wisconsin and michigan which is one of the reasons why this is a special election more than kansas or south carolina last year. this is thehe exact battleground where he won the presidency with the rust belt state the president is absolutely making this pitch that it doesn't matter who was in the race the democrat talks a good game like he will support me but don't believe him you were going out to vote for me or vote against me. so the unions take a different tactic they try to say this is not about donald trump unions are an interesting balancing act without putting the president in the race that is tough to do but they try to downplay the president to say this really is about the two candidates. >> we will break away you can watch the rest of this on

c-span.org now to the floor of the house and the financial regulation bill repealing part of dodd frank they have a vote on advancing the bill today now live coverage on c-span2. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray.

almighty god, our source of hope, we praise you for your daily mercies. bless our lawmakers with your goodness, empowering them to labor for justice and truth. lord, guide them as they grapple with difficult issues so that they will choose right over political expediency. give them the wisdom to forget yesterday's disappointments and tomorrow's fears. teach them to focus on accomplishing their present duties for your name's sake, trusting you to take care of all their tomorrows.

may they build their hope in you. we pray in your merciful name. .amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to our flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington d.c, march 12, 2018, to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable joni ernst, a senator from the state of iowa, to perform the duties of the

chair. signed: orrin g. hatch, presidet pro tempore. mr. mcconnell: madam president? the presiding officer: majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i want to start with something i know is on everybody's mind, and that's kentucky basketball. the university of kentucky wildcats men's team won their 31st s.e.c. title, their fourth straight, by the way. hall of fame coach john caliperi is leading big blue nation back to the ncaa tournament and we hope to the school's ninth national championship. at western kentucky university the lady toppers brought home a second straight conference

u.s.a. title. they're hoping the hard work keeps on coming as they head to their school's 20th showing in the ncaa tournament. i proudly join many kentuckians in congratulating w.u.k. and w.k.u. and rooting for them in the big dance. the senate will vote to a advance the reform bill before us. senator crapo's legislation starts from the simple premise, small community lenders on main street are not the same as the multitrillion-dollar banks on wall street. but since the dodd-frank act passed in 2010, too many regulations have treated all of them the same and imposed a trucker -- a crushing burden on community banks not able to bear it. a small number in the senate seem dead set against

commonsense reforms to help these institutions dusting off old arguments and suggesting apocalyptic consequences from even this modest set of reforms. that's a same because when small lenders shut their doors, communities throughout america pay the price. even in this online era, research tells us that the closure of physical banks makes it harder for farmers, ranchers, small business owners, and low-income families to access capital. the story has played out thousands of times across the country. the legislation before us would restore community lenders' ability to provide credit without having to navigate a maze of regulation that was designed for far bigger organizations. this commonsense bill has earned the support of a wide bipartisan coalition. i would urge all members to join us in moving it forward this

afternoon. on one final matter, for more than 20 years hope house in spokane, washington, has offered vulnerable women refuge from the streets and a safe place to sleep. unfortunately the need is great. even after stacking bunk beds in every available inch, the shelter reached its capacity every single night. last year more than 2,000 women had to be turned away. but there's good news this morning. primera, blue cross, a major health insurer in the pacific northwest announced it will make a $1 million contribution to hope house. the gift will help a plan to build a brand-new shelter with 120 beds, triple the current capacity. all across the state. and in another part of the state in everett washington, another organization called cook coon --

cocoon house is receiving a donation to finish funding a brand-new youth center. so what made all this possible, madam president? well, that would be tax reform. primera's president and c.e.o. explained america's new 21st tax code is allowing his country to put major new resources to help investment and philanthropy. the children of hope house, the children of cocoon house aren't alone. there are stories like this all over our country. how many americans lives will be changed for the better by tax reform when all is said and done? the big donations to countless nonprofits like these serving homeless women and children, higher take-home pay for american families to help them make ends meet, more investment and more job opportunities over the long term now that our tax code gives american job creators

a fairer fight with overseas competitors. and of course special bonuses, raises and new benefits for four million american workers and counting. we can add primera workers to that list. they're getting $1,500 bonuses as well. every single senate democrat voted to block these good things. every single one of these guys over here. they did all they could to stop tax reform from happening. now that the law they opposed is unleashing so much good news, they're in a tricky spot. so my colleagues across the aisle are falling back on the same old rhetoric. they are trying to divide americans pitting different groups against one another. now they're even proposing to claw back, to claw back it tax reform. well, with a republican congress, that's not going to happen. democrats may want to repeal tax

reform, that is repeal the bonuses and raises, the family tax cuts, the huge donations to life-changing organizations, they may want to repeal all of that, but republicans set out to take money out of washington's pocket and put it back in the pockets of the american people who know best how to use it. we'll make sure that's exactly where it stays. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. schumer: madam president. the presiding officer: the democratic leader. mr. schumer: are we in a quorum, madam president? the presiding officer: we are. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: thank you. now, madam president, after the deadly shooting at stoneman douglas high school, the american people are wondering if congress can do something meaningful to curb the epidemic of gun violence, an epidemic that's gone on far too long and taken the lives of far too many. for years, democrats have proposed commonsense gun safety policies to ensure that dangerous people can't get their hands on dangerous weapons.

recently, democrats have reiterated our support for several specific measures, including universal background checks, protection orders, and a debate on banning assault weapons. americans of all political stripes supported debate on these policies, and yet the majority leader who has given gun safety no time on the floor of the senate, he's also given us no indication we might consider the issue any time soon. he's sweeping it under the rug. the n.r.a. is powerful around here. at the other end of pennsylvania avenue, president trump failed to show the conviction and steady leadership required to make progress on this issue. after indicating support for a host of reasonable gun safety measures a few weeks ago and in front of the tv cameras that he invited in, yesterday president trump released a list of

administration policies which represent 180-degree reversal. what trump said at the public meeting and what he proposed yesterday are opposites. after signaling, for instance, after signaling he would be for raising the age of purchase for assault weapons from 18 to 21, a modest measure, president trump backed off, saying he would leave it to the states and the courts to decide. that's a cop-out. we know that. after indicating support for universal background checks, president trump makes no mention of closing the dangerous gun show loophole or internet sales loophole. no mention of antidomestic violence legislation, no mention of assault weapons or support for significant changes to protection orders. the president's plan consists only of small-bore, n.r.a.-approved policies, including the absurd proposal to

send more guns into classrooms by arming teachers. in the wake of so many american tragedies, the trump proposal on gun safety is utterly insufficient as a response. even if you discarded the idea of arming teachers and took the fix nics proposal and the changes to mental health in president trump's proposal, that wouldn't be close to enough to address the issue of gun violence. the nation's clamoring for significant, meaningful progress on gun safety, but trump's proposal is just a baby step when america needs to take a giant leap. the administration's proposal makes it perfectly clear that president trump has an obeisance to the n.r.a. even when president trump momentarily dparts the n.r.a. script, he quickly gets reeled back in. madam president, if president trump and his staff and some of our republican friends are wondering why his ratings are so low, it's because he does this all the time. at the meeting, he publicly

challenged conservative republican senator toomey, said oh, i guess you're afraid of the n.r.a. well, toomey is not afraid of the n.r.a. he's taken them on. it's president trump who is afraid of the n.r.a. he's afraid to do anything that doesn't meet their approval. we all know what this fix nics bill is about. it's tiny, but it's okay with the n.r.a., so my good friend from texas is happy to come on the floor and talk about it. when is he going to come on the floor and say something that we really need that the n.r.a. doesn't support? we're all waiting, not just for him but for our republican colleagues. we all know the game going on here. make it seem like you want to do something, but don't offend the n.r.a., which is way to the extreme when you look at where americans are at on this issue. after watching the same sequence of events take place on guns, on immigration, no one should be

surprised when president trump initially talks about bipartisanship but ends up caving to hard-right special interests. no one should be afraid that the republican leadership here in the senate when it comes to guns does the same exact thing. in this case, the gun lobby is the hard-right special interest. president trump's behavior on the most sensitive political issues is turning into a predictable kabuki theater where he invites the cameras in, talks a good talk, but then refuses to walk the walk. it shows great weakness in this president, and if he doesn't have the guts to move forward, he shouldn't invite the cameras in and act like he does. now, that may give him a temporary little high, but it's not what the american people want. it's not leadership, and in my judgment at least that's why the president is down so much in the polls, no matter what he does. that's why even a race in

pennsylvania, southwestern corner of pennsylvania, in a district he won by 20 points is a nail-biter. so i hope the president will change. i hope he will become a leader. i hope he will stop just focusing on the show but actually get things done. so far, the american people, not just us, are disappointed. now, democrats in the senate, we're going to keep fighting to go much further than the president's proposal. we're going to fight to pass universal background checks, to actually get federal legislation on protection orders and to start debating banning assault weapons. this is the conversation the country needs to have. we'll keep pushing our senate colleagues and president trump to do something real, not just something that they think they can talk about, but the n.r.a. rubber stamps approval of. madam president, on a different subject, russia.

despite heaps of evidence that russia interfered in our election, president trump has hardly lifted a finger to punish russia to safeguard future elections. this is a dereliction of duty. over the last few weeks, the senate has heard testimony from the d.n.i., the director of national intelligence, and the head of the u.s. cyber command. neither had been directed by the administration to counter russia's continued efforts to undermine our democracy. a report in "the new york times" last week documented how president trump's state department, quote, has yet to spend any of the $120 million it has allocated since late 2016 to counter foreign efforts to meddle in elections or sow distrust in democracy, unquote. and still the trump administration has not fully implemented the sanctions congress passed to punish putin. meanwhile, russian-linked bots

continue to sow division and inflame political tensions on social media. multiple officials from the intelligence community have warned that russia will try to interfere in our elections again. we have nothing -- done nothing to harden our election security in anticipation of the midterms. our democracy is under attack, and the president of the united states seems unwilling to punch back or even harden our defenses. it's as if an enemy naval flotilla were headed to our shores and we didn't put up any defense. that's exactly what's happening. it's a new world. it's not a flotilla of navy or planes buzzing along our coasts. it's these cyber attacks and social media attacks on our election system, but they are every much as vital to america as our physical defense, and yet we hear nothing, nothing,

nothing out of the white house. you only have to look at an ally, the u.k., the united kingdom, for an example of how a nation should respond to the threat from russia. today, just today, prime minister teresa may went to the house of commons to expose a likely russian attack against two people in her country using a nerve agent. she demanded a response from president putin and promised appropriate counter measures if he refuses or the answer's insufficient. president may's quick and decisive action is exactly what is missing from president trump when it comes to cybersecurity and our elections. now, our vice president, presidt trump, still has an opportunity. over the weekend, president putin, rather ridiculously, blamed ukrainians, jews and other minorities for attacks on our election in 2016.

another attempt, of course, at misdirection and distraction. of course, in reality, special counsel mueller's investigation has charged 13 russian nationals with subverting the 2016 elections. not ukrainians, not tatars, not jews, 13 russian nationals. today leader spool and i a-- leader pell owes i and i alongside senator feinstein and congressman nadler sent president trump a letter urging him to use all available resources to extradite the 13 russian nationals named in the special counsel's investigation to stand trial here in the united states. ensuring russian nationals stand trial in the united states would be a clear signal to those who seek to meddle with our licks that their actions are not without consequences. this is imperative to deter russia and any other nation in the future from attacking our

democracy. another test, a test of president trump's leadership. another test he's failing miserably. if president trump really cared about our country, he would expand every resource in his possession to bring justice to these foreign actors who meddled with our country's most sacred democratic process, the one enshrined by the founding fathers and embraced and even worshiped by americans over the centuries, with good reason. and now there is meddling in this sacred process, and president trump does nothing? why are we not hearing anything from those on the other side of the aisle about that? you can be sure that if it was another president, particularly a democratic one, we would hear howls. but this is not about democrat-republican. this is about our democracy. and when president trump doesn't

ask, americans inevitably ask the question, why is president trump so afraid to do anything, anything about putin? i yield the floor. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. morning business is closed. under the previous order, the senate will resume consideration of s. 2155, which the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar 287, s. 2155, a bill to promote economic growth, provide tailored regulatory relief, enhance consumer protections, and for other purposes. mr. cornyn: madam president. the presiding officer: the majority whip. mr. cornyn: madam president, this week we will complete work on an important bipartisan bill that, thanks to the leadership of the senator from idaho, senator crapo, chairman of the banking committee, we passed out of -- they passed out of the banking committee, and now it's

time for us to do our job and pass it out of the senate. last week, we voted to proceed, and as i say, we will vote to pass it out of the senate in the next few days. senator crapo explained why this work is so important. since the passage of dodd-frank legislation in 2010. as we all recall, after the great recession of 2008 when wall street melted down, together with our financial institutions, there were reform efforts undertaken known as dodd-frank, senator dodd, congressman frank, which imposed regulatory requirements on banks large and small. the problem is the small community banks, the ones who are disproportionately harmed by this overregulation, they weren't the cause of the great recession, of the financial meltdown of 2010 and 2009, but they are the collateral damage. what's happened is there has been a lot of consolidation,

many small community banks and credit unions have simply had to close or be consolidated with other larger banks and institutions, and it's taken a toll on our economy and it's taken a toll on our communities across the country. what happens is these banks, these community banks have less money to loan because they have had to use the money they would loan to hire more people to help them comply with all the unnecessary red tape because of the dodd-frank overregulation. some have had to basically defer that sort of investment in their communities and others have had to shutter completely because of the financial burden. the second order in effect is that some people don't have access to capital, that is to loans that they need. they can't get credit they need in order to start a small business or grow an existing business or even get a mortgage to buy their first home.

let's be clear, though, about which financial institutions this bill is tailored toward helping. it's small community banks and mid-sized regional ones as well as credit unions. the bill does not exempt large banks from those regulations. saying it does, which some have said, doesn't make it so. it is a claim too eagerly pedaled by those who want to remain status quo. large banks are still subject to measures designed to protect the stability of the overall economy like rigorous stress testing. this is called the economic growth, regulatory relief, and consumer protection act. what it does is right side those regulations. it does so by targeting

investments from the volcker rule and it raises the cfiusy threshold so banks are not rank inned same category as giant financial institutions operating on wall street. the majority leader recently said in an era of online banking and multinational corporations, smaller institutions remain equally to be able build community connections, and that's important to our civic fabric as well as to the economies in rural and small towns in america. based on research, community banks provide half of all small business loans. and then extend credit to entrepreneurs and families that might not have access otherwise. that's certainly the situation in parts of my state, the state of texas.

i've heard from banks in communities there that are more than ready to finally be freed of the shackles of dodd-frank. as a chief executive officer of the independent bankers of texas, he said that congress can unchain the banks that are pushing them toward consolidation. forcing them to become big banks which seems to be an odd way to deal with this problem or putting them out of business all together. in the ibact view -- independent bankers association of texas, rules meant to curb the banks too big to fail have trickled down to hurt the smaller counterparts. community banks have become too small to survive as acquisitions have occurred all over the map.

independent bankers reported since 2009, texas has lost nearly one-third of its banks. and they said that based on federal data on rural counties, approximately one-third don't have a local credit union or bank at all. this bill addresses that situation. it enjoys wide bipartisan support, and i hope my colleagues will join me in supporting passage before the end of the week. madam president, on another matter, i want to emphasize another point and talk about a new milestone reached and announce some good news. we've now reached 64 total cosponsors for a bill that i've introduced with the junior senator from connecticut, senator murphy, called the fix nics which is the background check reform bill that we

cosponsored together. it is unusual in an incident like this during polarized time where you have 342 democrats and -- 32 democrats and 32 republicans saying, yes, we have a problem and, yes, we want to work together to fix it. this is the kind of legislation that the nation has been waiting for as people continue to be frustrated, frightened, and depressed after random acts of violence in our churches, cities, our schools, i'm talking about a shooting that occurred in san antonio, las vegas, and, of course, parkland, florida. with fix nics, we're saying that the status quo is not possible. my friend, senator schumer, said there are things he and his colleagues on the other side of the aisle would like to do, i would quote some ancient wisdom,

that the journey of 1,000 miles starts with a single step. we would like to do what we can do today, do what's achievable in order to make our communities safer. i've talked about it before, but if the background check had been working the way as congress had intended, the shooter in sutherland springs, the shooter would not have been able to purchase firearms because the background check would have reflected the fact that he was a convicted felon and had been convicted of domestic violence and had been in a mental institution. all three of those things are disequalers of being able to purchase firearms under current law. if the background check isn't upload with appropriate information for the f.b.i. to maintain, then those convictions

will never be discovered and someone can glide their way into purchasing firearms and committing atrocities like we saw at sutherland springs. fix nics is designed to make sure that convicted felons can't get access to firearms because under current law they are disallowed from doing so. it's designed to make sure that people who commit domestic violence can't buy a firearm because they are currently prohibited by law from doing so. it's designed to make sure that people who dishonorably discharge from the military can't get a legal firearm because the current law prohibits them from doing so. well, sometimes criminals with domestic abuse convictions and records of mental illness and violent erratic behavior slip through the cracks and get their hands on guns despite what the law already prohibits.

that's why it is important for us to pass this legislation now. again, 64 cosponsors of the legislation evenly divided between republicans and democrats. the effectiveness of doing this sort of background check system has been confirmed by academic research. a recent study by rand corporation found evidence that dealer background checks may decrease homicides by as much as 20% or more. in other words, it saves lives. one specific part of that study further suggested that enforcing background checks may have a similar diminishing effect. in other words, enforcement matters and enforcement is what we're trying to ensure here. we learned from sutherland springs that the nics system is not operating as congress intend and the military was not uploading certain records, but they are not alone.

recent news reports out of places like ohio have shown it is often the case at state level as well, and we know a few years back the sheeter at virginia tech had been ajudd indicated as mentally ill but virginia never uploaded that on theback system -- the background check system and he was able to purchase a firearm. this bill will save lives. i know the minority leader has said it is not enough, but if it saves lives, isn't it a good start in i'm grateful to him for cosponsoring the legislation. you couldn't tell he cosponsor the legislation by his comments, acting like this is somehow not a very important step, but it is it because it will save lives. this bill has the backing of the president as well, who i have spoken to personally, and the minority and majority leaders in

the senate and supported by gun groups across the spectrum from, yes, the national rifle association, but also every town for gun safety which are at opposite end of the ideological spectrum when it comes to the second amendment. it's not just them. it's other like the national coalition against domestic violence, sandy hook promise, and the national shooting sports foundation, and the national violence hotline and the national share association. it is really remarkable when you have groups with widely divergent views when it comes to the second amendment come together and say, this is where we can find common ground and do something, and that's reflected in the 65 cosponsors we have for the bill. so the bill would do this. first, it would require federal agencies and states to produce

nics implementation plans, fix what is broken. it would hold federal agencies accountable if they failed to upload the relevant information. i heard, and i think it's accurate information, that the military has gone back and uploaded 4,000 additional records into the nics background check system that weren't previously loaded after the shooting at sutherland springs. that's 4,000 people now in the system who if they attempted to buy a firearm legally through a gun store or federally licensed firearm dealer would not be able to do so because there would be a hit on the f.b.i. background check system. i think if we provided similar incentives to the states, weed see similar increase in compliance and public safety continue to be enhanced. this bill would reward states who complied with the nics implementation plan through federal grant incentives, it

would authorize law enforcement programs to share relevant criminal information. let's not forget this is not just a federal problem. finally the bill would provide important technical assistance to federal agencies and states working to comply with nics record-sharing requirement. we've got all the support we need. what we need is a vote. i know the minority leader, despite his comments here today, does not oppose this bill. he says it's merely not enough, but why can't we pass this bill we all agree on and then build from there? i'm not afraid of having any debate or any vote on any matter related to the second amendment. that's why our constituents sent us here -- to debate and to vote and be held accountable for those votes. i know there's pressure from those who want more

controversial measures to be added, but, frankly, they are ones that can't pass the senate much less the house and be signed into law. so i would hope that we would focus -- focus our attention on what is achievable, what is bipartisan, what brings together people at the opposite end of the ideological spectrum and pass the fix nics bill. again, nics is is the federal background check system and it will save lives. if we did nothing else, and i am not advocating that, but if we did nothing else but pass the background check re form system, we would save lives. i the don't know why that's not

compelling top everyone enough to -- to everyone enough to get it done. i hope it is and i hope we do so without delay. madam president, i yield the floor and i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. ms. warren: madam president, are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: we are. ms. warren: i ask that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. warren: ten years ago today at breakfast tables all around the country, americans read a shocking headline. fed assumes the role of lender of last resort. the biggest investment banks on wall street were getting their first taxpayer bailout, but some of the banks were so addicted to poisonous scam mortgages that

even that bailout wasn't enough. within a week, bear stearns, and 85-year-old fixture on wall street would fall and the financial crisis would begin. within a year, american workers retirement accounts had lost $2.7 trillion. almost a third of their value. no one bailed them out. within two years, 8.8 million americans had lost their jobs. no one bailed them out. within three years more than four million homes had been lost to foreclosures, millions more were in danger. no one bailed the homeowners out. and now to mark the tenth anniversary of that devastating crisis, the senate is on the verge of rolling back the rules on the big banks again. last week i talked about how this bill guts important consumer protections, how it weakens the oversight of banks with up to a quarter of $1

trillion in assets, and how it could set the stage for another financial crisis just like past bipartisan bills to roll back the financial rules. but the bill will also roll back the rules on the very biggest banks in the country. the true wall street banks, j.p. morgan chase, citigroup and the rest, banks that taxpayers spent $180 billion bailing out in 2008. and no matter what the supporters of this bill say, there are three glaring parts of this bill that without question help the very biggest wall street banks. first, this bill opens the door to easing up on big banks stress test. right now about 40 of the biggest banks go through stress tests every year simulating a financial crisis and making sure

that if it happened, they could survive. this bill says that 25 of them can just skip the hard test from now on and the remaining 15 or so, well, they don't necessarily have to do those tests every single year. for the banks that are still going to be doing stress tests, they can now be done under this bill periodically, and who decides what periodically means? the former investment bankers donald trump has nominated to lead the fed and to head up the fed's supervisory work. does that make you feel safe? second, the bill gives the biggest banks a new legal tool to fight for weaker rules. right now the law says that the fed may tailor capital and other rules for the biggest banks. this bill says the fed shall tailor the rules for the banks with more than $250 billion in

assets, the very biggest banks in this country. now, that one word, the switch from "may" to "shall" may not seem like much, but it means everything to the high-priced lawyers that represent these banks. here's what jeffrey gordon, a professor at columbia law school had to say about that one-word change. this apparently minor change is likely to produce significant degradation of financial stability, especially over the long run. the change would expose the fed to litigation challenges to its enhanced standards. in particular, where they are already adequately tailored. the statute thus empowers the largest firms which pose the biggest risks to bargain with the fed for laxer standards with the threat of a well resourced litigation challenge in the backgrounds. over time this bargain for taxty

will reduce a race to the bottom dynamic that will dramatically increase the chance of another financial crisis. professor at columbia law school, professor gordon says that will dramatically increase the chance of another financial crisis. now, if you think the one-word change from "may" to "shall" won't change much, consider this. opponents to the bill had been pointing out this problem loudly and publicly, but the bill's sponsors won't change it. won't change that one word. why? because the giant banks want the change. the third bank giveaway in this bill undercuts capital requirements for the biggest banks. the best way to stop another taxpayer bailout of big banks is to make sure they have enough capital on hand to withstand a crisis. and that's why congress and the regulators established tougher

capital requirements for the big banks after the last financial crisis. this bill reverses direction opening the door to big banks like j.p. morgan and citigroup facing much lower capital requirements than they do now. in fact, the independent congressional budget office says there is a 50% chance that j.p. morgan and citigroup can take advantage of a provision in the bill to reduce their capital requirements. "the wall street journal" editorial board, no fan of tough regulation, wrote that the change proposed in the banking bill is dangerous and, quote, will make the financial system more vulnerable in a panic. the bloomberg editorial board says the bill, quote, chips away at the bedrock of financial resilience, the equity capital that allows banks to absorb losses and keep on lending in

bad times. and the consequences could be huge. according to the fdic, this provision could lower capital requirements for j.p. morgan by $21.4 billion and for citigroup by $8.6 billion. now, at the end of last week, the supporters of the bill introduced a new amendment that they claimed would address the problems in this bill. but that amendment did nothing to address these three glaring big bank giveaways. the stress test provision is unchanged. the litigation provision is unchanged. and the capital requirements provision is unchanged. victories for the big banks have been preserved one hundred percent. but it's not just the big bank

giveaways that remain unaddressed in this amendment. over the last week we've heard a lot of criticism about this bill from experts and from civil rights groups and from consumer advocates and from former regulators and most importantly from our constituents back home. they don't like it. this banking bill undermines civil rights laws. it weakens consumer protections on mortgages. and mobile home purchases. it rolls back rules on 25 of the 40 largest banks in the country and it does almost nothing to protect consumers. let me be perfectly clear about this. the new amendment does not address a single one of these legitimate criticism. it's a bunch of fig leaves designed to let supporters of the bill pretend that they have addressed those criticisms without actually addressing

them. and in some cases, these little fig leaves actually make things worse. so let's start with the fake fixes. first mortgage discrimination. now, mortgage discrimination is real in america. some banks charge african americans more for loans than they charge whites with similar credits. some deny loans to latinos or to single women. and how do we know that? because banks have to disclose information about the loarchs they provide -- the loans they provide under something called the home mortgage disclosure act or hmda. using hmda data, a new report shows that in 61 different cities around the country, minority borrowers were more likely to be denied a mortgage than white borrowers with the same income. but this bill, the bill that's pending on the floor of the senate exempts 85% of banks from

reporting any hmda data, making it much harder to discover and stamp out discrimination. now, senator cortez masto had a great idea for fixing this. take the hmda provision out of the pending bill, leave hmda alone. and if the authors of this bill really wanted to fix this problem, they would support her amendment and insist that without that amendment, they would withdraw their support for the bill. but now the bill supporters have a fig leaf. they say that of the 85% of banks that no longer will have to report information about discrimination, if one of those banks flunks two consecutive examinations under the community reinvestment act, they -- those banks will have to start

reporting discrimination data. and if that looks like a tiny little fig leaf, consider this. banks get tested at most every three years which means it would take six years of discrimination to flunk twice. this fig leaf is so small, it is basically invisible. and now, for some of these so-called consumers protection fig leaves, the problems are real. it's just the solutions that are fake. for example, there is a provision to deal with private student loans from banks. it says that if a student loan borrower dies, then the bank can't go after the cosigner of the loan for the full balance. now, that sounds really good, at least until you read the fine print. turns out spouses don't count. so the bank will still be free to hound widows and widowers for

the balances of their deceased spouses. and the loan isn't actually forgiven. and that means the bank can still go after the dead borrower's estate for the loan. maybe take half of the house or take whatever is in the checking account or savings account. that is a nightmare for a grieving family, and it is also perfectly okay under this fig leaf amendment. and in some places, it isn't even a fig leaf that pretends to address problems with the bill. it's just new provisions to create new problems, like a section that blows a hole in regulators' ability to require banks to hold capital for commercial real estate. does anyone remember that risky commercial real estate investments were a factor in beabear stearns failure ten yeas

ago this week? does anyone remember that six months later commercial real estate losses would help blow up leeman brothers? i guess not, at least not right here in congress because ten years later, right now this week, congress wants to let banks take one more commercial real estate fix with less oversight. banks of all sizes are making record profits. only in washington would people think it's time to scrap the protections that have kept us safe for a decade all so that these same profitable banks can make even more money. it is the same mindset that set the stage for the savings and loan crisis in the late 1980's and the financial crisis of 20 2008. america's working families will pay the price if we make the same mistakes again.

it isn't too late. we should stop this bill from becoming law. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. nelson: madam president, so many are still grieving from the atrocious killing of 17 people in the high school in florida. indeed, our entire state is grieving. broward county is grieving. parkland is grieving. i think you're going to find on march 24 in the rallies and the marches that will occur in 500 cities around this country and will have a focus of the main one in washington, i think

you're going to find that a lot of people are grieving because a lot of people all across this country have been touched by these massacres that continue to occur, starting over almost three decades ago in columbine, in colorado. we certainly had our fill of it in florida just in the last two years. 49 people gunned down with an assault rifle, a six-hour m.c.x. at the pulse nightclub. another assault pistol gunning down five people in the ft. lauderdale airport and now an ar-15 gunning down 17, and he

would have gotten a lot more had he been able to open the third-story window overlooking the courtyard from a perch as the students fled across the courtyard to get out of the school yard. he couldn't get the window open. he tried to shoot it open, but it was hurricane-proof glass and it only shattered. it didn't break. and now it's been almost one month since the tragic shooting. 14 of the 17 are students. three adults. those 17 families are certainly grieving, and we've seen in the

last few weeks many of the parents, the students, the families, the community leaders stand up to say that enough is enough, and they're asking us, the u.s. congress, to enact meaningful legislation to reduce gun violence. so the action starts in tallahasee, and the students go up there while the state legislature is still in session. they talk about commonsense solutions such as enacting a universal background check in the purchase of a gun. don't let there be a gun show loophole or a private transaction loophole. don't let there be an order on the internet loophole.

universal background checks that would bring in mental problems, that would bring in if you've been on the terrorist watch list, that would bring in, of course, a criminal record, but also a mentally adjudicated record. universal background checks in the acquisition of a gun, particularly an assault rifle. we can't get that passed here because some folks aren't listening. take, for example, what was said in the white house just last night. giving in to the will of the n.r.a., it announced that it would provide federal funding for firearms training for teachers and other school personnel.

well, madam president, this senator thinks that arming teachers is a terrible idea. it's not what the students are asking for. it's not what the teachers are asking for. it's not what the american people want us to do. and just last week the florida legislature passed and the governor signed into law a bill, a watered-down version but it still is arming school personnel. and it falls short of what is really needed to reduce gun violence, and especially the massacres that are occurring. while what florida has done is a step in the right direction, particularly with regard to mandating three-day waiting periods in the purchase of an assault rifle, we're far from

where we need to be in addressing gun violence if we're talking about putting more guns in our schools and if, as the president suggested last night, that we arm teachers. the teachers don't want it, and i can tell you who else doesn't want it. the swat teams that have to storm the building looking for the shooter, they don't want to encounter a teacher with a gun and mistakenly think that's the shooter. it's common sense. what studies do the supporters of this idea cite, suggesting that arming teachers will reduce gun violence at schools? and why even propose the solution before seeing what policy proposals a new federal

commission that has now been developed, a commission on school safety, why don't we at least see what they're proposing. no, what this is is to sell more guns and to sell more guns by arming teachers. well, of course i've spoken to many teachers, students, families. i haven't found one person that wants teachers to be armed, including the teachers themselves. they're near universal agreement that arming teachers is a terrible idea, and yet such an idea continues to direct congress' attention away from the obvious and commonsense solutions supported by most

americans, which is universal background checks, and get the assault rifles and the banana clips that have 30 rounds, get it off the streets. i've supported several bipartisan bills, some with my colleague from florida, senator rubio, that address these background check issues and seek to make sure that our schools have the resources to keep our students safe. senator rubio and i announced last week that if there are red flags, they need to be brought to the attention of law enforcement, and we're offering in our bill a federal incentive program to the states to get those red flags about a problem

person to the authorities before it's too late. but ideas like arming teachers, putting more guns in our school, they're just plain dangerous. mr. president, i know you've backed off of certain things because the n.r.a. wanted you to, and i know you are now proposing arming teachers. let's get down to some real commonsense solutions. let's work on how you prevent those assault weapons from getting into the wrong hands, and stop the massacres that continue to playing -- to plague this country.

the people of america want no less. mr. president, i yield the floor.

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from arkansas. mr. boozman: i ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. boozman: i ask unanimous consent also to be able to complete my remarks and for the gentleman from arizona to follow me. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. boozman: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i rise to recognize the role of nutrition in the health and wellness of our nation and the development of our children. arkansas agricultural producers play a vital role in providing affordable, nutritious food, not only for our state and country, but for the entire world.

march is recognized as national nutrition month. this is a time to focus attention on the importance of a balanced diet, healthy eating choices. as a cochair of the senate hunger caucus, i'm committed to supporting and raising awareness of efforts that provide nutritious, healthy meals, creating policies that fight hunger and supporting programs that have proven successful. the department of agriculture's child and adult care food program is a unique effort that uses public-private partnerships to meet the nutritional needs of vulnerable children and adults. this has become a critical tool in the fight against hunger. senator klobuchar and i recently introduced a resolution designating this week as national child and adult care food program week to honor and raise awareness of the important role the child and adult care

food program plays in the health of those in arkansas, minnesota, and throughout the country. through this program, more than four million children and 130,000 adults and child care centers, adult day care homes and after-school programs received nutritious meals and snacks daily. studies show that access to the child and adult care food program can measurably and positively impact the cognitive, social, emotional, and physical health and development of children, leading to a more favorable outcome, such as decreased likelihood of being hospitalized, an increased likelihood of healthy weight gain, and an increased likelihood of a more varied diet. as a member of the senate ag committee, i will be working to ensure that individuals who need food assistance are able to

access affordable, nutritious meals. i will also continue to press for flexibility in the department of agriculture's summer food service program so children who rely on school meals when in class during that session can access healthy nutritional meals during the summer so that we can have a seamless transition from the school year to the summer programs. in arkansas more than 50,000 children receive nutritious meals through this program. through many rural areas in the state, this one-size-fits all approach meets thomas most in -- those most in need. more than 60% of arkansas children rely on reduced or free meals during the school year. we need to make this program available to children no matter where they are.

arkansas is blessed to have the support of boys and girls clubs and other organizations that serve as host sites for summer people who programs and we need to allow them to be able to reach the students in their communities. it's time that the federal policy responds to this need. i've seen how community involvement in arkansas is fighting food insecurity, efforts like cooking matters of the store initiative launched by the arkansas hunger relief alliance, teaches families to compare prices, read food labels and buy fruits and vegetables on a budget. this month is recognized as school breakfast month in arkansas. state indicators -- educators have seen how essential breakfast is to students and they are helping to grow gardens where the food produced is used for school lunches.

grocery stores are allowing snack beneficiaries for produce at a discount. this will create opportunities to access healthy, nutritious food is also important to our states and the nation's economic development. in order to break the cycle of food insecurity, we must work together. hunger knows no boundaries, but it is preventible and we have the tools to help fight it. we've made significant gains in arkansas, across the country, and throughout the world to improve nutrition for the most vulnerable in our society and i will continue to be a champion of efforts to improve access to healthy, nutritious foods. and with that, i yield to senator flake.

the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. flake: as i said, when these ill-conceived tariffs were announced last week that i would introduce legislation to would immediately nullify this very unfor the exercise in protectionism before it can wreak havoc on our economy. if implemented, these tariffs will do just what tariffs have always done and lead to job losses and will stymie economic growth. what's worse, the president's attempt at flexibility in the form of poorly defined exemptions only serves to harm the economy further by creating uncertainty. tariffs are bad enough on their own. tariffs married with uncertainty are even worse. can you imagine the president saying one day, well, i think

that australia is moving in ways that we think are good in this area or that so i'm going to lessen the tariffs that we impose on steel and aluminum for australia. the next day, say brazil. brazil, if they do this or that unrelated to these tariffs, i might lift tariffs or lessen the burden of tariffs on that country. but a week later, brazil takes another move, the president might seek to reimpose or make the burden heavier. that simply doesn't work if you're trying to achieve economic growth and if you're trying to convince countries to enter into trade partnerships with you, particularly when you're dealing with our allies. that's no way to treat your allies. i understand free trade is sometimes a challenge.

i understand that it's a challenge on the campaign trail, certainly, it's often easier to point to a shuttered factory and blame trade or immigration or some other convenient scapegoat other than what is usually the case, it's modernization or mec anyization or something that has meant that we have increased product yify -- productivity or the best capital to facilitate trade. we have to have multilateral deals if we are to catch up. if we continue to withdraw from the global marketplace, we will be left far behind. we saw this with regard to the transpacific partnership. we pulled out of those negotiations and the other 11 countries involved simply have

gone on their own, leaving us behind. this has meant, in particular, countries in southeast asia who would like to be part of our trade orbit have no choice but to be more reliant on china. that doesn't serve our interests at all. we have to remember we represent just 20% of the world's economic output. we represent just 5% of the world's population, or just less than that. if we don't trade, we don't grow. you can be pro-growth, you can be pro-tariff, but you can't be both. so those who have reservations about these tariffs ought to support this legislation that i am introducing today to nullify the tariffs. those who have expressed admiration for free trade, for supply-side economics to support this bill as well. those who are happy with the economic growth that we have recently achieved and are are interested in seeing -- and are

interested in seeing it continue, ought to support this bill. we have now a better climate for economic growth on both the regulatory side and the tax side. if we enter a trade war, we risk reversing those gains that we have made. we in congress simply can't be explicit as this administration courts economic disaster in this fashion. i would urge my colleagues to join me in exercising our constitutional oversight and to invalidate these irresponsible tariffs. and with that, i yield back. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22, do hereby bring to a close debate on senate amendment

number 2151, as modified, to calendar number 287, s. 2855, a bill to promote economic growth and so forth and for other purposes, signed by 17 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory -- mandatory quorum call has been waived. is it the sense of the senate that debate on amendment 2151, as modified, offered by the senator from kentucky, to provide tailored regulatory relief and for other purposes shall be brought to a close. the yeas and nays are p mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: have all senators voted? does any senator wish to change their vote? on this vote the yeas are 66, the nays are 30. three-fifths of the senators duly sworn and having voted in the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.

mr. brown: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. brown: thank you, mr. president. 30 years, 40, 50 years ago, when you went to the local bank in mansfield, ohio, to buy a house, you knew the lender, the lender knew you. you saw her, you saw him at the

grocery store. maybe the lender went to your church or synagogue. your kids probably went to the same school. you knew that your deposits at the bank helped fund your neighbor's house or the hardware store down the street. a lot of banks and credit unions still work this way, but the 2008 crisis taught us that finances change. now a mortgage in zanesville, ohio, is diced and sliced and sold to an investor in zurich, switzerland. in frankfurt, they place bets on loans in fostoria. when predatory loans began to fail, ohio taxpayers picked up the tab, including for foreign banks headquartered an ocean away. the federal reserve opened up a spigot of cheap money to get the global economy from tanking. banks in spain and france and japan and canada and korea all came to the united states for help to weather the financial storm. an analysis of the fed's lending from february, 2008, to 2009

showed that the vast -- think about this -- the vast majority of loans went to foreign banks. after the crisis, records released to the public showed that foreign banks took more than 70% of the fed's loans during the crisis, 65% of loans from other emergency programs. under one bailout scheme, british barkley's alone borrowed $232 billion from the fed at a sweetheart interest rate, the kind of rates a hardware store in hillsborough, ohio, could never get on a loan to keep them afloat back in 2008. think about that. british barkley's got a sweetheart deal, got a better deal than a hardware store in ohio could get from a bank. so after the crisis, congress responded with a law, the wall street reform act, to ensure that taxpayers would never again, mr. president, have to send bailout money to british and swiss megabanks. we ordered the fed to keep a closer eye on the big banks, to

use their power to make sure the largest global banks did not again crash the economy. congress instructed that the fed apply the strictest protections to the biggest banks, those with more than $50 billion in assets. we know that. when the fed implemented these rules, they applied some standards to banks that had more than $50 billion across the globe. but for global banks that have more than $50 billion in the u.s., the fed applied the strongest standards for foreign banks with not only trillions worldwide but systemic operations in the united states, the fed wrote rules that are strict as those for our domestic megabanks. standards and former fed governor dan tur iillo called standard prevention measures. we only import swiss chocolate, not swiss bank failures. these special measures are important. last year, the office of financial research released a report showing that foreign

banks in the u.s. are riskier than similarly sized u.s. regional banks. hear that again. foreign banks in the u.s. are riskier than similar sized u.s. regional banks. think of that in terms of what this bill that we just voted cloture on, what this bill actually does. this legislation threatens to undo important rules protecting us from risk. the legislation puts taxpayers on the hook for bailouts. that's what the congressional budget office said. under this bill, foreign banks that took billions in bailouts would be able to take more risks under a less watchful eye. who are some of them? deutsche bank, santander, u.b.s. would all be treated more like they were an ohio regional bank. they would be treated more -- deutsche bank. excuse me. family trump's personal business bank. santander, the bank in spain that repossessed hundreds of service men and women's cars while those service men and women were serving our country overseas.

u.b.s., swiss bank that illegally financed iranian activities, they would all be treated more like they were huntington in columbus or fifth third in cincinnati or key bank in cleveland. what's right about that? what's fair about that? what's smart about that, mr. president? don't take my word for it. secretary mnuchin sat right in front of the banking committee. chairman crapo and i as the ranking member looked straight at him a few weeks ago. he confirmed this bill would treat foreign banks with up to $250 billion in assets the same as u.s. regional banks. so there are up to 250, just like huntington, just like key corp, just like fifth third in ohio. secretary mnuchin said we will treat them the same if they are up to $250 billion in assets. that may be the first direct answer i have heard from secretary mnuchin. i sit on the banking committee. he has trouble giving direct answers. he did at least that time.

he was just confirming his intention from what he and treasury -- in treasury wrote in a report last year that's precisely what this administration wants to do. that's what they said in this report we should do, we should deregulate these foreign banks whose assets are under $250 billion in the united states. they wrote it into their banking deregulation blueprint back in june. they are not trying -- credit to secretary mnuchin, credit to the trump administration. while i don't give them credit for the white house looking like a retreat for wall street executives, i do give them credit for finally at least owning up in that report, in the legislation, and in his answer to my question in the banking committee that, yes, they are going to deregulate these banks, these foreign banks, foreign huge megabanks, deutsch and santander and u.b.s. and barkley's, as long as they have under 250 in the united states, and they do. paul volcker, former chairman of the fed, is worried this bill

deregulates the u.s. operations of foreign banks, as i'm worried. sara bloom raskin, deputy treasury secretary said this bill removes necessary guardrails that were installed to reduce the chances of foreign megabanks drawing on u.s. bailout funds. mr. president, i don't think yo, mr. president, the junior senator from oklahoma, serve with integrity and honesty. i don't think any of my colleagues on this side of the aisle or anybody else, i don't think any of us wants to face the voters if five years from now, ten years from now what we voted on today and this week results in our bailing out foreign banks. americans were angry that we bailed out the big u.s. megabanks. imagine the anger aimed if the story is more focused more precisely that we bailed out foreign banks, which we actually did, but the story was more about wall street. imagine if that's the story. former treasury officials

michael barr and antonio weiss are worried this bill is rolling back rules that protect the u.s. economy from foreign bank risks. former ftc chairman gary ginsler wants to make sure foreign banks don't get a windfall. these are across the board. that's quite a list of watchdogs. you know who else is under the impression that this bill helps foreign banks? foreign bank lobbyists. i'm offering on the senate floor, if the republican leadership allows amendments on the floor, my amendment would have ensured that foreign megabanks in the u.s. are watched over just as closely as wall street banks. so they are roughly the same size, some bigger, but because their assets are smaller in the u.s., we're going to treat them like huntington and key and fifth third rather than j.p.

morgan chase and wells fargo. foreign bank lobbyists, they are american citizens, lobbyists for foreign banks. these lobbyists wrote a letter opposing my amendment saying it was unfair for me to try and keep these rules in place. they said that their banks should be treated like u.s. banks, not like the global banks they are. it was defeated in committee. let's look at the wrap sheet on some of these banks, santander failed the stress test three years in a row. it would have its rules rolled back under this bill. stress tests are exercises as my colleagues know are to ensure that a bank can survive an economic downturn without a bailout. so santander failed not once or tries, it failed three times.

most people fail three times, they flunk out. they failed three times and they get a potential bailout. what is honorable or good economic policy about that, what is fair about that? what is just about that? it's a bank, in addition to failing its stress test, it's a bank that illegally resupposed cars from service men and women while serving our country. i spent time at the largest air force base in ohio and i see the financial institutions that prey on these young americans serving in the air force, particularly when they are 18, 19, 21 years old, they are more financially vulnerable, a little less sophisticated than somebody ten years older, they don't make much money, their families are always anxious when their husband or wife or husband or father serve overseas.

this bank, this spanish bank, repossessed -- the cars of 1,100 sefs men and women -- service men and women. it violated a federal order to keep more capital. it improperly paid out money to its shareholders. and we're going to give them a break? this bill helps deutsche bank which the i.m.f. called the most important net contributor of all worldwide banks, deutsche bank, german banks, the international monetary fund called it the most important net contributor of net risk. deutsche bank is the only bank that would lend to the trump economic empire. even after the failed business deals, they kept lending money

to trump. this is met with a request on information with shady financial dealings. i don't think any of us -- i don't think we were sent here to serve deutsche bank, and i'm thinking, mr. president, that none of us go back in our campaigns -- i'm on the ballot this year, i'm not going to go back and say, please reelect me so i can help deutsche bank and pass a bill that will give them something they don't deserve. this bill would help banks like barkley's and u.b.s., banks that have rigged interest rates, violated u.s. sanctions against u- iran and sudan, manipulated energy markets. these aren't banks lending to homeowners in sandusky or in my hometown in mansfield. they hold $1.4 trillion in assets.

that's $1,400 billion, $ 1.4 trillion assets. listen to paul volcker, listen to michael barr and antonio wise, believe secretary mnuchin when he tells you what to do. believe the bank lobbyists -- the lobbyists for these foreign banks, that's why they oppose this amendment. this bill gives them exactly what they want. let me talk about one change made in the substitute amendment. because i've come to this floor, and some others have joined me in objecting to this foreign bank provision, the leadership, senator mcconnell in his office, i assume, town the -- down the way. i assume they huddled and thought, we've got to answer this somehow. we have to look like we care about prohibiting a bailout of

foreign banks. so they made a change in the substitute. the new version of the bill came out last week. there's a new provision that provides window dressing, it is try to convince the public that this bill doesn't do what it actually does, it doesn't help santander, it doesn't help u.b.s., it doesn't actually help barkley's, it doesn't help the president's bank, deutsche, but actually does. the provision provides vague, ambiguous language. it puts the question to the fed, you can regulate the banks or not. it doesn't stop the foreign banks from suing the fed if -- from suing if the fed doesn't obey the requests. you know, that -- that why not just prohibit it. why not say, no, we're not going to do that. they want to keep that door open. they know the regulator, whether it's chairman of the federal reserve, jay clayton, whether

it's mr. od ding of the s.e.c., whether it's mr. mnuchin, whether it's -- whoever they put in on any of these. we know what they are going to do the writer at the wall street -- journal said it would be up to the fed. we on a pretty much party-line vote because most think that we don't want wall street regulators regulating these banks, randall quarles was confirmed. so we're expected to trust randle quarles to trust him even though he missed the last crisis, he predicted as late as 2007 that the economy was great, the banks weren't under duress. he missed the last crisis, and i might add, he personally

profited from wall street malfeasance to trust quarles, he spoke last week the at an interbankers conference, a lot of c.e.o.'s and other executives, he promised them regulatory relief. we've got the head of supervision at the federal reserve bank of the united states, most of the most powerful people in this country, speaking to an international bankers group saying, yeah, we're going to give you regulatory relief. aren't you lucky you came to this conference? because i'm in charge at the federal reserve of these issues and i'm going to help you get regulatory relief as a foreign bank. congratulations. finally, this last point is technical, but it's important. the bill makes sure that a globally systemic u.s. bank won't benefit from any

regulation, but the bill doesn't do the same for foreign banks. that silence is significant. state street has fewer than $250 billion in assets. state street is called a custodial bank. fewer than $250 billion in assets. the bill says because that bank is systemically significant, it doesn't get a free pass. this legislation says that about state treat, but it doesn't say the same for similarly, or i would argue way more, risky foreign banks here in the united states. my amendment would close that loophole. it treats systemically risky foreign banks like systemically risky u.s. banks. why treat barkley's and santander and u.b.s. and why treat deutsche bank better than we treat huntington or fifth third or key or regents in huntington, alabama, many of these regional banks that we

want to help. if we want to help regional banks and credit unions, let's help them. foreign banks shouldn't get another handout from american taxpayers. never. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the senate be in a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the secretary of the senate request the return of the papers with respect to h.r. 1207. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10:00 a.m. tuesday, march 13. further, that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the

journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and morning business be closed. i further ask that following leader remarks, the senate resume consideration of s. 2155. finally, i ask the senate recess from 12:30 until 2:15 and that all time during recess, adjournment, morning business, and leader remarks count post cloture on amendment 2151 as modified. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. mcconnell: if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask it stand adjourned under the previous order. the presiding officer: the the presiding officer: the

how the trump administration is applying pressure to regimes such as north korea, russia and venezuela. [inaudible conversations] >> it is my great pleasure to introduce undersecretary, the senior sanctions person in the u.s. government. someone who has the good the to be in charge of a deeply