Chris Van Hollen

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, the brutal war in Yemen has raged for 3 years. At least 10,000 civilians have lost their lives in this conflict. More than 8 million Yemenis are on the brink of starvation. The worst cholera outbreak in modern history has afflicted over 1 million people, including over 600,000 children. Millions more are displaced from their homes. As the years wear on, the cycle of desperation, destruction, and death continues unabated. Make no mistake: The Houthis and their Iranian backers bear great responsibility for the civilian toll of this war. However, the Saudi- led coalition, with U.S. military support, continues to conduct hundreds of airstrikes each month. According to the United Nations, almost two-thirds of reported civilian deaths are the result of these airstrikes. The administration claims U.S. military support for the coalition, in the form of aerial refueling, munitions sales, and targeting assistance, provides leverage in the conflict; yet the Defense Department appears to know disturbingly little about how U.S. military assistance is used on the battlefield, including whether our refueling enables the bombing of civilians. Most critically, with both sides at a total impasse, the prospect of a political settlement is farther from reach now than at the beginning of this devastating war. In. short, U.S. policy in Yemen has been an abject failure, and by continuing our military assistance unmitigated, we are complicit in this tragedy. This complicity is fueled by President Trump's unquestioning embrace of the Saudi monarchy, and his apparent inability to use our leverage to place meaningful restraints on the Saudi attacks in Yemen. In addition, more than a year after his inauguration, the President has not put forward nominees to fill key diplomatic posts that would be responsible for addressing this conflict, including the Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs or the U.S. Ambassador to Saudi Arabia. He has alienated our counterparts at the United Nations. In action and in deed, President Trump has all but ensured the onslaught in Yemen will continue. I believe it is incumbent on the Congress to hold the Saudi-led coalition accountable and no longer to abdicate our responsibility in decisions of peace and war. S.J. Res. 54 reins in the President's largely unencumbered war making powers and ends unconditional U.S. military support for the Saudi campaign in Yemen without an authorization from Congress. For these reasons, I voted against the motion to table this resolution.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, I want to discuss S. 2155, the banking bill, and explain the provisions of the bill I supported, those I opposed, and my reasons for ultimately opposing this legislation. Over the past year, I have appreciated the opportunity to meet with Maryland community bankers, consumers, and an array of stakeholders who would be impacted by this bill. I have organized roundtables on economic development in Howard County and Baltimore. I have met with consumer groups who want a strong regulatory framework to ensure fair lending and to protect taxpayers from excessive risk-taking by some of the biggest banks. Most recently, I held a forum with my State's attorney general, Brian Frosh, where hundreds of passionate Marylanders came out on a rainy night to talk about consumer protection. We need a healthy banking system that serves Maryland businesses and consumers, and banking regulations should be appropriately tailored to the risks a bank poses to consumers, taxpayers, and the economy. Community banks should not have to comply with all of the regulations that apply to large Wall Street banks. That is why I support many of the reforms in this bill to relieve community banks of some unnecessary regulations. I also support provisions to modernize the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, so that reciprocal deposits are not considered to be brokered deposits. While I supported most of the reforms relating to community banks and credit unions, I have concerns with provisions in the bill that will encourage excessive risk-taking in systemically important banks and am disappointed by the absence of strengthened protections for consumers. For example, this legislation significantly raises the threshold for enhanced prudential standards for systemically important financial institutions, SIFIs. While I can support an increase in the threshold, I believe this bill goes too far. Gary Gensler, the chair of the Maryland Financial Consumer Protection Commission, and the former chairman of the Commodities Futures Trading Commission, has pointed out that this bill dials down prudential oversight for about 20 percent of U.S. banking sector assets. Mr. Gensler also noted that section 401 could be construed as possibly requiring the Federal Reserve to raise the threshold at which foreign megabanks are subject to the enhanced standards, thereby potentially allowing the very biggest banks to escape some of the current regulations. I am also concerned that section 402 of the bill modifies the supplementary leverage ratio by excluding custodial assets for custodial banks. This provision allows for greater risk-taking among megabanks. Removing custodial assets from the denominator of the supplementary leverage ratio will allow these banks to take on risk in all areas. Former Federal Reserve Governor Daniel Tarullo said that removing one type of asset from a ratio on the grounds that it is safe ``would defeat the whole purpose of a leverage ratio, which is to place a cap on total leverage, no matter what the assets on the other side of the balance sheet may be.'' Former FDIC Chair Sheila Bair wrote that ``Section 402 will create an uneven playing field by giving big systemic banks a special capital break not applicable to community and regional institutions.'' Moreover, this could create a slippery slope where we start excluding other items banks deem ``safe'' from the ratio. Additionally, I cannot ignore the fact that this bill does very little to help strengthen consumer protections at a time when the Trump administration is eliminating rules that protect consumers. If we can reach bipartisan agreement to modify regulations for banks, surely we can find agreement on ways to help protect consumers from the abuses we have seen from the likes of Wells Fargo and Equifax. I am particularly troubled by two last-minute changes that benefit Equifax. Section 310 has the admirable goal of increasing competition in the credit scoring industry. However, the primary beneficiary of this provision is VantageScore, a company jointly created by the three consumer credit reporting agencies, Equifax, TransUnion, and Experian. This means that a company that is essentially owned by the credit bureaus will also have the ability to determine your score. In short, this bill gives the credit bureaus a key tool to take over the credit reporting and scoring markets. Be assured that I will closely watch how the Federal Housing Finance Agency implements section 310. After both Republicans and Democrats spent the past 6 months saying that we would hold the credit reporting agencies more accountable, this bill makes a second last-minute change that would prevent members of the armed services who receive a free credit freeze from suing the credit reporting bureaus for wrongdoing. We hear time and time again about how poorly the credit reporting bureaus treat consumers. False information in credit reports can do great harm to consumers; yet the credit rating agencies face no real sanctions for their culpability. That is unacceptable. We need to change the system so that these companies have better incentives to produce accurate credit reports, including sanctioning them for inaccurate and breached data. We must give consumers the power to control their own data and provide them with the ability to take legal action against the bureaus when they have been wronged. Providing the bureaus with a shield from legal liability and opening the door for them to manipulate the credit reporting industry is going in the wrong direction. In conclusion, while I support many provisions in the bill, especially those relating to community banks and credit unions, I believe other provisions in the bill create excessive risks. Those risks, as well as the failure to use this opportunity to further protect consumers, led me to oppose this bill.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, today many of us will join with Maryland students and other students throughout this region to demand that this Senate and the House of Representatives take commonsense action to reduce gun violence in America--gun violence that has resulted in massacres at concerts, slaughters in churches, and, of course, mass deaths at schools throughout the country, and the death toll we see in the streets of America every day. I am going to read the names of 17 Maryland young people, people under age 20, who have died just in the last year as a result of gun violence in Maryland. Andre Galloway, 16 years old; Lavander Edwards, 16 years old; Dashanae Woodson, 17; Shaquan Trusty, 16; Thomas Johnson, 16; Anthony Cheeks, 17; Tyrese Davis, 15; Jeffrey Quick, 15; Xavier Cole Young, 14; Kymici Brown, 17; Larry Aaron, 19; Terry Joseph Bosley, 17; Iyanni Nachae Watkins, 13; Shadi Adi Najjar, 17; Artem Ziberov, 18; Dustin Khoury, 17; and Laila Goodwin, 4 years old. That is not the entire list of people under age 20 who were shot and killed in Maryland. In the State of Maryland, in 2017, 481 souls were lost to homicide, and in 2016, 436 Marylanders were lost to homicide, in all cases by gun violence. The time to act has long passed, but for goodness' sake, let's join with the students and Americans crying out throughout this country to say enough is enough and enact commonsense gun safety legislation.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize the 50th anniversary of the founding of the International Baccalaureate, which has made significant contributions to educating students around the world. In 2018, the IB celebrates 50 years of a curriculum that prioritizes critical thinking skills with a focus on international mindfulness. This organization pioneered a movement of international education in 1968 that now offers four high-quality, diverse and challenging educational program for students aged 3 to 19 years old. Through a unique curriculum of high academic standards, the IB program emphasizes critical thinking and flexibility of learning by intertwining disciplines across cultural and national boundaries. The IB currently works with more than 1.4 million students in over 4,775 schools in 153 countries. The IB's founders sought to create a program with a multinational approach to scholarship that would help young people develop the skills, values, and knowledge necessary to build a more peaceful future. The program inspires young people to become lifelong learners, using their energy, conviction, and positivity to engage with increasingly complex and interconnected global issues. Its program is highly respected, as the best universities in the world actively seek out IB students because of their experience with IB's crossdisciplinary and crosscultural approach. IB alumni are equipped with the skills and mindset needed to succeed and to approach challenges in innovative and effective ways. The International Baccalaureate is one of the world's leading educational initiatives. I am honored that the IB Global Centre is located in Maryland and am delighted to recognize IB's achievements and the profound contributions it has made to education throughout the world.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I thank the Presiding Officer. Mr. President, I start by thanking my colleague from the State of Maryland, Senator Cardin, for his leadership on many, many issues but, especially, as we gather here on the Senate floor to discuss the Dreamers and immigration issues, including the folks who are TPS recipients. I thank him for his leadership in Maryland and around the country on these vital issues. I think the country understands how important it is that we provide the Dreamers with a secure future. These are individuals who have grown up in our country. They know no other country as home. They have been in classrooms with our kids. They have pledged allegiance to the flag. They are now students in college or individuals working in businesses. Some of them are small business owners. Many serve in our Armed Forces. It would be disgraceful if, after welcoming these young people, we were to cast them away. Unfortunately, last September, President Trump lit the fuse on the deportation of the Dreamers, and that clock has been ticking every day and every month as we approach the March 5 deadline. So we as a Senate--as Republicans and Democrats but, more importantly, as Americans--need to come together and finally do our work so that we operate as a body that can help solve problems in this country. Part of that is making sure that these Dreamers have a secure home and a pathway to becoming full citizens here in the United States of America. Just the other day I was talking to the president of the University of Maryland. We have a number of DACA recipients who are there training to be engineers, training to be doctors, and people who are looking forward to participating in the only country they know, the United States of America. I wish to turn now quickly to people who are here under what is called temporary protected status. These are individuals who are in the United States and could not return home because of disasters in their home countries, whether by earthquakes or hurricanes or other events that made it impossible to return home because their homes had been destroyed or other circumstances had changed that made it impossible for them to return. We, the United States of America, granted these individuals temporary protected status. These are individuals who are in the United States legally, and many of them have been here for over two decades. In the case of El Salvador, we have most people who are here from El Salvador on temporary protected status since the year 2000. They have families here. They are small business men and women, and they are working productively in our communities. In the case of Honduras, it was even earlier, 1998. Senator Cardin and I and others have introduced legislation called the SECURE Act, which would also provide security here in the United States for these individuals on TPS status. Unfortunately, a series of decisions coming down from the Trump administration has put the future of these individuals in jeopardy. The clock is also ticking on many of these people who have been here for more than 20 years toward deportation. These are individuals who are, again, working here legally and are contributing to our communities. I believe that as Americans we should recognize that it is important that we provide a secure future for them as well. That is why we introduced the SECURE Act. So I am hopeful that as we debate a secure future for the Dreamers, we also find a way going forward to provide a secure future for those who are here under TPS. It seems to me that the answer is in plain sight. The answer is making sure that Dreamers have a secure future, providing a path to citizenship as long as they meet all of the requirements, and that we ensure we have border security. I don't think there is a Senator in this body who does not believe that the United States has to have strong and secure borders. The debate has always been what is the smartest, most effective, most cost-efficient way to provide for border security. I hope nobody is interested in wasting taxpayer dollars on things that don't work. It seems to me that we should be about the business of finding the most cost-effective way to ensuring that border security. As we do that, we should be listening to the experts as to what works and what does not work. Unfortunately, we have seen more focus in recent months on things that cost a lot of money but don't really significantly improve our border security. I am hoping that we can come together and have a rational conversation about how we can secure our borders in the most cost-effective way. This is a moment for the Senate to really stand up and do its job. I think if you look at those two issues--a path forward for the Dreamers with a path toward citizenship for those who meet all the requirements and that we find a way to do smart, cost-effective border security-- then, that is clearly the way forward. I do hope that as we consider those two important priorities, we also come together and find a way forward for people who are here on temporary protected status, because in my conversations with Republican Senators, they recognize that for these individuals--who are here legally, working in the country, and having been here for an average of 20 years--we should find a way to make sure they have a secure future here. We may want to look at ways to reform TPS going forward, and we can have that discussion, but for those who are here now and have been living in the United States for decades and working, let's find a way to provide a secure future for them as well. This is going to be a test for the Senate--hopefully, in the coming days, but if not, in the coming weeks, and I hope we can get the job done. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Carryover Equity Act of 2018 to eliminate the 20 percent carryover limitation which is an impediment to flexibility and effective financial planning of the 1890s Extension Program. The 1890s Extension Program is administered by the USDA's National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) and is a capacity funding program supporting extension activities at 1890 Land-Grant Universities. Its intent is to increase and strengthen agricultural sciences at the 1890s through the effective integration of education, research and extension programs. My State is the home of the University of Maryland Eastern Shore (UMES), Maryland's only 1890 Land-Grant University and one of the State's four Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs). UMES, along with the University of Maryland College Park, form the University of Maryland Extension--a statewide educational organization funded by Federal, State, and local governments that brings research- based knowledge directly to communities throughout the ``Old Line'' State. The mission of University of Maryland Extension is to educate citizens to apply practical, research-based knowledge to critical issues facing individuals, families, communities, the State of Maryland, and its global partners. In Maryland, the 1890 Extension Program is headquartered at UMES in Princess Anne, MD and extension programming at the University focuses on 4-H STEM; nutrition and health; seafood technology; small farm outreach; and small ruminant research. The UMES program is targeted to diverse audiences on the agriculturally important Eastern Shore with special emphasis on those with limited resources to help them improve their quality of life and to successfully pursue a career in agriculture. Mr. President, current law limits the funding amount an 1890 institution may carry over in any fiscal year to 20 percent of the 1890s Extension Program funding received. This prohibition creates significant impediments for 1890 institutions to carry out their mission to deliver programs to customers and clientele and restricts the ability of 1890 institutions to efficiently and effectively manage their funding. No other USDA/NIFA capacity program has a similar 20 percent carryover limitation. By eliminating this 20 percent limitation, via the Carryover Equity Act, the 1890s Extension Program will have the same funding flexibility found in the other major capacity programs administered by NIFA. This bill has the strong support of 1890 institution Presidents as well as the Association of Public & Land-Grant Universities. I am pleased to be joined in introducing this bill by Senators Perdue, Brown, Tillis, Cardin, Coons, Graham, Manchin and Kaine who, like me, recognize the value 1890 land grant institutions bring to the rural communities of our States and the research and technical support these institutions provide to our socially disadvantaged, and veteran farmer, and rancher constituents with limited resources. I look forward to working together with Senate and House colleagues to see that this important legislation is included in the next Farm Bill.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Carryover Equity Act of 2018 to eliminate the 20 percent carryover limitation which is an impediment to flexibility and effective financial planning of the 1890s Extension Program. The 1890s Extension Program is administered by the USDA's National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) and is a capacity funding program supporting extension activities at 1890 Land-Grant Universities. Its intent is to increase and strengthen agricultural sciences at the 1890s through the effective integration of education, research and extension programs. My State is the home of the University of Maryland Eastern Shore (UMES), Maryland's only 1890 Land-Grant University and one of the State's four Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs). UMES, along with the University of Maryland College Park, form the University of Maryland Extension--a statewide educational organization funded by Federal, State, and local governments that brings research- based knowledge directly to communities throughout the ``Old Line'' State. The mission of University of Maryland Extension is to educate citizens to apply practical, research-based knowledge to critical issues facing individuals, families, communities, the State of Maryland, and its global partners. In Maryland, the 1890 Extension Program is headquartered at UMES in Princess Anne, MD and extension programming at the University focuses on 4-H STEM; nutrition and health; seafood technology; small farm outreach; and small ruminant research. The UMES program is targeted to diverse audiences on the agriculturally important Eastern Shore with special emphasis on those with limited resources to help them improve their quality of life and to successfully pursue a career in agriculture. Mr. President, current law limits the funding amount an 1890 institution may carry over in any fiscal year to 20 percent of the 1890s Extension Program funding received. This prohibition creates significant impediments for 1890 institutions to carry out their mission to deliver programs to customers and clientele and restricts the ability of 1890 institutions to efficiently and effectively manage their funding. No other USDA/NIFA capacity program has a similar 20 percent carryover limitation. By eliminating this 20 percent limitation, via the Carryover Equity Act, the 1890s Extension Program will have the same funding flexibility found in the other major capacity programs administered by NIFA. This bill has the strong support of 1890 institution Presidents as well as the Association of Public & Land-Grant Universities. I am pleased to be joined in introducing this bill by Senators Perdue, Brown, Tillis, Cardin, Coons, Graham, Manchin and Kaine who, like me, recognize the value 1890 land grant institutions bring to the rural communities of our States and the research and technical support these institutions provide to our socially disadvantaged, and veteran farmer, and rancher constituents with limited resources. I look forward to working together with Senate and House colleagues to see that this important legislation is included in the next Farm Bill.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, today I wish to express my disappointment that David Stras was confirmed to serve on the Eight Circuit Court of Appeals. Mr. Stras's nomination should not have made it to the Senate floor. For over a century, the Senate Judiciary Committee has used the blue slip process to ensure that the White House fulfills its constitutional duty to seek the Senate's advice and consent for judicial nominations. Traditionally, a nominee received a committee hearing only if both of their home State Senators returned their blue slips to the committee. Despite receiving only one blue slip, Mr. Stras was granted a hearing, and his nomination was sent to the Senate floor for a vote. I am extremely disappointed that my colleagues are abandoning long-standing practices in order to fill the judiciary with conservative ideologues. Moreover, Mr. Stras is yet another judicial nominee selected for this administration by the Heritage Foundation and the Federalist Society. His name was on President Trump's Supreme Court shortlist, and although he was not selected to fill the Supreme Court vacancy, outside dark money PACS spent millions of dollars running ads in support of his nomination to this seat. These facts should alarm every American. Our judiciary system, under the Trump administration, is being outsourced to outside organizations with unlimited financial resources that are not accountable to voters. I urge my colleagues to return to regular order.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

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

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, climate change is a clear and present danger, but we can confront that danger in a way that presents new economic opportunities. While the Trump Administration has abdicated American leadership on this critical issue, Congress must fight back, which is why today I am introducing the Healthy Climate and Family Security Act for the first time in the U.S. Senate. Two of the most pressing challenges we face as a Nation are the need to address the economic costs and public health risks associated with climate change, and to strengthen the middle class. We do both in this bill. By capping carbon emissions, selling permits, and returning 100 percent of the revenue to everyone equally, this `Cap and Dividend' approach achieves necessary greenhouse gas reductions while boosting the purchasing power of families across the country. Mr. President, the Healthy Climate and Family Security Act is a simple, effective, and transparent way to combat climate change while supporting economic growth and a thriving middle class. The solution is market based, pro-growth, and is built to last. The bill achieves reductions in greenhouse gas emissions while increasing incomes for Americans. It places a declining cap on carbon pollution each year to reach 80 percent below 2005 levels by 2050. A polluter pays principle is then applied by requiring the first sellers of carbon to buy permits for emissions within those caps. Finally, 100 percent of the revenue raised from the sale of those permits is returned straight to the American people through a Healthy Climate Dividend. On an economy-wide level, the price signal placed on carbon pollution will accelerate innovation and incentivize both greater energy efficiency as well as greater use of lower-carbon energy alternatives. And the bill's robust border adjustment protections ensure that U.S. companies are not disadvantaged against foreign competitors at home or abroad. In sum, this legislation puts a price on carbon pollution and returns the proceeds directly to the American people at the same time it accelerates the growth of good paying jobs in clean technologies. It is a win-win-win, boosting middle class pocketbooks, growing good paying jobs, and reducing our carbon footprint. Mr. President, I am pleased that Representative Don Beyer of Virginia, a strong advocate for the environment, is introducing a companion measure in the House. I want to thank Mike Tidwell of the Chesapeake Climate Action Network, who has been helpful in developing this legislation. Other organizations such as the League of Conservation Voters and the Sierra Club are supportive of this approach. I look forward to working together to address the most pressing environmental problem of our time: climate change.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, climate change is a clear and present danger, but we can confront that danger in a way that presents new economic opportunities. While the Trump Administration has abdicated American leadership on this critical issue, Congress must fight back, which is why today I am introducing the Healthy Climate and Family Security Act for the first time in the U.S. Senate. Two of the most pressing challenges we face as a Nation are the need to address the economic costs and public health risks associated with climate change, and to strengthen the middle class. We do both in this bill. By capping carbon emissions, selling permits, and returning 100 percent of the revenue to everyone equally, this `Cap and Dividend' approach achieves necessary greenhouse gas reductions while boosting the purchasing power of families across the country. Mr. President, the Healthy Climate and Family Security Act is a simple, effective, and transparent way to combat climate change while supporting economic growth and a thriving middle class. The solution is market based, pro-growth, and is built to last. The bill achieves reductions in greenhouse gas emissions while increasing incomes for Americans. It places a declining cap on carbon pollution each year to reach 80 percent below 2005 levels by 2050. A polluter pays principle is then applied by requiring the first sellers of carbon to buy permits for emissions within those caps. Finally, 100 percent of the revenue raised from the sale of those permits is returned straight to the American people through a Healthy Climate Dividend. On an economy-wide level, the price signal placed on carbon pollution will accelerate innovation and incentivize both greater energy efficiency as well as greater use of lower-carbon energy alternatives. And the bill's robust border adjustment protections ensure that U.S. companies are not disadvantaged against foreign competitors at home or abroad. In sum, this legislation puts a price on carbon pollution and returns the proceeds directly to the American people at the same time it accelerates the growth of good paying jobs in clean technologies. It is a win-win-win, boosting middle class pocketbooks, growing good paying jobs, and reducing our carbon footprint. Mr. President, I am pleased that Representative Don Beyer of Virginia, a strong advocate for the environment, is introducing a companion measure in the House. I want to thank Mike Tidwell of the Chesapeake Climate Action Network, who has been helpful in developing this legislation. Other organizations such as the League of Conservation Voters and the Sierra Club are supportive of this approach. I look forward to working together to address the most pressing environmental problem of our time: climate change.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, I want to start my remarks today by focusing on a serious threat to our national security, and that is North Korea's nuclear program--both its nuclear weapons program as well as its missile program. At this moment the United States must exert maximum economic pressure to get North Korea to engage in meaningful discussions with the goal of denuclearizing the Korean Peninsula. That is why Senator Toomey and I introduced the BRINK Act. I was pleased to see the changing of the guard here at the desk, with the Senator from Pennsylvania having just been the Presiding Officer and the Senator from Colorado taking over, because I know the Senator from Colorado has also been very deeply involved in this issue to try to make sure that we address the threat of the North Korea program. The BRINK Act is bipartisan legislation passed unanimously out of the Banking Committee back on November 7. It imposes very tough sanctions on North Korea, and, just as importantly, it has enforcement mechanisms to make sure financial institutions anywhere in the world that are not cooperating with the United States and our allies to impose those sanctions on North Korea are penalized. It is a very simple message: You can do business with North Korea or you can do business with the United States. You cannot do business with both. Given that this passed unanimously out of the Banking Committee on November 7, and that since then North Korea has tested an ICBM that analysts believe is capable of reaching all of the United States, we should move forward on this legislation now. In fact, just yesterday CIA Director Pompeo said that ``North Korea is ever closer to being able to hold America at risk'' and that its nuclear weapons program had developed at a ``very rapid clip.'' We have no time to waste. We should move forward immediately on the BRINK Act and move forward on other legislation that came out of the Foreign Relations Committee on this issue. I think we owe it to the American people to do this right away, without further delay.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize the 50th anniversary of the appointment of Rev. Marion Bascom and Konstantine Prevas, Esq., to the Baltimore City Board of Fire Commissioners. These two men made significant contributions to the city of Baltimore and the Baltimore City Fire Department. On January 23, 1968, Reverend Bascom was sworn in by Mayor Thomas D'Alessandro III as Baltimore City's first African-American member of the Board of Fire Commissioners. Mr. Konstantine Prevas was also sworn in that day. Reverend Bascom was a minister and fighter for social and economic equity. Mr. Prevas was an attorney, WWII veteran, and a leader of the Greek community with a long family history in the Baltimore business community. These two men may not have known about the great task that lay ahead of them, yet they both undertook each challenge and opportunity with vigor and commitment. The Baltimore City Fire Department is the beneficiary of their outstanding and tireless efforts. Although Baltimore's fire department was desegregated in 1953 under the administration of Mayor Thomas D'Alessandro, Jr., in 1968, it still had vestiges of Jim Crow. Segregation inside the firehouses and unfairness in the areas of discipline and promotions were among the issues that needed to be addressed. Commissioners Bascom and Prevas were well-suited to lead the fight against these inequalities. Commissioner Bascom did not think that being the first African- American in leadership of Baltimore's fire department was the key to change in an institution that had a legacy of nepotism. He always credited Commissioner Prevas for being the deciding vote on a three- vote panel to move the department forward. Reverend Bascom would often say, ``Never forget the name of Konstantine Prevas. ``Gus'' Prevas was my friend. He voted with me on every issue that was of interest to Black people. If it was not for him, you still would be sitting on the Black toilet, sleeping in the Black bed, eating off the Black plate, drinking coffee out of the Black cup and washing up in the Black sink.'' Thanks to the outstanding leadership of these two commissioners, the difficult challenges long facing the department were met with increased scrutiny and examination. The ``good old boy'' system, discrimination in assignments and promotions, bias in meting out discipline, and inequality in working and living conditions, all were finally being taken seriously. The African-American members of the department were invited to share their views of the issues that needed correction directly with the fire board. After a series of meetings, the following statement was released from an executive session of the fire board: ``The Board wishes to clearly state that it is unalterably opposed to the unwritten rule that seems to prevail in a few isolated fire houses with respect to the use of beds, toilets and other facilities. All such facilities are provided by the City for use by all members and are not to be assigned on the basis of race. In short, if there are any ``unwritten'' rules that cause discrimination in any form whatsoever, they will be eliminated immediately.'' Commissioners Bascom and Prevas were not afraid to make waves to correct the injustices they observed. For example, they agreed to be witnesses in one of our Nation's first lawsuits to address discrimination in public safety. In addition, they helped the Baltimore business community acquire property to build a new ``super station'' in downtown Baltimore. While negative newspaper editorials endangered the project's funding and historic architectural considerations complicated its design and construction, the commissioners' support for the project was unwavering. Defending their plan, they asked who would question replacing obsolete firehouses that were 60 to 100 years old. As the records of the board of fire Commissioners state, ``In addition to the aesthetic benefits to the area involved, there will be but one new building to maintain as opposed to three old and costly buildings--and most important to all citizens--the fire house complex will afford an improved efficiency of response for the fire fighting units and ambulance units stationed therein.'' These consolidations created a more efficient and effective delivery of service to the hub of the city. The concept was so successful that it inspired construction of another large station on the east side of the city, which is home to eight fire service units and four specialty units. Firehouse Magazine has reported that Steadman Station was ``the Busiest Station in the Nation,'' having 3,000 more runs than the next busiest station in the country. The experience of the April 1968 riots exposed the inadequacy of the department's personal protective equipment. Observations during firefighting operations indicated a need for two-way hand-held radios, and several pieces of the second line apparatus did not conform with the Maryland Motor Vehicle Code. Once exposed, these matters became the priority of the members of the fire board until the funding was obtained and the equipment put into service. The fire board also created the emergency medical system of the Baltimore City Fire Department, whose mark on the city is apparent today. One example is the approval of a request from Dr. Gustav C. Voigt, director of the coronary care unit of Baltimore City Hospitals. Dr. Voigt presented a proposal for a pilot project for a specially equipped and staffed ambulance for heart attack patients. Many believe that early support for this project lay the foundation for today's basic and advanced life support service. The board also worked with fraternal organizations, firefighters and the community to promote the idea of Dr. Thomas J. Krisek, chief of plastic surgery, to establish a burn unit in city hospitals. That unit has become part of the Johns Hopkins Health System, known as Maryland's Regional Burn Center. The offer by the Bell System of a universal emergency number 911, education of the community concerning the pulling of false alarms, and enhancement of community outreach to improve relations between the public and members of the fire department were also significant initiatives undertaken by the board. The Baltimore City Fire Department is one of the most diverse and accomplished fire departments in our Nation. I am delighted to recognize its achievements and the lasting contributions of Rev. Marion Bascom and Konstantine Prevas.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, providing for the security of the American people is one of our greatest responsibilities. I salute the officers and analysts in our intelligence community, who are integral in combating our adversaries and protecting our citizenry. The section 702 Prograin, authorized by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, FISA, is an essential tool in our fight against international terrorism. An equally great responsibility, however, is safeguarding the individual liberties enshrined in our Constitution, and it is this debate--the debate on the balance between national security and privacy protections--that is so fundamental to our Nation's history and our democracy. The proponents of FISA 702 reform raised a series of concerns about how the program could compromise the private communications of law- abiding American citizens and proposed amendments to address those concerns. I believe the Senate should have had an opportunity to debate, consider and vote on those proposals before reauthorizing section 702 for 6 more years. Unfortunately, the Senate Republican leadership shuttered this critical debate by preventing amendments from consideration. For this reason, I voted against the FISA Amendments Reauthorization Act of 2017.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam President, let me start by agreeing with the Senator from Utah that we should extend the Children's Health Insurance Program. We should do it for 6 years. I want to commend the Senator from Utah for his work in creating the CHIP program, along with Senator Kennedy. It is good work, and we need to extend it. We also have an obligation as Senators, on a bipartisan basis, to get together and put together a budget for the United States of America. We are now 4 months into the current fiscal year, and we do not have a budget that provides the resources necessary for the Department of Defense. We do not have a budget that provides resources to fight the opioid epidemic. There has been a lot of talk here in the U.S. Senate about fighting the opioid epidemic, but we have no resources to do that. We need a budget to get that done. So, yes, we should extend the Children's Health Insurance Program. We need to do that. But we also need to do our job--which we should have done back on October 1, the first day of this fiscal year--and actually adopt a bipartisan budget for the United States of America. The tragedy right now is that at midnight tonight the government will shut down unless the Senate Republican leadership comes to its senses and supports a bipartisan budget agreement--a bipartisan agreement, which is really in plain sight right here in the U.S. Senate. Look, the American people understand very clearly that Republicans control the White House, Republicans control both Houses of Congress, and with that comes a responsibility to govern for the good of the entire country and not focus on narrow, partisan interests. Instead, what we have here as the clock ticks is dysfunction and chaos. Yesterday I heard the Republican leader, Senator McConnell, say on the Senate floor that he would not support a bipartisan agreement, reached by Senators right here, unless he knew where President Trump stood on those issues. Then, in the same breath, he indicated he did not know where President Trump stood on those key issues. The Senate is a separate and equal branch of the U.S. Government with its own constitutional responsibilities. We have a bipartisan agreement here on so many of these issues. We should not now be outsourcing our constitutional duties to a White House that, according to Senator McConnell, doesn't know where it stands on these issues. Senator Lindsey Graham had it right when he said that we don't have a reliable negotiating partner at the White House. And, in the last week, we heard President Trump's own Chief of Staff, General Kelly, acknowledge that the President was ``uninformed'' on some of the issues being debated here. So let's do our job as the U.S. Senate, with our own responsibilities under the Constitution, and not say that we have to wait on a dysfunctional White House and not say that we have to wait on a President who once tweeted out that we need ``a good government shutdown.'' There are no good government shutdowns, and we should be doing everything we can to avoid one at midnight tonight. So let's actually do our job here, and let's come up with a budget for the United States for this fiscal year. A small business could not survive without putting together its budget. It does great harm to our country and to our government when this Congress cannot get its act together and put together a budget in time. We have now been kicking the can down the road month by month since October 1. That is why Senator Graham said this morning: ``I am not going to support continuing this fiasco for 30 more days. It's time Congress stop the cycle of dysfunction, grow up, and act consistent with the values of a great nation.'' Amen to that. That is our constitutional duty. That is what we need to do in order to protect our military and other vital investments important to our country and our economy. Here is what the Pentagon's chief spokesperson said about continuing resolutions: They are wasteful, they are destructive, and the longer they go the worse it is. She went on to say that these continuing resolutions erode our defense capabilities and have negative consequences for them. Why in the world do we want to kick the can down the road another 30 days when we can get it done right now and avert a government shutdown? We need that budget to support our military. We also need it to support the critical investment in our kids' education. We need a budget plan that is going to provide veterans the healthcare they deserve. We need a budget that is going to fight the opioid epidemic-- one that keeps community health centers open. The Social Security Administration has faced hundreds of millions of dollars of cuts. They are not going to be able to do their job in making sure folks get their Social Security benefits on time if we continue to strangle their budget. The sad thing is, we have known about all of these issues since last September. I am glad we have come to some resolution on the issue of the Children's Health Insurance Program. We have known about that since last September. But we have also known about the need to fight the opioid epidemic. We have known about the need to fund community health centers. We have known about the need to make sure our veterans have the healthcare they deserve. And we have known about the need to address the DACA issue--the Dreamers--because it was last September when President Trump revoked the DACA Program, effective a very short time from now. That program had made sure that Dreamers could be here legally in the United States, contributing to our country. So when President Trump took that action, he manufactured the crisis we are in now. But he also said: OK, I am going to revoke this legal status--this program--but I want Congress, on a bipartisan basis, to come up with a long-term solution. That is what he said back then, and he said the same thing just a few weeks ago. I think the Nation saw him on TV, when he invited a bipartisan group of Senators and Members of the House to the White House, and he invited everybody to come up with a solution. A number of our Senators, on a bipartisan basis, took the President up on his request. That is when Senator Graham and Senator Durbin and two other Republicans and two other Democrats came up with a plan, which now has very broad support, including the support of seven Republican Senators. So they did exactly what President Trump asked them to do, and they addressed all of the issues that President Trump outlined. I think we know what happened after that. Senators Graham and Durbin went to the White House to present their bipartisan agreement to the President, and, meanwhile, he invited some other Senators over. They sabotaged the deal, and the President made repulsive, racist remarks at that meeting. So the President, who had asked Senators to come up with a solution on a bipartisan basis, when they did what he asked, threw it back in their face. Why is the Republican leader, Senator McConnell, now saying to the Senate that we can't do our job here until I know what is going to happen at the White House? Why should we be outsourcing our constitutional responsibilities to the White House when we have an agreement which, if it were put on the floor of the Senate today, would pass? It is a bipartisan solution. I really believe it is time for us to do our job here, Republicans and Democrats alike. Here is what President Trump said at the time of the last government shutdown. That is when we had a 16-day shutdown because some of the Republican Senators didn't want to fund the Affordable Care Act at the time and shut down the government for 16 days. Then Citizen Trump said: ``It always happens to be the top. I mean, the problems start from the top and have to get solved from the top.'' This is what Citizen Donald Trump was saying about President Obama at the time of the last shutdown. He went on to say: ``The president is the leader, and he's got to get everybody in a room, and he's got to lead.'' How times change when Citizen Trump becomes President Trump. You have a White House in chaos, dysfunction. Senator Graham himself said it: an unreliable negotiating partner. Yet, the Republican leader wants this Senate to outsource our job to the President of the United States and says that we are going to shut down the government here because we don't know what President Trump thinks about all this. That is a dereliction of the duty of the Senate, and we need to do our job today and avoid a government shutdown. The answer is in plain sight. Let's get to work. Let's get it done. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, I wish to voice my disappointment that Mr. James Ho was confirmed to serve as a judge on the Fifth Circuit. While at the Department of Justice, Mr. Ho wrote a memo that the George W. Bush administration used to greenlight the CIA's use of torture. Furthermore, Mr. Ho's comments on campaign finance reveal a common thread among Trump judicial nominees that I find particularly disturbing. Mr. Ho argued that some of the detainees held by the U.S. at Guantanamo were not protected under the Geneva Convention. The memo Mr. Ho wrote allowed the CIA to use interrogation techniques banned by the Geneva Convention that caused the death of a detainee. The interrogation techniques Mr. Ho claimed were legal were ineffective and their use hidden from lawmakers. As my colleague Senator McCain said when he introduced an amendment to reaffirm our government's prohibition on torture in 2015, ``Our enemies act without conscience. We must not.'' I am also deeply concerned by Mr. Ho's radical views on money in politics. Mr. Ho has said, ``For truly radical but effective reform, we must reverse course and abolish all restrictions on campaign finance.'' The overwhelming majority of Americans, both Republicans and Democrats, disagree strongly with Mr. Ho and believe that unlimited, unattributable amounts in money in politics corrupts our political system. Our political finance systems has been flooded with secret, corporate money since the 5-4 ruling in Citizens United. Mr. Ho's opinion on campaign finance favors corporations and the wealthy who use money to yield influence and shape policy. Unfortunately, Mr. Ho is not the only Trump judicial nominee who has espoused such extreme views. Every single nominee has come from a preapproved list created by the Heritage Foundation and the Federalist Society. This intellectual hegemony will harm Americans seeking redress in the courts. Recently, three judicial nominees withdrew their names from consideration after the American public learned how inexperienced and unfit they were for a lifetime appointment. I encourage the Trump administration to submit mainstream nominees and to stop outsourcing our judicial system to rightwing think tanks.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, we need bipartisan tax reform. We should simplify our Tax Code. It has been filled over many years with all sorts of junk that was put there by high-powered lobbyists, rather than because of the public interests. Unfortunately, this bill has nothing to do with tax reform. In fact, it is hard to believe you could take a tax code that is already stacked in favor of the very wealthy and the very powerful and make it even more favorable to the very wealthy and very powerful, but that is exactly what this Republican tax plan does. Exhibit A about how this has nothing to do with tax reform has to do with the carried interest loophole. Many may recall that during the last campaign, whenever Candidate Trump talked about the need to reform the Tax Code, what was his No. 1 example? He said: We have to get rid of the carried interest loophole for hedge fund managers. Go back and run the tape. Every time somebody asked him what was broken about the Tax Code, that is what he said. In fact, he said: The hedge fund guys are getting away with murder. They're making a tremendous amount of money. They have to pay taxes. That was Candidate Donald Trump. Well, here we are. Shortly, we are going to vote on the final Republican tax plan. And guess what. In a tax plan that is over 500 pages, nowhere do they get rid of the carried interest loophole for hedge fund managers. Hedge fund managers are still going to get a better tax rate than the people who work for them--a better tax rate than their secretaries and a better tax rate than their assistants. So in Candidate Trump's words, in this tax bill, it looks like those hedge fund managers are still ``getting away with murder.'' That is why it is a farce to call this tax reform. It is stacking the Tax Code more in favor of the very wealthy and the very powerful. In fact, if you are a millionaire in America, you are going to get an average annual tax cut of $70,000. That is great if you are a millionaire. At the same time, millions of middle-class taxpayers are going to pay more. The folks who get the biggest windfall are big corporations. Their tax rate will go from 35 percent to 21 percent. Who are these folks? Well, primarily, they are the folks who are already the wealthiest people in this country, but I bet a lot of people will be surprised to learn that 35 percent of the stockholders in those American corporations are foreign stockholders. Thirty-five percent of the folks who have stock in these companies are foreigners. In the year 2019, foreign stockholders are going to get a $48 billion windfall from that big corporate tax cut. In that same year, 11 million Americans will pay more taxes. So money out of the pockets of middle- class American families will go into the bank accounts of foreign stockholders. That doesn't sound like America first to me. It doesn't sound like middle-class taxpayers first to me. In fact, I want my colleagues to see just how skewed this tax bill is. I mentioned that about 11 million Americans are going to see their taxes go up right away, but if you take the tax cut for every working- class family in every State Donald Trump won in the last election and you add up all of their tax cuts, it is still $5 billion less than what foreign stockholders get in the year 2019. Think about that. These are families who make about $100,000 or less. If you take the tax cut that every family in every State that Donald Trump won, and you add them all up, all those tax cuts, it still comes out to less than foreign stockholders are going to get in the year 2019. I will tell you, when the American public finds out what is in this tax plan, they are going to get madder and madder. I heard Speaker Ryan say: Well, people are going to see the result, and they are going to like it. The more they see the results, the madder they are going to get. Here is the thing, it gets worse with time. There are some things that do well over time; this gets worse. When this bill fully kicks in, the tax cuts for American families expire. They are small, relatively, to start with, then they expire, but the tax cuts for corporations, they are big and they are forever. You know what that means. That means those foreign stockholders are going to have their tax cuts go on forever. In fact, when this fully kicks in 10 years from now, those foreign stockholders are going to get a $23 billion windfall in that year, but average American families making $75,000 or less--$75,000 or less--on average, are going to see their taxes go up. They will see their taxes go up when this fully kicks in to give that windfall to foreign stockholders. That is a bad deal for America. It is a bad deal for the middle class. We should say no to this tax bill. We should start over and do real tax reform that benefits middle-class families and those working their way into the middle class. This is not it. Let's start over. Let's vote this down. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam President, equality of opportunity is one of our Nation's greatest pursuits and greatest struggles. Though the path has not been easy, our society has slowly and steadily become more just, more decent, and more powerful. President Obama's Defense Secretary Carter reaffirmed this principle when he stated that every qualified woman who met the high physical standards required of her would be allowed to serve our country in combat. Owen West soundly rejected this policy and the ethic undergirding it in an inflammatory opinion editorial authored with his father in March of 2016. He asserted that integrating women into infantry platoons, including those who ``could run circles around the average Marine grunt'' with their ``physical prowess,'' would ``swiftly reduce combat effectiveness.'' He discounted the ability of women to contribute to mission effectiveness, equating them only with ``intimate scandals.'' He contended that women would ``introduce sex, affection, favoritism, protectiveness, jealously, anxiety and all the other co-ed dynamics to an infantry platoon.'' These chauvinistic views have no place in the Department of Defense, particularly in positions of leadership. As Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low Intensity Conflict, Mr. West will be responsible for the integration of women into our Special Operations Forces. I appreciate that Mr. West offered a retraction of his views on women in the military during his Senate confirmation hearing, at the behest of Democratic members of the Armed Services Committee, and it is my hope that Mr. West will do his utmost to support and recruit qualified women into the military in the future. However, many of President Trump's nominees have reneged on commitments made during their confirmation hearings. Given Mr. West's public record on women in combat, I cannot take that risk by supporting his confirmation.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, I opposed the nomination of Don Willet to serve as a judge on the Fifth Circuit. Senate Republicans, lacking a robust legislative agenda, despite unilateral control of the government, decided to confirm another highly controversial nominee. Last week, Republicans confirmed three circuit court judges. In early November, Senate Republicans confirmed four judges in 1 week. This accelerated confirmation pace is unconventional and alarming. Republicans on the Judiciary Committee are willing to set aside decades of standing tradition and policies in order to confirm highly ideological judges who, in many cases, seem to have more of a political agenda than the impartial temperament necessary for the fair administration of justice. This seat has been open for years because Senate Republicans refused to work with the Obama administration and agree upon a consensus mainstream nominee that reflects the views and opinions of the majority of Americans. Now that Republicans are in the majority and no longer need to obstruct the White House, they have decided to advance Judge Willet, a judge described as the ``most conservative justice in Texas.'' Judge Willet was on Trump's Supreme Court short list which indicates that he met the Federalist Society's and the Heritage Foundation's ideological litmus test. This should concern all Americans, regardless of party affiliation. Our judicial system should not be outsourced to outside groups who want to stack the courts with judges who share their extreme political agenda. Judge Willet has expressed insensitive views towards the LGBTQ community and skepticism that women face unique challenges in the work place, such as unequal pay and sexual harassment and discrimination. In light of the #MeToo movement and the countless women who have shared their stories of workplace sexual harassment, Judge Willet's opinion is at best misinformed. I hope that Judge Willet's views have evolved since he wrote that opinion for then- Governor George W. Bush. I also hope my colleagues will start to recognize that they are setting a dangerous precedent by turning the Senate into an assembly line for highly ideological judges who appear to be more aligned with a political agenda that the impartial administration of justice.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

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

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, I come to the floor this afternoon because of the reports that the House and Senate conference committees on the tax plan are nearing an agreement or may have reached an agreement. By all accounts, this would be shaping up to be one of the greatest legislative heists in American history. It is hard to imagine that you could take a tax code that is already stacked in favor of the very wealthy and very powerful special interests and actually make it worse, but that is exactly what we are hearing coming out of the conference committee. This is being worked on, essentially, by our Republican House colleagues and our Republican Senate colleagues. The actual conference committee is a bit of a charade because all the real discussions going on with respect to the tax bill are done behind closed doors, with lobbyists who are putting on the finishing touches. Here is what we are hearing from the reports that are coming out. We have already gotten details; some of the details had been released. From the Associate Press: ``Ample tax cuts for business, wealthy in new GOP tax accord.'' That is the headline about the tax plan that will be coming to this Senate soon. The reality is that any tax cuts for middle-class families are going to be a lot smaller than the tax cuts for the very wealthy, and they are only temporary. Also, make no mistake, you are going to see millions of middle-class families actually see a tax increase, but those who will get some small tax relief will see it only on a temporary basis, and then it will disappear. The corporate tax cuts--they are forever under this Republican plan. Here is the headline of the Washington Post about what is coming out of the House-Senate Republican conference committee: ``Republicans reach compromise tax plan, expanding tax cuts for the wealthy.'' Let's get this straight. We had a Senate bill and a House bill. The Senate bill actually reduced the top rate--that is the rate that applies to the wealthiest in this country--to 38.5 percent. It is currently 39 percent; they reduced it to 38.5 percent. In the House, they kept the top rate where it was. So the Senate bill is 38.5 percent; the House bill is around 39 percent. Republicans from the House and the Senate go behind closed doors, and where does it end up? They actually cut that top rate for the wealthiest folks in this country to a place that is lower than either of the tax bills that went into conference. So you take these bills and go behind closed doors, and all of a sudden, the wealthy--who are already doing really well under the House tax plan and the Senate Republican tax plan--do even better because they are dropping that top tax rate to 37 percent. For those who think that a drop from 39 to 37 percent doesn't sound like a lot, I will tell you, if you are making $1 million, that is an average tax cut of $20,000 a year when millions of American middle- class families are seeing their taxes go up and so many others are getting crumbs and, again, just temporary crumbs. We were promised this would be very different. This is what President Trump's Secretary of the Treasury, Steve Mnuchin, told us: ``There will be no absolute tax cut for the upper class.'' That is clearly false because the upper class is getting a big tax windfall. Not only that, but as I just said, those tax windfalls are getting larger in the bill coming out of the conference than they were going in. What we are seeing is a lot of promises that sounded really nice to the American people, but it turns out it has been a scam. What people were told was that this was going to be out there to help working folks, and that is not what they are getting. That is why all the public surveys show that the American public doesn't like what they see, and that is why there is this effort to rush this through so quickly. My plea today is that there is still time. There is still time to turn back from this tax plan that is going to do so much harm to our country in the coming years. There certainly is an opportunity here for our Members on the Republican side to take a final look at what is coming out of this conference and decide to turn back and work on a bipartisan basis for real tax reform, not just something masquerading as tax reform, which is really a tax break for the big corporations. Exhibit A as to why this is not tax reform is the broken promise with respect to closing the carried interest loophole. People will remember President Trump talking about that. I don't know what is going to come out of conference in the end, but what I do know is that neither the House bill nor the Senate bill closed the carried interest tax break. For hedge fund managers who are making big bucks, that is the loophole that allows them to pay a lower tax rate than the folks working for them in their office--for the secretaries who work in their office, for the folks who come in and clean the offices. The hedge fund managers, through the carried interest loophole, actually pay a lower tax rate in many cases than those folks who are working for them. In fact, it is such an outrageous loophole that Donald Trump got big headlines during the 2016 campaign. He promised during the campaign that he was going to close that loophole. In fact, when he was asked on the campaign trail for an example of what was wrong with the current Tax Code, for an example of how powerful special interests got their day using their lobbyists in Washington, he said: Take a look at that carried interest loophole. In fact, Candidate Trump specifically said: ``The hedge fund guys are getting away with murder.'' That is what he said on the campaign trail. We are about to vote on a bill that claims it is tax reform; yet neither the House bill nor the Senate bill that went into conference touched this loophole. By all accounts, the bill coming back to the Senate doesn't close it either. It is not as if we didn't have a chance to fix it. In fact, right here on the Senate floor, Senator Tammy Baldwin offered a motion to close the loophole, to do exactly what Candidate Trump said that he wanted to do. But every single one of our Republican colleagues voted against closing the carried interest loophole. I guess that means, in now-President Trump's words from the campaign, that this tax bill will let those hedge fund managers ``get away with murder.'' Don't tell us that this is about getting rid of special interest loopholes when it doesn't eliminate exhibit A of a special interest tax break that Candidate Trump talked about. It is exhibit A of broken promises. He said: Let's not let those hedge fund managers get away with murder when it comes to the Tax Code. Yet nothing was done about it in this piece of legislation. It gives you a clear understanding that this is not about tax reform, not about getting rid of those loopholes. What it is about is stacking the deck even further in favor of very powerful corporate special interests and the very wealthy against middle-class, working Americans. After all, President Trump said: This tax bill is going to put the middle class first. In fact, here is what he said, again, when he was running for President: ``Everybody is getting a tax cut, especially the middle class.'' More recently, this is what the Republican Leader Senator McConnell said: ``Nobody in the middle class''--nobody in the middle class--``is going to get a tax increase.'' That is untrue, and the Republican leader has acknowledged that. But that is not what was promised to the American people, not by Senate Republicans and not by the President of the United States. In fact, under the House and Senate bills, more than 10 million families--10 million families--who make less than $200,000 a year are going to see immediate tax increases. What happened to that promise of no tax increases for anyone in the middle class? It is already broken. Instead of putting middle-class families first, the biggest tax cuts, by far, go to people making more than $1 million a year. In fact, those families making more than $1 million a year get an average tax cut of $35,000 a year right away. Just to give people some perspective, this is a tiny sliver of American households, fortunate households. We want more millionaires, but how do you explain in a bill masquerading as a middle-class tax cut that it is the millionaires who are doing so much better than everybody else? Just to give you some perspective, for every 1,000 American families, there are four who make more than $1 million a year. That is great for them, and we want them to do well, but why we would give them the biggest tax cuts, rather than folks in the middle who are working hard every day, is something our Republican colleagues will have to explain. We are now talking about 710,000 wealthy families getting that tax cut of an average $35,000 a year, compared to 10 million middle-class families who are going to see tax increases--tax increases. It gets worse because the tax cuts for families are only temporary. At first, many people will pay more right away. Other families may see a little tax break right away, but it goes away, except for the corporate tax cuts, which are permanent. In fact, some families are going to see permanent tax increases to pay for the permanent tax cuts for corporations. This chart is from the nonpartisan professionals. This is the Joint Committee on Taxation. As we can see, when this bill fully kicks in, here is what the situation looks like. If you make $75,000 a year or less, your taxes are going to go up when it is fully kicked in. I am going to say that again. If you make $75,000 or less, your taxes are going up when this plan fully kicks in. As you can see, in addition to that, that means, of course, that your after-tax income is going to go down. This chart takes into account the idea that because we are going to give tax cuts to corporations, some people are going to see some lift in their income. So what this chart tells us, which is very important, is that even if you take that into account, people's after-tax income, if they are at $75,000 or below-- what they have for their family, what they have to pay the mortgage or pay the rent--is going down. Then there are some folks between $75,000 and $100,000 who pretty much, when this is phased in, will see no real change. But let's look out here. Let's look at the folks who make over $1 million. When this kicks in, they are going to be doing even better-- much better--when it comes to their after-tax income. How much income do they have after paying taxes for their families? Even after many of the tax cuts phase out, the after-tax income for folks at the top will go up. Why? Because folks at the very top are the ones who have most of the stock holdings in our major corporations. So they are the ones who will continue to benefit over time from those permanent tax cuts to corporations. So this is a really important chart done by the professionals here in Congress that lets people know the answer to the very important question, which is this: How much will I actually have in my pocket after taxes for my family when this thing fully kicks in? That is what that tells us. In fact, this chart really undermines entirely the Republican claim that there is going to be some kind of big trickle-down benefit from this tax plan to most families. We have tried trickle-down before. We tried it in 2001 and 2003 with the Bush tax cuts. Trickle-down ran into the wall of reality around the country. After-tax incomes for the folks at the top went way up. The debt went way up. Everybody else was standing still or falling behind. That is what happened, and that is what will happen again. Now, we were promised by the Secretary of the Treasury that they were going to do this analysis that showed that if you cut taxes for all of these folks at the top--the wealthiest Americans--and you cut taxes for corporations, it was somehow going to create so much economic growth that the additional tax revenue from that additional growth would actually pay for the tax cuts. They promised we were going to get this big analysis. At the end of the day, they couldn't produce it; could they? They couldn't produce it. Instead, just a little while ago, we got one page. We got one page from the Department of the Treasury. Nobody put their name on it because the Secretary of the Treasury couldn't find any professional person to put their name on this one page. When you actually read it, you know why. It is because it just assumes the answer to the question. It assumes there is going to be all of this additional economic growth. Although, if you actually read it, they even acknowledge that the tax plan itself will not generate enough economic growth. They talk about other policies that are going to generate all of that other economic growth to allow the tax cuts for corporations and others to pay for themselves. They don't tell you what it is. The Presiding Officer could make up a number or I could make up a number. That is all they did. They made up a number and put it on a page. I really hope our Republican colleagues, who were serious when they asked the Treasury Department for that analysis, will recognize that they got taken for a total ride by the Treasury Department, because this doesn't pass the laugh test. This is intellectually dishonest, and I am sure that the folks who put it out know that. So if it is not going to happen by magic--and economic growth is not going to happen by magic--how are we going to see the benefits that were promised by our Republican colleagues, that when you give those big tax cuts to corporations, it is going to result in higher wages and all of this economic growth? We know it is not going to be true because they couldn't come up with any serious analysis. We also know that it is not true because the CEOs of these corporations are themselves telling us it is not true. Here is what happened just a little while ago. The Wall Street Journal had a forum. They invited CEOs. At this forum, they asked the CEOs in the room to raise their hands if they planned to use the tax cuts their corporations were getting to invest in their own businesses, to invest in their workers. Guess what. Hardly any of those CEOs raised their hands. In fact, Gary Cohn, one of President Trump's top economic advisers, looked around the room and saw just a few hands raised, and he asked: ``Why aren't the other hands up?'' The reason the other hands weren't up is because the CEOs of those corporations do not plan to use their big tax breaks to give their workers wages or to invest in their businesses. These corporations are making record profits now, and they are not using those profits for those purposes. In fact, as has been widely reported, those corporations plan to use their tax windfall for stock buybacks and to provide higher dividends to their stockholders. So stockholders are going to do great. CEOs are going to do great. Everyone else is going to be left holding the $1.5 trillion debt that they are putting on the national credit card. Here is what MarketWatch reported. This is the MarketWatch, December 8, headline: ``Share buybacks spike--dropping a strong hint at what CEOs plan to do with tax savings.'' This is before the tax plan was even passed. People were just salivating at the idea that they are going to get this windfall that is going to go to CEOs and other executives and big shareholders. Here is the subheadline in MarketWatch: ``Forget trickle-down economics: Shareholders, not workers, will be big beneficiaries of tax reform. . . . '' Next sentence: ``Long-term investors and workers hoping that the tax overhaul and repatriation holiday will encourage investment in growth and a rise in wages should brace for a disappointment.'' No Senator should tell us a few months from now that they were not warned that this is exactly what is going to happen. Do my colleagues want to know who a good chunk of those shareholders who are salivating about this windfall are? Well, 35 percent of the shareholders in American corporations are foreign stockholders. Thirty- five percent of those folks who are waiting for that big corporate tax windfall are foreign stockholders. In fact, the Senate tax bill gives these wealthy foreign shareholders a $31 billion tax cut in 2019 alone. In the House bill, it is even bigger: $50 billion in tax breaks to foreign shareholders in 2019 alone, paid for by increasing taxes on millions of middle-class Americans. For those Americans who are getting a small tax cut, let's take a look at how their tax cut compares to the windfall for big corporations. Here is how skewed it is. In the year 2019, the House bill gives $11 billion more in tax breaks to foreign shareholders than it does to every single working-class and middle-class family in all of the States that voted for Donald Trump in 2016 combined--combined. Think about that. For every single middle-class family in every one of those States who voted for Donald Trump--those who are actually getting some tax cuts--you add it all up and foreign shareholders get $11 billion more than they do. Again, millions of middle-class taxpayers in these States are actually going to see their taxes go up so that the money goes into the pockets of foreign shareholders--so much for putting America first, so much for putting middle-class taxpayers first. So just to be clear, it means that all of these families in all of the States that voted for Donald Trump with incomes of $100,000 or less, if you add up their small tax cuts, it is still $11 billion less than the tax cuts for foreign shareholders. That is for the folks who are actually getting tax cuts in those Trump States. As I say, millions are actually going to see their taxes go up. Now, I want to focus on one other promise that was made by President Trump and Republicans about their tax plan. They said it is going to bring jobs back to America from overseas. As we look at this plan coming out of conference committee, this may be the worst and meanest of all the broken promises, because when you look at this plan and you talk to economists who don't care about political party, they will tell you that this plan is actually going to increase the incentive of American businesses to move their jobs and operations and factories overseas. Let's just take a quick look at this because I am appealing to my Republican colleagues to fix this before it is too late. First, it is important to understand that the Republican tax plan now will allow U.S. corporations to pay zero taxes on their foreign profits. If you have a company overseas, currently you have to pay U.S. taxes on the proceeds on that after you have paid the foreign government, but under the Republican plan, you pay zero taxes on those overseas profits. So under the new plan that reportedly is emerging, corporations will have a 21-percent U.S. tax rate, but if you move your business or company overseas, it is zero, not 21 percent. Now, just like today, those corporations that move their businesses overseas will have to pay taxes to those foreign governments on the profits they make overseas. Lots of those corporations can shift those profits to parts of the world where there is zero income tax liability, and Republicans in the House and Senate claim that they solve this problem by going to a minimum tax on certain foreign profits. Here is how our Republican colleagues claim they fix this problem. Let's say a company either has its headquarters or puts its profits in the Cayman Islands. I hope my colleagues will follow this and fix this while there is still time. You have $2 million in profits in the Cayman Islands, so you pay zero foreign taxes because the Cayman Islands doesn't have any tax. Of course, under this plan, you pay zero U.S. tax--except our Republican colleagues said they have a plan to address this problem; that is, in this situation, there will be a 10-percent minimum tax. So on the $2 million in profits in the Cayman Islands, you would actually pay a tax of $200,000. That sounds good. At least that is a small fix, supposedly. But then in the same bill there is a huge loophole to this fix, and that is that corporations get an exemption from this minimum 10 percent tax if they move their factories overseas. If you move jobs overseas, you can escape that 10 percent minimum tax because in the Senate bill corporations get an exemption that equals 10 percent of the value of all their offshore factories and equipment. The House bill is similar. What does that mean? That means that if you are a corporation, you get an exemption from the foreign minimum tax by shipping factories and jobs overseas. Here is the math. A corporation made $2 million in the Cayman Islands. Remember, they were going to pay $200,000 in taxes on that. But now they move the factory overseas. That is worth $100 million, and it makes a $5 million profit. Now they add up their overseas profits, and they are now below that--they are 7 percent--and they pay no foreign minimum tax on that. Since then, Gene Sperling and many economists have raised alarm bells about this. Yet our Republican colleagues seem to have blinders on about the commitment they made to make sure that we don't offshore more American jobs. This will offshore American jobs. This bill is full of broken promises. I ask my colleagues to go back and look at what was promised by Candidate Trump, President Trump, and our Republican colleagues, because the tax bill doesn't do that. I also urge my colleagues to allow the newly-elected Senator from Alabama, Doug Jones, to have a vote on this incredibly consequential piece of legislation. He was just elected by the will of the people of Alabama, and we should not rush headlong into passing this bill, which will impact the people of Alabama like everybody else, without his having a chance to vote on it. This is something Senator McConnell mentioned in a similar situation many years ago when Scott Brown from Massachusetts was elected to fill the seat of Senator Kennedy. He asked people to wait and allow Senator Brown to weigh in on the healthcare bill. They did. Doug Jones and the people of Alabama deserve the same respect, and the people of this country deserve a Senate that is duly elected to make this very important decision. There is still time. There is still time to turn back in the conference committee. There is still time for Senators to say that the bill that is emerging doesn't match the promises that were made. We can go back to the drawing board and come up with real, bipartisan tax reform. Let's do that.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, I rise to vote against Leonard Grasz's nomination to serve as a circuit judge for the Eight Circuit. Mr. Grasz is one of two Trump judicial nominees who has received an ``unqualified'' ranking from the nonpartisan American Bar Association, ABA. I am appalled that Republicans advanced this nominee out of the Judiciary Committee and are bringing this vote to the floor. Republicans have made it their mission to fill our judiciary with radical ideologues. The Trump administration has outsourced judicial nominations to the Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation, and their nominees have included a nominee who believed in corporal punishment, one who questioned the constitutionality of the 14th Amendment, and one equated a woman's right to an abortion to chattel slavery. Many of these nominees are simply unfit to serve and undeserving of the prestige of receiving a lifetime appointment. No judge nominated by the Obama administration received an ``unqualified'' ABA rating. When asked to clarify their rating for Mr. Grasz, a spokesperson for the ABA said that ``[t]he evaluators and the Committee found that [Mr. Grasz's] temperament issues, particularly bias and lack of open-mindedness, were problematic. The evaluators found that the people interviewed believed that the nominee's bias and the lens through which he viewed his role as a judge colored his ability to judge fairly.'' I am disappointed that, instead of insisting on qualified nominees, my colleagues have decided to instead attack the ABA's ranking system. I sincerely hope that many of my colleague across the aisle will vote no against this nominee and demand more from the Trump administration.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize the tremendous service of David Radcliffe, who joined our staff as a Brookings fellow this year. David's expertise in defense, veterans, and homeland security issues was invaluable, helping to ensure we met the needs of Maryland. David came to our office with a wealth of policy knowledge from his civilian work at the Department of Defense and his military service as an Army Ranger. He not only adapted quickly to his work in the Senate, he helped define his role in a new office. His versatility, kindness, and equanimity endeared him to constituents across the State. David was unfazed by any change in plans or new last- minute requests, simply responding, ``Semper Gumby''--always be flexible. His strong principles, willingness to pitch in wherever needed, and sense of humor made him a great colleague and terrific staffer in my office. We owe him a debt of gratitude, and we will miss him greatly. My whole staff and I wish him well as he embarks on his next journey in service to our country.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, President Trump has nominated Joseph Balash to be Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals at the Department of the Interior. In that role, Balash will oversee the Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement and the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, and head ``Interior's management of all federal lands and waters, and their associated mineral and non-mineral resources, as well as the appropriate regulation of surface coal mining.'' Balash has worked for years in Alaska politics, including as the former commissioner of the Alaska Department of Natural Resources. In 2013, as the acting commissioner of the Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Joe Balash advocated for exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Balash petitioned the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ``to reconsider its decision to bar [Alaska] from conducting seismic studies in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.'' Also, Balash has stated that he supports the Trump administration rewriting the 5-year plan for the offshore oil and gas leasing plan, which could likely lead to new areas being opened up to offshore drilling. I am a strong supporter of protecting the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and oppose opening up new areas of the Atlantic to offshore drilling. For these reasons, I oppose his nomination for Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals at the Department of the Interior.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the nomination of Kirstjen Nielsen to serve as Secretary of Homeland Security. While I believe that Ms. Nielsen has a solid understanding of the Department that she seeks to lead, I am not yet convinced that she will be a counterweight to the rabid anti-immigration policies coming out of the White House. I appreciated the opportunity to speak to Ms. Nielsen prior to the vote about my concern over the status of the Dreamers and temporary protected status, TPS, recipients. Dreamers were brought to this country through no fault of their own and are in limbo after the President abruptly canceled DACA and set arbitrary renewal and termination deadlines. TPS recipients, many of whom have been here for almost two decades, would have their lives endangered if forced to return to their home countries. While I understand that Ms. Nielsen cannot make ironclad commitments on how she would handle these issues, I could not in good faith support her nomination without clearer guidance and assurances about how she and the administration intend to resolve these matters. Many of my colleagues who supported her predecessor, General Kelly, have complained bitterly that promises he made to them have not been kept. Moreover, both as General Kelly's chief of staff at DHS and later as his deputy at the White House, I have to assume the Ms. Nielsen has been very involved in the development and implementation of the immigration policies of this administration. My vote yesterday was not so much a vote against Ms. Nielsen, as it was a vote to protest the anti-immigration policies flowing from the Trump administration. I am hopeful that, in the coming months, Ms. Nielsen will be able to provide a check on the worst impulses of this White House. I am not yet convinced that will happen and hope to be proven wrong. I do look forward to working with Ms. Nielsen once she is sworn in.