the realities of climate change. I need only remind my colleagues of what happened this month in Maryland when we had 4 inches of rain that flooded Maryland roads. We have to deal with the realities. We have to deal with resiliency and adaptation in regard to what is happening with climate change. This title deals with that. Transportation is the leading source of greenhouse gas emissions. We need infrastructure that deals with the realities of reducing carbon emissions. This title provides for financial help for building an infrastructure for electric and alternative fuel vehicles. That is a reality of consumer desire as well as dealing with the realities of climate change. We give local discretion for funds to initiate emission reduction strategies. That could include simple things like providing alternatives for the use of our cars for people who want to walk and bike rather than having to get into their cars. It is a major commitment for which we are going to provide resources, in partnership with local governments, to deal with the realities of our responsibility in the transportation sector to reduce carbon emissions. We also deal with the realities of congestion. I can tell the Presiding Officer, as I told my colleagues on the Environment and Public Works Committee, that I face it every day twice a day. I commute from Baltimore here to work and have to deal with the realities of congestion. It has been estimated that the delays caused by congestion and the excessive fuels that are used by congestion cost our economy over $300 billion every year. So there is not only a quality-of-life issue involved in our taking on congestion, there is also an economic reason to take on the issues of congestion. Of course, it is also linked to our commitment to deal with the climate change issues by reducing unnecessary fuel consumption, which adds to carbon emissions. The legislation provides funding for new initiatives so that we can get solutions to deal with the problems of congestion, the multimobile solutions that are available in many communities. We work and allow the locals to give us ideas and help fund those to reduce congestion. As I mentioned earlier, we have a real challenge on dealing with our bridges. Many of our bridges are in need of replacement. Many are in need of desperate repair. I can mention many in Maryland. In the southern part of our State, we have the Nice Bridge and the Johnson Bridge, both in need of replacement or repair. This legislation provides additional resources to deal with bridges in our country. There are certain highways that have been built that no longer really serve the function--or may never serve the function--of moving people from one area to another but instead are dividing communities. So the legislation has a unique section that allows us to identify those types of highways that are no longer needed and that are dividing and isolating communities so we can get those highways removed. I am proud that this legislation builds on the Transportation Alternative Program that I helped author on the reauthorization bill with my partner Senator Wicker. I thank him for his help. It allows for much more local discretion on how transportation funds are spent. It allows local communities to have a source of Federal support to deal with local safety issues, for developing trails for pedestrian and bike paths so that the quality of life and safety of the local community are taken into consideration on the use of Federal highway funds. It provides flexibility to local government. In the first year, we provide $1.2 billion for transportation alternative programs with a steady growth in the ensuing 4 years. I also want to acknowledge the section in the bill that deals with freight traffic. It is a growing field. We expect it to continue to grow. There are funds that are provided in here to deal with the realities of moving freight through our highway surface transportation system. In that regard, I was pleased that this past week we were able to announce an INFRA grant for Maryland of $125 million for the Howard Street Tunnel. This is a tunnel that is 120 years old and runs through Baltimore. The replacement of this tunnel will allow for double stacking of rail freight, which is what you need to do today if you are going to have efficiency and be economically competitive. This grant will help us replace that tunnel and help create more jobs in Baltimore, in Maryland, and in our entire region of the country and will provide for more efficiencies on truck traffic. I say that because, today, because of the inefficiencies of rail, we have trucks that are stacked up in the Port of Baltimore, which is inefficient for the truck operators and, again, adds to the climate problems of excessive use of fuels. There is a section in here that deals with safety, as we should. In 2017, 37,000 people died in our transportation areas. We need to improve that. There are some important provisions in this legislation that deal with safety issues. The bill also deals with reauthorizing the Appalachian Regional Commission. I particularly thank Senator Capito for her leadership on this issue. Reauthorization is important for the entire region, including the western part of the State of Maryland. This is the first step--and I hope a successful step--for the completion of the reauthorization of surface transportation by this Congress before the end of this year. I hope we can get it moving. I hope we can get it enacted, certainly, in time, so there is no lapse in Federal partnerships dealing with transportation. I know we have other committees that need to act on a comprehensive transportation bill. Many of us serve on those other committees. If we follow the example of the Environment and Public Works Committee--21 to 0--if we listen to each other, if we do that, we can succeed in passing a strong reauthorization of surface transportation that will help modernize America's transportation needs, which will be good for our economy, good for our environment, and good for the quality of life of all Americans. I urge my colleagues to follow that example, and let's get this work done. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, today I wish to discuss the grave situation in Cameroon, specifically the targeted attacks against the English-speaking minority community there, the ongoing conflict between armed separatist groups and Cameroonian security forces, and the country's many political prisoners. In response to the escalation of conflict in Cameroon's northwest and southwest regions, yesterday, Senator Young and I introduced a resolution calling on the Government of Cameroon and armed separatist groups to respect the human rights of all Cameroonian citizens, to end all violence, and to pursue an inclusive dialogue to resolve the conflict. Since the outbreak of violence in 2016, Cameroon's security forces have been credibly accused of grave human rights abuses, from suppressing the basic freedoms of expression and assembly, and arbitrarily detaining those who challenge the President's authority, to torture and extrajudicial killings. The victims of these abuses include Anglophone activists, some of whom were forcibly returned to Cameroon after fleeing to Nigeria. Since 2016, entire villages have been burned down, displacing hundreds of thousands of Cameroonians from their communities. Where did this all begin? The current conflict can be traced back to Cameroon's colonial history, as a country formed through merging pieces of a former French colony with parts of a former British colony. The Francophone majority has held much of the land since 1961, when Cameroon gained its independence. All the while, the Anglophone minority held on to its language and distinct judicial and educational systems as it continued to be governed largely by French speakers. About 3 years ago, this all began to shift. The Francophone government began implementing the French language and imposing its own laws, judges, and teachers in Anglophone communities, and protestors rose up in response. Anglophone Cameroonians rightly saw this as an unjust imposition on their autonomy, as a tyranny of the majority seeking to do away with their language and identity. The fact that Anglophone Cameroonians are vastly underrepresented in the central government only exacerbates their grievances in this matter. In response to citizens' voicing their discontent, the government cracked down, arresting hundreds of people--including peaceful activists who were given terrorism charges--and deploying the military to Anglophone areas. Over the past 3 years, violence has claimed 2,000 lives in the Anglophone region. Human Rights Watch has documented extensive burning of villages by members of the security forces in the last 2 years in both the northwest and southwest regions, as well as rampant killings of civilians and sexual violence. According to a July 22 Human Rights Watch report, Cameroonian security forces have killed at least four civilians and raped one woman since mid June alone during their security operations in the northwest region. Shockingly, those killed included an elderly man with a physical disability and a young man with a mental disability. We cannot turn a blind eye to the circumstances there. My home State of Maryland is home to a large, active population of Cameroonian diasporans. Marylander Sylvie Bello and members of her advocacy organization, the Cameroon American Council, have been a leading diaspora voice calling for the United States to encourage the Cameroonian Government and armed militias to stop the violence. Many in the diaspora community across the United States are working with civil society organizations in Cameroon to address the needs of internally displaced persons, IDPs, in the northwest and southwest regions of the country and refugees on the Nigerian side of the border. This important community has made something very clear to me and my team, and I would like to take this opportunity to remind my colleagues in the U.S. Congress of it. The conflict in Cameroon greatly impacts Americans here in the United States, whether it be Americans with loved ones affected by the conflict, those who have traveled here to escape the conflict, or simply those of us who understand that being silent on issues of human rights is analogous to being complicit to their occurrence. I encourage the Government of Cameroon to engage with diaspora organizations, along with a broad spectrum of Cameroonian civil society leader, in meaningful and constructive dialogue to resolve the conflict. Moving forward, as we look for ways to address the situation in Cameroon, we must look to longtime President Paul Biya and his ongoing attacks on the legitimacy of Cameroon's democracy. President Biya rose to office in 1982 after serving as Prime Minister. In 2008, Presidential term limits were removed from Cameroon's Constitution. Protests ensued, but when the public wished to voice their disapproval of this decision, security forces violently repressed their actions. In October 2018, Biya claimed a seventh Presidential victory in an election that many considered to be neither free nor fair. There were numerous credible reports of fraud, voter intimidation, violence, and low voter turnout in the Anglophone regions. The opposition party who reportedly came in second place, the Cameroon Renaissance Movement, claims that it had the support of the people. In January of this year, protests and demonstrations against the October elections were summarily suppressed by the Biya regime. Over 200 people were arrested, including opposition leader Maurice Kamto and his close supporters. The United Nations Secretary General, Amnesty International, and the International Law Commission have called for Mr. Kamto's release, and just last month, thousands of Cameroonians demonstrated in Yaounde with the same demand. Biya's government forces responded as they usually do, by arresting 73 of the demonstrators. Even members of the President's own inner circle are not immune to his thuggery. In 2012, Mr. Marafa Hamidou Yaya, the former Secretary General of the Presidency, was arrested and sentenced to 25 years in prison for complicity in an embezzlement scheme that many suspect befell him not because of any actual involvement in embezzlement, but as a way to prevent him from ever challenging Biya for the Presidency. His arrest and imprisonment make clear that Biya will target anyone who threatens grip on power. President Biya has the broad authority to appoint and dismiss the Prime Minister, Cabinet members, judges, generals, and governors. The executive and judicial branches are clearly a product of the President's preference, rather than a reflection of the will of the people. Although several press outlets exist and multiple political parties compete in elections, freedom of expression is greatly constrained. Journalists have been jailed, and Reporters Without Borders has described the circumstances for Cameroonian media as a ``climate of fear.'' In addition to these democratic concerns, Cameroon currently faces three major humanitarian challenges, which are exasperated by President Biya's unchecked authority. About 275,000 refugees from the Central African Republic reside in the eastern part of Cameroon. In the north, Boko Haram threatens the communities near the Nigerian border. And in the west, where most of Cameroon's Anglophone minority resides, a conflict among government security forces and those seeking independence from the rest of the country continues to escalate. If that wasn't enough, reports indicate that U.S. military assistance to Cameroon is being used to arm the same forces accused of committing atrocities against English-speaking Cameroonians. For this reason, Senator Durbin and I filed an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act that would freeze security assistance to Cameroon, except for those funds that go towards combatting Boko Haram, until the U.S. Departments of Defense and State can certify that Cameroon's military and security forces have demonstrated progress in abiding by international human rights standards, particularly in regards to their actions in the Anglophone region. Although Cameroon is an important partner in U.S. counterterrorism efforts in the region, we cannot turn a blind eye to the extreme violence the government and its security forces have inflicted on innocent civilians. Human Rights Watch has documented extensive burning of villages by members of the security forces in the last 2 years in both the northwest and southwest regions, as well as rampant killings of civilians and sexual violence. This February, the U.S. withheld millions of dollars in security assistance from Cameroon, on the condition that Biya and his forces work to improve the humanitarian situation there. No county should be able to receive U.S. military assistance while continuing to violently repress the rights of its own population. America's strength is in our values. We must call out instances of human rights violations wherever they happen in the world. As a Congress, we have a special responsibility to use our voices when it is another government who is the perpetrator of these human rights abuses. This is the case for the situation in Cameroon. The violence must end. Innocent Cameroonians are caught in the crossfires of this political battle. Communities have become too dangerous to live in. Hundreds of thousands of Cameroonians have been forced to flee their homes to escape the violence inflicted upon them. In November 2018, the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs stated that at least 437,000 people were internally displaced in Cameroon from areas affected by this Anglophone conflict. There are also thousands of refugees who have left Cameroon completely. As of late November 2018, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees reported that it had registered more than 32,000 Cameroonian refugees in Nigeria who came from the affected Anglophone regions. The persecuted Cameroonians seeking refuge in Nigeria include dozens of Anglophone activists, but in January 2018, 47 of those activists were forcibly returned to Cameroonian authorities. Many of those returned had reportedly submitted asylum claims in Nigeria, so it is especially troubling that they were made to return to the country from which they fled. Ten of the 47 activists who were forcibly returned from Nigeria now face charges before a military court that would be punishable by the death penalty. The other 37 reportedly remain in detention without charge. Even non-Cameroonians have found themselves in the midst of this turmoil. On October 30, 2018, U.S. missionary Charles Wesco was killed near the town of Bamenda, Cameroon. We must act in the face of these gross violations of human rights. We must encourage all actors in the Cameroonian conflict to prioritize respect for human life over the desire for political gain. This must be done by first agreeing to an immediate ceasefire and allowing humanitarian assistance to reach those in need. The Cameroonian Government and Armed Forces must exercise restraint in their actions and ensure that protests remain peaceful. Leaders on both sides must be willing to engage in constructive dialogue with civil society members to achieve to a political solution, one that is based upon respect for fundamental human rights and freedoms. Failure to do so will only prolong the conflict and lead to an increase in violence and mass displacement of the Anglophone minority. In closing, I would like to again thank Maryland's vibrant Cameroonian diaspora for their continued engagement with myself and my office, and encourage my Senate colleagues to support my and Senator Young's resolution which addresses many of these issues. Congress has a responsibility to continue to shine a spotlight on ongoing human rights abuses and the duty to advocate for upholding the rights of all citizens in Cameroon, regardless of their religious and political beliefs or the regions in which they reside.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Unlocking Opportunities in Emerging Markets Act, which establishes an Office of Emerging Markets (OEM) within the Small Business Administration's (SBA) Office of Capital Access to ensure that SBA's access to capital initiatives address the specific needs of entrepreneurs in underserved domestic emerging markets. Capital is the lifeblood of small businesses, but for women, minorities, veterans and other underserved entrepreneurs, access to capital remains the key roadblock to owning and operating a successful business. The challenges that underserved entrepreneurs face are historic and pervasive with minority and women entrepreneurs, for example, having less wealth from which to fund new businesses. Black families have $17,150 in wealth and Hispanic families have $20,720 in wealth, while White families have $171,000 in wealth. Similarly, women have $3 in wealth for every $10 men have. These historical barriers are compounded by systemic inequality in the capital markets. Minority-owned business are two to three times more likely to be denied credit; more likely to avoid applying for loans, based on the belief that they will be turned down; and more likely to receive smaller loans and pay higher interest rates on the loans that they do receive. Rural businesses owners often face an uphill battle to secure funding for their startups. And women are significantly less likely than men to be approved for a business loan and are more likely to experience funding gaps. SBA was created to solve these very problems, but instead of being a solution, lending patterns in the agency's largest loan programs mirror these trends. During Fiscal Year 2018, only 4.5 percent of all loans approved by SBA's highest volume loan program--7(a)--went to Black entrepreneurs. Another 8.5 percent went to Hispanic entrepreneurs, while 59 percent went to white borrowers. Despite these challenges, SBA does not have the coordinated effort required to address them. In multiple hearings in the Small Business Committee, SBA has not been able to explain how they are addressing these urgent issues. By creating OEM, and empowering a Senior Executive Service level director to lead the office, we in Congress can ensure that SBA is giving the problems that underserved entrepreneurs face the attention and resources they deserve. Eliminating disparities in the capital markets for underserved business owners is not just the right thing to do, it will spur growth in the American economy. In the years since the Great Recession, minority-owned small businesses have been driving the growth of small business formation in spite of the significant headwinds they face. Just imagine what they could do if SBA was laser focused on removing some of those headwinds. SBA has helped level the playing field for underserved communities in government contracting, and entrepreneurial development, but access to capital is the only major area where there is no office specific to the needs of underserved communities. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this critical piece of legislation, so SBA can begin making the concerted effort required to help more underserved entrepreneurs overcome barriers, start successful businesses, and create jobs.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Unlocking Opportunities in Emerging Markets Act, which establishes an Office of Emerging Markets (OEM) within the Small Business Administration's (SBA) Office of Capital Access to ensure that SBA's access to capital initiatives address the specific needs of entrepreneurs in underserved domestic emerging markets. Capital is the lifeblood of small businesses, but for women, minorities, veterans and other underserved entrepreneurs, access to capital remains the key roadblock to owning and operating a successful business. The challenges that underserved entrepreneurs face are historic and pervasive with minority and women entrepreneurs, for example, having less wealth from which to fund new businesses. Black families have $17,150 in wealth and Hispanic families have $20,720 in wealth, while White families have $171,000 in wealth. Similarly, women have $3 in wealth for every $10 men have. These historical barriers are compounded by systemic inequality in the capital markets. Minority-owned business are two to three times more likely to be denied credit; more likely to avoid applying for loans, based on the belief that they will be turned down; and more likely to receive smaller loans and pay higher interest rates on the loans that they do receive. Rural businesses owners often face an uphill battle to secure funding for their startups. And women are significantly less likely than men to be approved for a business loan and are more likely to experience funding gaps. SBA was created to solve these very problems, but instead of being a solution, lending patterns in the agency's largest loan programs mirror these trends. During Fiscal Year 2018, only 4.5 percent of all loans approved by SBA's highest volume loan program--7(a)--went to Black entrepreneurs. Another 8.5 percent went to Hispanic entrepreneurs, while 59 percent went to white borrowers. Despite these challenges, SBA does not have the coordinated effort required to address them. In multiple hearings in the Small Business Committee, SBA has not been able to explain how they are addressing these urgent issues. By creating OEM, and empowering a Senior Executive Service level director to lead the office, we in Congress can ensure that SBA is giving the problems that underserved entrepreneurs face the attention and resources they deserve. Eliminating disparities in the capital markets for underserved business owners is not just the right thing to do, it will spur growth in the American economy. In the years since the Great Recession, minority-owned small businesses have been driving the growth of small business formation in spite of the significant headwinds they face. Just imagine what they could do if SBA was laser focused on removing some of those headwinds. SBA has helped level the playing field for underserved communities in government contracting, and entrepreneurial development, but access to capital is the only major area where there is no office specific to the needs of underserved communities. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this critical piece of legislation, so SBA can begin making the concerted effort required to help more underserved entrepreneurs overcome barriers, start successful businesses, and create jobs.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Closing the Credit Gap Act to make the Small Business Administration's (SBA) Community Advantage program permanent. SBA created Community Advantage in 2011 to provide capital and support to small businesses that have been historically underserved by SBA's highest volume loan program, 7(a). Community Advantage allows nonprofit mission lenders like SBA microlenders, Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFI) and SBA 504 lenders to make 7(a) loans of up to $250,000 to small businesses. The program has shown year after year that it is more capable of getting capital into the hands of minority, women and veteran entrepreneurs than the 7(a)program. During Fiscal Year 2018, the most recent year for which complete data is available, only 4.5 percent of 7(a) approvals went to Black business owners compared to 12 percent of Community Advantage approvals; 9 percent of 7(a) approvals went to Hispanic borrowers compared to 17 percent in the Community Advantage program; women-owned businesses received only 18 percent of 7(a) approvals while receiving 30 percent of all Community Advantage approvals; and veterans, who only received 4 percent of 7(a) approvals, received 10 percent of approvals in the Community Advantage program. Capital is the lifeblood of small businesses, so for many women, minority, veteran and other underserved entrepreneurs, Community Advantage is a lifeline, because the program fills a gap in traditional credit markets. Minority-owned business are two to three times more likely to be denied credit; more likely to avoid applying for loans, based on the belief that they will be turned down; and more likely to receive smaller loans and pay higher interest rates on the loans that they do receive. Rural businesses owners often face an uphill battle to secure funding for their startups. And women are significantly less likely than men to be approved for a business loan and are more likely to experience funding gaps. My bill will make this vital program a permanent loan product administered by SBA, and it will allow SBA to lift the cap up to $350,000 from $250,000 to help borrowers in more expensive regions and industries, as well as victims of abusive loan products. My home State of Maryland has the highest concentration of minority- and women-owned businesses in the country. That designation makes me proud, but it also makes me think of the countless entrepreneurs whose dreams of business ownership or growth remain unfulfilled because they could not get financing. If we pass the Closing the Credit Gap Act, we can empower more entrepreneurs who have the ideas but not the networks or capital needed to start and grow their businesses and create jobs.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Closing the Credit Gap Act to make the Small Business Administration's (SBA) Community Advantage program permanent. SBA created Community Advantage in 2011 to provide capital and support to small businesses that have been historically underserved by SBA's highest volume loan program, 7(a). Community Advantage allows nonprofit mission lenders like SBA microlenders, Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFI) and SBA 504 lenders to make 7(a) loans of up to $250,000 to small businesses. The program has shown year after year that it is more capable of getting capital into the hands of minority, women and veteran entrepreneurs than the 7(a)program. During Fiscal Year 2018, the most recent year for which complete data is available, only 4.5 percent of 7(a) approvals went to Black business owners compared to 12 percent of Community Advantage approvals; 9 percent of 7(a) approvals went to Hispanic borrowers compared to 17 percent in the Community Advantage program; women-owned businesses received only 18 percent of 7(a) approvals while receiving 30 percent of all Community Advantage approvals; and veterans, who only received 4 percent of 7(a) approvals, received 10 percent of approvals in the Community Advantage program. Capital is the lifeblood of small businesses, so for many women, minority, veteran and other underserved entrepreneurs, Community Advantage is a lifeline, because the program fills a gap in traditional credit markets. Minority-owned business are two to three times more likely to be denied credit; more likely to avoid applying for loans, based on the belief that they will be turned down; and more likely to receive smaller loans and pay higher interest rates on the loans that they do receive. Rural businesses owners often face an uphill battle to secure funding for their startups. And women are significantly less likely than men to be approved for a business loan and are more likely to experience funding gaps. My bill will make this vital program a permanent loan product administered by SBA, and it will allow SBA to lift the cap up to $350,000 from $250,000 to help borrowers in more expensive regions and industries, as well as victims of abusive loan products. My home State of Maryland has the highest concentration of minority- and women-owned businesses in the country. That designation makes me proud, but it also makes me think of the countless entrepreneurs whose dreams of business ownership or growth remain unfulfilled because they could not get financing. If we pass the Closing the Credit Gap Act, we can empower more entrepreneurs who have the ideas but not the networks or capital needed to start and grow their businesses and create jobs.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, recently, I joined the Senate delegation to visit the southern border and view firsthand the migration and humanitarian crisis facing the United States. We visited the Donna Holding Facility, the Catholic Charities Respite Center, the McAllen Border Patrol Station, and the Ursula Centralized Processing Center. Earlier this week, I held a roundtable discussion on my trip at the Sacred Heart of Jesus Church in Highlandtown. The group was organized by the Latino Providers Network in Baltimore, which included representatives from the Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service, Catholic Relief Services, Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, and other nonprofits in the community that do work in Baltimore and at our border. I was impressed by the Catholic Charities Respite Center run by Sister Norma Pimentel. The center provides a warm meal, a shower, a change into clean clothes, medicine, and other desperately needed supplies. These migrants are very lucky to make it there. What I saw in McAllen, by contrast, was very disturbing. I saw many families huddled together in overcrowded conditions. I saw children behind fencing and, basically, in cages. Some children wore clothing that was soiled and had not been changed since they arrived in the United States. Children and families were supposed to be there in temporary holding only for a day or two, but we heard stories that families are being held for up to 10 to 14 days and, in some cases, even longer. Why are migrants leaving their homes in the first place? These individuals are desperate. They are desperate because they are fleeing violence and persecution in their home countries. These families are often given a terrible choice to have their young son or daughter join a criminal gang or suffer the consequences as a family. That means being attacked, kidnapped, and even murdered. Even though it is a dangerous journey, these families feel they have no choice. Let me remind my colleagues that these individuals are lawfully seeking asylum at our border and should not be treated as criminals. We need to respect their human rights, their rights under international law, and their rights under U.S. law. These migrants are not trying to do harm to the United States. Indeed, government officials told us that the vast majority of those screened present no safety risk, such as being on a watch list for terrorist or criminal behavior, and that most migrants have not tried previously to enter the country illegally. I am gravely concerned about the new metering system used by Customs and Border Protection for those seeking asylum and refuge in our country as part of the expansion of the Remain in Mexico program. Normally, a migrant would present themselves to a Customs or Border Patrol agent at the point of entry and ask to seek asylum. But under the Trump administration's new metering policy, Border Patrol agents will stop migrants at the border, oftentimes halfway across the bridge as they approach a legal border point of entry. Border Patrol will then give the migrant a number, and they will have to then wait for their number to be called before they can formally present themselves for admission at a legal point of entry. How long is the wait for your number to be called? In some cases, it is weeks or even months. In the meantime, migrants are told to wait in a border town and tent city set up on the other side of the border. One of most dangerous towns in all of Mexico is Reynosa, just across the border from McAllen Border Patrol Station. Migrants staying in these tent cities are subjected to violence, extortion, human trafficking, and even death at the hands of gangs that operate with impunity in the city, which are effectively not controlled by Mexican law enforcement authorities. In fact, the town is so dangerous that U.S. law enforcement personnel are forbidden by our government from visiting there or trying to meet with migrants on the Mexican side of the border. This is outrageous, and America can do better to live up to our values. Migrants who are desperately fleeing violence and prosecution at home come to the United States in search of safety for themselves and their families. Now they are told they must wait indefinitely on the Mexican side of the border in, essentially, a lawless town where they are at the mercy of criminals, gangs, and traffickers who prey on the most vulnerable. What happens next? Many of these migrants decide they have no choice but to cross the border illegally so that they can escape the camps in Reynosa. When migrants try to cross the border illegally, they face new dangers of dehydration, drowning, and even death. Under the Trump administration, the United States is undermining our asylum policy and America's leadership in the world in welcoming refugees and those fleeing violence and persecution in their home countries. Indeed, the Trump administration is deliberately trying to hurt migration and legitimate asylum seekers and refugees by making it more difficult to seek asylum and deter refugees from coming to the United States in the first place. Proposed asylum law changes, such as expansion of the Remain in Mexico and metering policies, will make it more difficult for asylum seekers to apply if they have traveled through multiple countries as they make their way to the United States. I believe asylum law should be changed to make it easier for migrants to apply in their home country, if safe, and expeditiously get an asylum determination from the U.S. Embassy so that they do not have to make the dangerous journey to the United States and try to cross our border with the uncertainty of what awaits them once they reach the U.S. border. I am concerned, as well, that migrants who do not ultimately make it through the process of applying for asylum may not receive proper notice of their hearings before an asylum judge to make their case. These are people who are released in our country but have to show up for a hearing. The notices may be given out in English, which many migrants cannot read. The address may be incorrect or outdated in terms of where the migrant is heading in the United States to await their asylum hearing before the judge. In other words, the information may be inaccurate, and they never get the notices to appear. They are therefore out of status and never had a chance to make their case. NGOs in Texas made a strong case to our delegation to reinstate the Family Case Management Program, which the Trump administration has canceled. They explained that if ICE reinstated this program, we could see 99 percent compliance with immigration court orders without the need for expanded detention and overcrowding. This compliance rate is backed up by the track record and statistics of the Department of Homeland Security itself when the program was in use. This program is a promising alternative to detention that should be expanded instead of canceled by the Trump administration. Let me say a word about the Border Patrol agents themselves. They are trying to do their jobs under difficult circumstances. The main problem is the Trump administration's asylum policies, not the Border Patrol agents. I hope that the recent emergency supplemental appropriations measure passed by Congress and signed by the President will help in terms of providing better and more humane care to children in Health and Human Services Department custody, under the auspices of the Office of Refugee Resettlement. The measure seeks to improve conditions for migrants in the Department of Homeland Security's custody by addressing the dangerous overcrowding found by the Department of Homeland Security's inspector general. The bill improves due process for migrants and seeks to ease the immigration court backlog by hiring new immigration judges to hear cases and giving migrants greater access to the legal orientation program. What should Congress do to address the immediate needs of migrants, particularly the children, as well as addressing the root cause of this humanitarian crisis? I am a cosponsor of the Stop Cruelty to Migrant Children Act. This bill would provide guardrails and minimum standards for the treatment of children and families, ensuring that government funds are not used to traumatize or harm asylum seekers. It would do so by dramatically reducing family separations, setting health and safety standards, ending the operation of refugee shelters by for-profit contractors, making it easier to place children with sponsors, and ensuring that unaccompanied children have access to legal counsel. In terms of root causes, I have joined with my colleagues in introducing the Central America Reform and Enforcement Act designed to address the endemic violence and humanitarian crises that are driving immigration from Central America and also to smooth the path of those seeking asylum in this country. This bill would condition assistance to the Northern Triangle governments in order to address the root causes of the violence and instability that are driving migration and crack down on smugglers, cartels, and traffickers exploiting children and families. This legislation also enhances monitoring of unaccompanied children after they are processed at the border, provides a fair legal process for asylum seekers, and improves immigration court efficiencies. Those are some of the things we can do. In particular, this legislation would reverse the ill-advised foreign aid cuts made by the Trump administration that are worsening the migration crisis in the Northern Triangle, which includes Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala. I am concerned, however, that the President sees immigration and immigrants as a good political issue for the 2020 election. Congress needs a partner to take up and pass comprehensive immigration reform, which I believe could pass comfortably in both Houses if the President of the United States would join us in a constructive manner for comprehensive immigration reform. This administration has shown just the reverse. The administration has proposed a Muslim ban, canceled temporary protected status, canceled the DACA--Deferred Action for Childhood Arrival--Program for Dreamers, tried to institute an asylum ban, lowered and now seeks to eliminate refugee admissions, increased domestic immigration enforcement for nonviolent offenders, and sought to expand the program of expedited removal of residents in the United States without due process or a court hearing. In many of these cases, the Trump administration's decisions have been subjected to successful legal challenges in court, and, thankfully, our independent judiciary has largely continued to uphold the rule of law and serves as an important check and balance against the worst excesses of the Trump administration as it disregards our laws and the Constitution. I therefore urge the President to reverse course and work with Congress on comprehensive immigration reform, which must include sensible border security. Yes, we do need border security. In these times, when we have international terrorism and international drug trafficking, we need to know who is coming into our country. We have to have an orderly way to process those who want to work or live or go to school in the United States. But it must include an asylum policy for families who are at risk in their native country. Let us build on the proud history of America and welcome those who seek refuge from persecution and want to help build a better America. I suggest the absence of a quorum.