positive results and benefits for them. >> coming back from a week in wyoming, you can see the positive results. people are confident and optimistic about the economy and their own lives. we have the unemployment rate at a 50 year low and consumer confidence at an 18 year high. the average family, for that means is that you wake up in the morning and you have the hope -- >> you may have heard from leaders announcing the august recess will be canceled except for one week. we will possibly hear more about that a bit later on. the senate is dabbling in coming in for votes working on judicial nominations. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change their vote? if not, the yeas are 96, the nays are zero. the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order, the motion to reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table and the president will be immediately notified of the senate's action.

the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: clotu mn. we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rul22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of annemarie carney axon of alabama to be united states district judge for the northern district of alabama, signed by 17 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is, is it the sense of the senate that debate on the nomination of annemarie carney axon of alabama to be united states district court judge for the northern district of alabama shall be brought to a close. the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: do any senators in the chamber wish to vote or change their vote? if not, the motion to invoke cloture on the nomination is approved. the ayes are 64. the nays are 11. excuse me, 84. the ayes are 84. the nays are 11. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, the

juciary, annemarie carney axo of alabama to be united states district judge for t northern district of alabama. the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: mr. president, what is the parliamentary situation? the presiding officer: pending question is the axon nomination. postcloture. mr. leahy: mr. president, i see nobody else seeking the floor. i'd ask consent i be allowed to continue for ten minutes as in

morning session. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. leahy: i thank the chair. mr. president, for those of us who read history, we know that throughout history, including at times in our country many years ago, the forceful separation of families was used as an instrument of terror. and i struggle to imagine any more damaging and inhumane governmental policy than the forcibly and needlessly tear children away from their parents. for decades the united states has rightly led the world in condemning such practices. they are flagrant abuses of government power and human rights. but today an extraordinary breach of our most basic values, the trump administration is now

virtually employing these very tactics. children were separated from their parents during the previous administration. i vocally and forcefully opposed it then, as i believe and i'm still convinced that there are alternatives that are far more humane and effective than tearing apart families. but the family separation we're seeing today is so v.ly difference, both in purpose and scope than what occurred during the obama administration. there's no comparison. separation is no longer limited to narrow circumstances where it's arguably in the best interest of the child. separating from children, even infants from their parents is now being carried out as a blanket policy. it's frightening and disturbing policy happening by design. and the trump administration's

decision to crimeally prosecute every adult who arrives at our border without documentation establishes a defacto separation family policy is going to rip thousands of innocent children away from their loved ones. and the administration's claim that this policy is necessary to deter illegal border crossing, that rings so hollow. the administration is also separating from families who follow the rules and lawfully present themselves as ports of entry with claims of asylum. they're asking for asylum. there's simply no way we can sanitize the cruelty of this policy. the april wish we're inflicting is evident in the story of each parent who is losing a child. let me tell you a couple of those stories. here are the words of maria, who

is separated from her children just last month when she sought asylum at the port of entriment her children are seven and to. at about 8:00 a.m. they called just my two children. i went out and they said, miss, only they are going. the officer said, they're here for them. can the little one walk? yes, i told the officer. let him down, they told me. the older one took his hand. they started to walk. then they turned around to look and when i saw -- and when they saw that i was not going after them, they cried. i'll tell you another story, the ordeal of another mother with two sons aged 4 and 10. she was seeking asylum from el salvador.

i was only given five memberships to say goodbye before my sons were torn from me. my baby started crying when they found out we were going to be separated. it breaks my heart to remember my youngest boy, why do i have to leave? my youngest cried and screamed in protest. he did not with aens to leave my side. -- he did not want to leave my side. my oldest son was also confused and did not understand what was happening. in tears myself, i asked my boys to be brave and i promised we would be together again soon. i begged the woman who took my children to keep them together so they could at least have each other. this is a description from a father seeking asylum at a port of entry. i was told that i was going to be separated from my son. i suffer from high blood pressure and felt as though i

was having a heart attack. i get as though i was in shock. i do not remember what happened next or even how i got to the detention center after that. all i can remember is how much my son and i were both crying as they took him away. now, the anguish inflicts on these parents and children at the moment of separation is excruciating. for those of us who are parents, it is inconceivable. but it is just the beginning. parents are given limited information, sometimes none at all, about where their children are being held, in whose care or for how long. some have begged the courts for information, frustrating judges who know little more than the parents. some are deported while their children remain in unknown locations in the united states. pediatricians describe the trauma that can be inflicted on

these children as toxic stress. it results in lasting damage to a child's health. who here would tolerate such a thing if it were happening to american children? who would defend such an abhorrent practice that's happening in other countries, say russia -- or any other country? none of us would. none of us. -- none of us would. we would condemn it. all this lays bare the ugly truth about the true intent of this policy clash to strike fear into the hearts of families who are seeking refuge from gang violence and chaos and murder and rape in their home countries. the message could not be clearer: if you try to seek refuge in the united states, which is your right under international law -- if you seek your right, if you seek refuge, if you seek the right

unfortunate under international law -- the right you have under international law, we will punish you and punish your family because you are not welcome here. this policy, unquestionably, faults our domestic and international legal obligations. worse, it flies in the face of who we are. in the past we've shown the world that protecting our homeland is not incompatible with providing refuge to the vulnerable. we've proven that being a nation of laws is not anti--- antithetical with being a country of compassion. and we have demonstrated that our unmatched power is derived, in part, from how we treat the most powerless among us. president trump's policy abandon s our principles. it actually abandons our moral

identity as a beacon for the world. republicans and democrats must speak with one voice to condemn this cruelty. family separation is no more a republican policy than a democratic policy. it's neither. what it is, it's an un-american policy. the united states -- this great country, this country that beckoned my maternal grandparents to come to the u.s. or vermont or my great-grandparents to come to the united states and vermont, this great country must not be seen as terrorizi children to score political points. that is beneath -- beneath the greatness of the united states. it is wrong.

it is abhorrent. we must not be seen as pursuing policies with the intent of inflicting pain and anguish on vulnerable people, on children. and i hope senators of both parties will join me in condemning this outrageous practice of forced family separation. we are a nation better than this. we have always thought of ourselves as better than this. well, it's time we acted like we're better than this. mr. president, i yield the floor and, unless somebody else is seeking -- i see another senator seeking recognition, so i just yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the senator from south dakota. mr. thune: mr. president, i may jobs report came out last friday, and here are some of the headlines. this is from bloomberg. u.s. payrolls rise, 2233,000 jobless rate matches 48-year low. this is from cnn, unemployment rate matches lowest point in half a century. and from "the new york times," we ran out of words to describe how good the job numbers are. in other words, mr. president, the may jobs report was more good news for american workers. the economy created 223,000 jobs in may.

the unemployment rate dropped to 3.8%, the lowest rate since april of 2050. that's right, mr. president. the last time unemployment was this low, the ipod hadn't even been invented. when the republican-led senate passed tax reform in december, there were estimates that this historic legislation would create nearly one million jobs for the american people. well, mr. president, the economy has already created more than a million jobs since tax reform was passed and 3.6 million jobs since president trump was elected. the republican pro-growth, pro-jobs agenda is working. mr. president, government cannot create prosperity. it can't create the jobs and opportunities that americans need for a secure economic future. only businesses can do that. but government can create the conditions for economic prosperity. it can make sure that businesses are free to create jobs and

opportunities by making sure that they're not weighed down with burdensome taxes and regulations. mr. president, as everyone knows, the economy stagnated during the last administration. reve from the recession was storically weak. wages were stagnant and opportunities were often few and far between. and a big reason toker that was the fact that -- and a big reason for that was the fact that businesses large and small were weighed down by burdensome regulations and an outdated tax code. so when republicans took office, republicans and president trump took reversing regulations. we rolled back burdensome regulations and in december we passed an historic reform of our tax code. the tax tax code was not helping businesses grow and create jobs. in fact, it was doing just the opposite.

and that had real consequences for american workers. a small business owner struggling to afford the tax bill for her business was highly unlikely to be able to hire or raise wages. a business struggling to stay competitive in the marketplace while paying a higher tax rate than its foreign competitors too often had limited funds to expand or increase investment here in the united states. and so when it came time for tax reform, we set out to improve the playing field for american workers by improving the playing field for businesses as well. to accomplish that, we lowered tax rates across the board for owners of small- and medium-sized businesses, farms, and ranches. we lowered our nation's massive corporate tax rate, which up untilanuary 1 was the highest corporate tax rate in the developed world.

we expanded business owners' ability to recover investments that they make in their businesses which frees up cash that they can reinvest in their operations and their workers. and we brought the united states international tax system into the 21st century so that american businesses are not operating at a disadvantage next to their foreign competitors. and, mr. president, now we're seeing the results. company after company has announced higher wages, better retirement benefits, bonuses, increased investment, new jobs, and more. a recent survey from the national association of manufacturers reported that 77% of manufacturers plan to increase hiring as a result of tax reform. 72% plan to increase wages or

benefits. and 86% report that they plan to increase investments, which means new jobs and opportunities for workers. meanwhile a recent survey from the national federation of business reports said 75% of small business owners think that the tax cuts and jobs act will rabb positive effect -- will have a positive effect on their businesses. the republican economic agenda is working and republicans are going to keep working to ensure that american businesses can thrive and that american workers have access to the jobs and opportunities that they need for long-term economic security. and while we're doing that, we're also going to continue to focus on the rest of the work the american people elected us to do. as i said before, congress can walk and chew gum at the same time, and so while we've been laser focused on removing obstacles to economic growth and job creation, we've also accomplished a lot of other

things so far in this congress. by the end of the obama administration, our nation's military was facing a serious readiness shortfall. so this year we made the most significant investment in our military in 15 years. and we're going to continue to make sure that the men and women of our military have the resources that they need to meet and defeat the threats of the 21st century. we recently passed legislation that makes much-needed reforms to ensure that our veterans have access to the health care that they need when and where they need it. we also took action to preserve health care for children in need by enacting the longest extension of the children's health insurance program in history. and we repealed, we repealed obamacare's burdensome individual mandate which forced many americans to buy health insurance that the didn't want or couldn't afford.

we passed legislation to fight sex trafficking, to combat opioid abuse, to help community banks, to increase school safety, to keep energy affordable, and more. and of course we've confirmed a number of highly qualified judges to fill vacancies in our judicial system. mr. president, republicans are working to honor the trust that the american people placed in us. we're fighting to make life better for hardworking americans. we've accomplished a lot so far in this congress, but we know there is a lot more work to be done. and, mr. president, we are up to the challenge. mr. president, i yield the floor, and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. durbin: mr. president.

the presiding officer: the democratic leader. mr. durbin: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: i ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: mr. president, history is a great teacher. if you learn your history. and the history of the united states when it comes to refugees is a checkered history. back in world war ii, there were people who came to the borders of the united states and begged for our mercy, begged for our help. 900 of them were on a ship called the s.s. st. louis. they were jews who came from europe seeking refuge in the united states from the nazis. sadly, the united states turned them away. several hundred of them were forced back to europe and died in the holocaust. on the floor of this united states senate, a democratic senator from new york, robert wagner, offered a measure to

allow 10,000 children, jewish children, to come to the united states during world war ii and escape the possibility of imprisonment and death during world war ii and the holocaust. that measure was defeated here on the floor of the united states senate. those children were denied refuge in the united states. toward the end of the war, things started changing. our policies became more open. we started accepting more people, but the record had been written. and during the darkest days of world war ii, the united states virtually closed its borders to those who were trying to escape nazi terror. after world war ii, we decided that we were wrong. that we had made a mistake. and that the united states would demonstrate to the world that we did care, of those who came to the united states as refugees and those who came from other countries seeking asylum.

we wrote an amazing history after world war ii. when you think of the many different nations that turned to us when they faced the worst circumstances imaginable, you think about what happened to the united states. the cuban population escaping communism in cuba. where did they come? they came here. and you can still find them. you can find them all over the united states, but especially in florida near miami and new jersey but everywhere. and the cuban-americans have made an amazing contribution to this country. they came as refugees but they became real americans. and they love this country. in fact, so much so that i believe three of our members of the united states senate are cuban americans today. that's quite a story. but it's not the only story about refugees coming to this country. you could add to that litany of people who came, the vietnamese

after the end of the war in vietnam. the soviet jews who escaped persecution in russia to come to the united states. the list is long. it includes refugees from all over the world who came to this country. now, we just don't open our doors and say walk in and make yourself at home. we ask questions. we do background checks. we do everything we can to be sure that the person coming is the person they say they are and that they will be safe for the united states. but over the years, the number of refugees we accepted on an annual basis went up to 80,000, 100,000. and the united states developed an international reputation, a reputation for caring for people who were in the worst circumstances who came here lookin for refuge. i run into refugees and their families and their children and their grandchildren every single day. they've made a great contribution to our country.

and we have made a great model for the world when it comes to accepting people who are in the worst, most terrifying circumstances. mr. president, that is about to change. we are in the process now of facing the worst refugee crisis in the history of the world in so many different places, and the united states instead of maintaining this image and this model of accepting refugees from other countries under this president, president donald trump, has decided to do just the opposite. not only to cut in half the number of refugees we would clear, review, interrogate, and accept in the united states each year to 50,000 as the official number, but in actuality, only about 18,000 have been accepted so far in the first few months of this year. it's an indication we won't even reach 50,000. but there's something going on as well when it comes to those

who seek asylum or refuge in this country that is equal horrifying and objectionable. the trump administration has decided to discourage those who woul come to our borders looking for safety by telling mothers who bring their infants and children that those children will be taken away from them by the government of the united states when they arrive at our border. it's hard to imagine but that is the stated policy of the trump administration. it is a cruel policy. it is not a policy consistent with american values. since our nation's tragic failure during world war ii to help jewish refugees fleeing adolph hitler, generations of americans have tried to set an example for the world by providing a safe haven to the world's most vulnerable people. now facing the worst refugee crisis in the history of the world with more than 65 million people around the world displaced from their homes, the

trump administration is admitting the fewest refugees since world war ii and going to extreme lengths to prevent victims of war and terrorism from seeking asylum in the united states. so far this year about 15,000 unaccompanied children have been apprehended at our southwest border. this is not necessarily a crisis in a nation of 325 million people, especially at a time when we're asking friendly nations, our allies in the middle east, to do much more in accepting refugees. the real crisis that gives cause to people showing up at our southern border asking for asylum could be traced to three countries, hundred door raws, el salvador -- hundred door reduce, el salvador, these countries in central america have among the highest homicide rates in the

world. girls, basically young girls, face a constant threat of sexual violence with little or mo protection -- are no protection. that's why families are doing desperate things, taking extrod near risks -- extraordinary risks to come to our border and ask for protection. is there any parent who would not do the same to save their child? how has the trump administration responded to this refugee crisis on our border? they are trying to discourage families from fleeing to our borders by separating parents from their children. in march, we learned in my office in chicago about a 7-year-old girl and her mother who came from the democratic republic of congo. i've been there. it's a land of terrible massacres, bash. mr. babarism. the democratic republic of congo

had these two, a mother and daughter, come to our shores, and they were separated for four months, a 7-year-old girl from her mother. i asked the department of homeland security inspector general to investigate this. why would we separate a 7-year-old girl from her mom who was coming from the congo seeking protection. well, at the time the trump administration said we don't separate families. that was the official state -- statement at the time. but last month attorney general jeff sessions announced that the separation of children from their parents was a new, quote, zero tolerance approach. and now family separation has become the official policy of the government of the united states of america. in just the first two weeks of this policy under attorney general sessions, 658 children have been separated from their parents. white house chief of staff john

kelly says separating families is, quote, a tough deterrent, a tough deterrent to parents who are fleeing persecution. and he dismissed any concerns because, quote, the children will be taken care of. we'll put them in foster care or whatever, john kelly said. well, our nation's leading medical experts disagree. the american academy of pediatrics and the american medical association have condemned this official policy of the trump administration separating families and immigration detention. here's what the president of the american academy of pediatrics said, and i quote, separating children from their parents contradicts everything we stand for as pediatricians. protecting and promoting children's health. in fact, highly stressful experiences like family separation can cause irreparable harm, disrupting a child's brain architecture, and affecting his or her short and long-term health. this type of prolonged exposure

to serious stress known as toxic stress, can carry lifelong consequences for these children. the trump administration has been taking some heat deservedly for separating families. in typical fashion, no surprise, they've decided the real cause of the problem would be the democrats. just this morning, president trump tweeted, and i quote, separating families at the border is the fault of bad legislation passed by the democrats, our president tweeted. but the law he's talking about wasn't passed by the democrats. it is the bipartisan trafficking victims protection reauthorization act which was passed by unanimous consent in the senate and was signed into law by republican president george w. bush. president trump has his facts wrong again. this law has nothing to do with

the separation of families. instead, it ensures the united states meets its international obligations to protect unaccompanied children seeking safe haven in our country. it was a response to concerns by republicans and democrats that children apprehended by the border patrol were being returned to countries where they might be further persecuted or killed. under this law, unaccompanied children from the northern triangle countries i mentioned earlier are transferred to the department of health and human services and placed in deportation proceedings giving them a chance to make their case to a judge as to why they're seeking protection in america. consider samuel and omily, siblings age 3 and 6 from honduras, 3 and 6. when they arrived in the united states, they were traumatized and refused to speak. after months of counseling, omily revealed that both

children had been raped by drug cartel members. without the protection of this law which the president condemned this morning, these children would have been returned to honduras in almost certain exploitation or death. two weeks ago there was a hearing on unaccompanied children in the senate immigration subcommittee which i serve on as ranking member. we examined the administration's claim that the law the president objects to is being exploited by gangs. here is what we learned. unaccompanied children undergo multiple screenings and background checks when they present themselves at the border. and the law gives the government the authority to place any unaccompanied child in a secure facility if there is any notion of a threat. since the year 2012, six years ago, the u.s. customs and boarder protection has processed more than 250,000 unaccompanied children. of course, -- pardon me.

of those, how many were confirmed or expected of affiliation with the ms-13 gang that the president talks about nonstop? 60. 6-0. out of 250,000, 60 over six years. ten a year. fewer than one a month. and the president says we have to separate these kids because of drug gang worries. i don't want a single member of any gang anywhere admitted into this country, period. end of quote. but for goodness sakes. 250,000 children and 60 over a six-year period were confirmed or suspected of affiliation with ms-13? instead of stoking fears, we should focus on unaccompanied children being recruited by gangs. the president's budget is slashing fund for the office of refugee resettlement, the

government agency that's responsible for these important gang prevention efforts. at our hearing we also discussed the conditions in the northern triangle countries in central america that are driving families to flee to our border. if people were migrating because of the so-called legal loopholes which we hear so often about from this administration, they wouldn't be just coming from three countries. they'd be coming from all over the region. but we learned that more than 90% of the awn -- the unaccompanied kids referred to the department of services are from three nations, the three of the northern triangle. instead of addressing the root causes that are driving migration from these countries, the trump administration is making the situation on the ground worse. the administration's budget request for the region which slashed aid by more than one-third. and the administration is terminating the temporary protective status for two of these countries, el salvador and honduras, forcing many people to return to them, even though

these countries are clearly unstable. last year the administration also entered the central american minor program which permitted people from the northern triangle to apply for refugee resettlement from their home country. we said don't make this dangerous journey. mothers with their babies and infants, don't make this dangerous journey. if you are in danger in your home country and want to seek asylum or refugee in the united states, make the application from where you are before you have to make that journey. that would unfortunately come to an end with the administration's request to stop founding the program. mr. president, there are many issues that come before the american people, but few that have stoked the emotions of that issue. the notion that the united states of america, over 300 million good and caring people, would make it an official policy to separate these infants and

toddlers and children from their mothers and parents is not american. it's extreme. it's mean. and it's cruel. sadly, it's the official policy, the so-called zero tolerance policy that's been announced by attorney general sessions. we learned a better lesson back in world war ii. we ignored the realities of human suffering. people across the world ask, what is going on in america? what are their values? after that the war, we tried to make it clear what we do stand for, the things that are clearly important. and now this administration has decided we can no longer afford to do that. we have to separate children from their mothers, separate them by thousands of miles, put them into foster care, remove them from their mothers, even if that mother, even if that parent qualifies for protection here in the united states under our laws of asylum. this is a sad and cruel policy.

i hope americans across the board will stand up and speak up. we're about better nation than this. -- we're a better nation than this. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. kennedy: mr. president, are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: yes. mr. kennedy: i ask that the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. kennedy: thank you, mr. president. i rise today because we're in the midst of a deeply troubling, in my judgment, trend regarding banking and the second amendment. and i know that seems a bit strange. what does banking have to do with the second amendment? i wondered that myself. allow me to explain. we have 120 million gun owners in america, and like those americans, i am alarmed by the activist antigun policies

unveiled by the "we are smarter than you" financial elites who run two wall street banks -- citigroup and the bank of america. they have a political agenda, and those banks' political agenda stands to hurt many small businesses in my state of louisiana who are going to lose their banking services simply because these small businesses choose to exercise their constitutionally protected second amendment right. on march 22 of this year, mr. president, citigroup issued a press release. that press release detailed how citigroup will penalize banking clients who follow federal, state, and local gun laws. citigroup's new policy will tell businesses what kind of firearms

they can stock, what kind of accessories those small businesses can stock in their stores, and who they can sell them to. i thought this was america, mr. president. now, this new policy has already taken effect all across citigroup and it has impacted hundreds of small businesses, institutional clients, and even their credit card partners. not to be outdone, two weeks later bank of america joined in. on april 10, bank of america announced that it will no longer loan money to businesses that, in its opini, are deplorables because those businesses manufacture legal semiautomatic rivals. targeting firearms owners and business owners is not only an

affront to the responsible, law- abiding, constitutional gun owners across this country, it's a threat to the seaportty of our -- sanctity of our very constitution and the second amendment. i realize that the management of these two banks have a constitution whose bill of rights jumped from one to three, but i can assure them that in the rest of the constitutions read by the rest of america, there is a second amendment. i've written both the chief executive officers of citigroup and bank of america about my concerns, and they've yet to respond. i understand that mr. brian monahan, the c.e.o. of bank of america, is actually here in washington lobbying folks on capitol hill this week. i suppose he was too busy to come by and address my concerns. once again i invite him to come

by my office and speak about this in person. mr. president, i can't overstate the gravity of this issue. it's important for consumers and businesses all across america. both citigroup and bank of america are considered by the united states government to be, quote, systematically important banks. that means they're too big to fail. that's why the american taxpayers had to bail them out in 2009. the american taxpayers, many of whom citigroup and bank of america now condescend to across our great land, gave citigroup $476 billion of their hard-earned money. not $476 million to bail out

citigroup. $476 billion. and the american taxpayer, many of whom choose to exercise their rights under the second amendment and who these banks are trying to now punish, those taxpayers gave bank of america $336 billion in 2008 and 2009 to keep them from going broke. now, these banks are supposed to act as a source of credit for households and businesses and local and state governments and as a source of liquidity for the entire banking system, mr. president, but that also means that their corporate policies have ripple effects through every corner of our economy -- from consumers and businesses of all sizes to banks and nonbank holding companies. mr. president, if the banking system worked like a grocery

store, i would still disagree with these new antigun rules by citigroup and bank of america. but i would respect their right to enact whatever corporate policies aligned with their beliefs. but banks are not grocery stores. a grocery store doesn't need a government charter to operate. a grocery store doesn't have a government corporation backed by the taxpayers of this country to ensure their deposits. a grocery store doesn't have a government bank that pays them interest. banks do. one grocery store doesn't get so big that it lends and borrows and buys and sells from nearly every other grocery store in the country. citigroup does and so does bank of america. a grocery store doesn't need an

$812.3 billion bailout from the american taxpayers. many of whom choose to exercise their rights under the united states constitution, including but not limited to the second amendment. citigroup and bank of america had decided to make banking a red versus blue issue by trampling on the second amendment rights of small business owners and, therefore, all americans. and if additional big consumer banks come out with similar anti-second amendment policies, it will get harder and harder for businesses in my state, louisiana, and small businesses in other states and elsewhere to find banking services. we'll have red banks and we'll have blue banks. i don't think that's what we want in america, mr. president. mr. president, i want to make sure that the federal government isn't rewarding this behavior with even more taxpayer dollars.

i think $1 trillion to bail these two banks out by the american taxpayer is quite enough. i've already petitioned the general services administration to cancel the federal government's $700 billion contract with citigroup, and i've urged officials in the state of louisiana to reevaluate all state contracts with any wall street bank that chooses to implement an extra legal policy that infringes on the second amendment to the united states constitution. citigroup and bank of america owe their continued existence to the generosity of the american taxpayer. if it wasn't for the american taxpayer, there would be no citigroup, there wouldn't be no bank of america. i find it very disturbing that these wall street banks may be profiting from taxpayer-funded contracts at the same time they're pushing a political

agenda -- and that is what it is, a political agenda -- and severing ties with law-abiding businesses in the process. given the size of these banks, it's likely that the same is true in states across america. i find it offensive -- i find it offensive that wall street banks are taking taxpayer dollars with one hand and condescending to them with their "we know better than you do" attitude by using the other hand to come after the guns that those taxpayers lawfully own under the second amendment rather than impose its political agenda on law-abiding citizens, these wall street banks ought to remember how taxpayers spent billions of dollars -- almost $1 trillion -- to bail them out after the 2008 financial crisis.

they owe a tremendous debt to the american people. it seems that they have a very short memory. mr. president, we don't need red banks in america. we don't need blue banks in eric in. -- we don't need blue banks in america. we need safe banks in america. mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: mr. kennedy: mr. president? the presiding officer: the

senator from louisiana. mr. kennedy: i ask that the quorum call be suspended, mr. president. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. kennedy: mr. president, i have six requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. the presiding officer: duly noted. mr. kennedy: thank you, mr. president.

ms. stabenow: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. ms. stabenow: thank you. i ask for suspension of the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. stabenow: thank you very much. mr. president, i rise today to pay tribute to someone who's been fighting for working men and women his entire career. just for a moment, let's think back to 1977. the top movie that year was star wars. the original one. and the average movie ticket cost $2.23. the apple 2 computer went on sale. it cost $1,298, not including the television you needed to use

for a monitor. the space shuttle enterprise took its first test flight perched atop a boeing 747, and a young marine corps veteran and salvage welder at j.i. case first joined u.a.w. local 806 in rock island, illinois. he began fighting at that point for workers' rights. a few things have changed since then. star wars and apple have evolved. and the space shuttle has retired. yet one thing hasn't changed. dennis williams is just as dedicated to the working men and women of the u.a.w. today as he was four decades ago. over the years, he's served them in a number of ways. negotiating the first contract at mitsibishi motors north america in bloomington, illinois organizing indiana state

employees, helping local 844 in vermont, illinois, obtain their first contract and serving the locals throughout the nine states of region four. in 2010, he was elected u.a.w.'s secretary treasurer and in 2014, he was elected united auto workers president, a position he has held with distinction since then. it hasn't been an easy time to lead the u.a.w. the great recession hit the american automobile industry very hard. some folks thought we should just let the auto industry go bankrupt. instead, the united auto workers made sacrifices, stood strong, stood together and weathered the storm. and under dennis williams' leadership, the u.a.w. ended 2017 with a fiscal surplus for

the third straight year. and with more than 430,000 members, up 60,000 members since 2011. it's no surprise anyone who's worked with dennis knows just how dedicated he is to his membs and the communities where they live and where they work. just ask the people of flint. during the water crisis which, by the way, continues on. the u.a.w. members from all over the country were some of the first ones that were there to help. they collected bottled water and distributed it in their own vehicles going door to door to help, even traveling to washington, d.c. to demand action from congress. and we're so pleased that they helped us get action to help the families in flint. that tells you a little

something about the character of the members of the u.a.w. yet it also tells you a little bit about their leader, a man who long ago signed up to serve his country and has simply never stopped. i think that dennis would say it's about solidarity. as he wrote an editorial in the detroit news last month, quote, we believe that no matter where you come from, who you are, what language you speak, or what religion you practice. being in a union is about working men and women. standing up for each other. that's how it was in 1935 when the u.a.w. was formed and that's how it is now. to dennis williams, thank you for your service, your hard

work, your dedication to making life better for working men and women so that we can actually have a and -- have and sustain and grow the middle class. i know the u.a.w. members join me in wishing you the very, very best in your well-earned retirement. i know that my partner from michigan and colleague will be coming to the floor in just a bit, and i at this moment, mr. president, i will yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. mr. peters: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. peters: mr. president, the history of the united auto workers is at the heart of what has made the united states a global economic powerhouse. it is tied to the growth of thriving manufacturing sector and the birth of the american middle class. dennis williams, u.a.w. president since 2014, is a strong contributor to this history. his leadership reflects a deep commitment to american workers and a clear eye toward the

future. since the union's formation in 1935, u.a.w. members have stood together to ensure their hard work is met with fair wages, safe workplaces, and reasonable hours. for over 80 years, the voition of the u.a. -- the voice of the u.a.w. has amp fighted the voice of the american -- amplified the voice of the american people. dennis williams is the champion of keeping this voice strong in the 21st century. he joined local a.u.w.86 as a salvage welder in 1977 following his service in the united states marine corps. there he started his long path of elected union leadership and served as chairman of the bargaining committee. in the coming years, williams would rise to the positions of international representative, region 4 assistant director, and region 4 director. in 2010, u.a.w. members elected him as secretary/treasure followed by president in 2014.

no matter what position williams undertook during his decades of u.a.w. leadership, he always stayed true to his roots. after becoming u.a.w. president, he prioritized visiting union plants and locals to engage with members directly. he stated and i quote, i love the smell of plant coffee and the smoke of the factory and walking up to u.a.w. members and saying, brothers and sisters. his passion for everything the u.a.w. stands for i a long with his business-like approach to tough decisions enabled williams to take on some difficult challenges during his presidency. just as williams started in his role in michigan, home to one-third of u.a.w. members, the state had recently become a so-called right to work state. michigan now is one of 28 state, with policies designed to undermine union participation and workers' rights to

collective bargaining. despite tides of state and federal antiworker effort, williams remained practical and optimistic about overcoming any challenges that came the u.a.w.'s way. he emphasized the importance of sitting down and talking issues rather than resorting to confrontation. williams was steadfast about not giving up on organizing and he's actively pursued new approaches to organizing that would keep the u.a.w. strong in the future. his strategy has definitely paid off. during williams' tenure, he successfully fought for the establishment of local unions at volkswagen and mercedes locations in the united states and for casino workers in las vegas. under his leadership, membership has increased by over 20%.

the growth rate in membership over this past year has been the highest in a one-year period since 2010. i'm deeply honored by dennis williams' representation of over 430,000 awe members including tens of thousands of workers in my state of michigan. i wish him well in his retirement along with his wife donna of 43 years, his sons ryan and matthew, and his grandchildren kendall and kye. i know i speak on behalf of many michigan workers when i sincerely thank dennis williams for his admirable service as the u.a.w.'s 11th president. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: i ask unanimous consent to -- we are in a quorum call? the presiding officer: the senate is. mr. whitehouse: may i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: i ask unanimous consent to speak for 20 minutes as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: thank you, mr. president. 30 years ago this month, dr. james hansen testified before the u.s. congress on the

need to address climate change. 30 years ago this month. he was a top nasa climate scientist on a hot summer day in june of 1988 before the united states senate committee on energy and natural resources. dr. hansen testified that, and i quote, global warming has reached a level such that we can ascribe with a high degree of confidence a cause and effect relationship between the greenhouse effect and observed warming. he said it is already happening now. well, 30 years have passed since then. 30 years of added science. 30 years of new science. 30 years of updated reports, and 30 years of mounting evidence of

how right hansen was. yet here we still are in congress, still willfully ignoring the unprecedented changes to the climate and the oceans, changes that threaten our planet and its rich array of plant and animal life, changes that put at risk homes, farms, forests, and coasts, changes that affect our very human health and well-being. these are not computer model projections of the distant future, but changes we are seeing right before our very eyes now. carbon-driven climate change is particularly acute in polar areas, and today i want to focus on the melting and destabilization of the and

arctic polar ice cap. rhode island is a long way from antarctica. florida is a less long way from antarctica, but still a pretty long way. but we are coastal states, mr. president. in rhode island, sea level is already up 11 inches along our shores, and far more sea level rise, accelerating sea level rise is expect. -- rise is expected. the coastal towns and cities in the presiding officer's state are seeing similar encroachments of the ocean into their territory. so here is how antarctica is changing and what it means for our american shores. the antarctic ice sheet spans the south pole, extending almost

14 million square kilometers, roughing the size of the contiguous united states and mexico combined. the antarctic ice sheet is the largest single mass of frozen water on planet earth. containing 30 million cubic kilometers of ice. if the antarctica ice sheet were to melt completely, you can actually do fairly simple math as to what happens to that water. sea levels could rise 200 feet above current levels, engulfing coastal regions worldwide. this map shows florida if we lose the west antarctica ice sheet. as the map shows, it would

inundate much of coastal and southern florida, putting miami and other cities completely under water. it looks about the same here if you lose the greenland ice sheet. similar damage and loss to florida. but here if you lose the east antarctic ice sheet, you more or less wipe out the entire state of florida. a few little islands here, a little nub below georgia there, but essentially florida is gone. imagine the entire population of florida having to migrate to other states with their state now inhabitable. it seems like a crazy notion, but kentucky's climate-planning documents have included the

prospect of climate refugees having to flee to kentucky from america's inundated coasts. so it matters to understand how antarctic ice sheets work and how they differ from ice shells. ice sheets form on land when more snow accumulates in winter than melts during the summer. over thousands of years, layers of snow pile up, growing thicker and denser as the weight of new layers compact the layers below into ice. over time, that ice flows downhill to the coast and then ultimately out to sea as glaciers and then ice shells. floating ice shells surround

antarctica. these shells physically brace the land-based ice sheet, slowing down its flow into the sea. a rough balance emerges as new snowfall on the ice sheets and the slow flow of the ice balances the melting of the ice shelf around the periphery where the ice shelves meet the ocean. we are now witnessing what appears to be an unraveling of this ee quickly -- ee quickly inrum. climate is causing this massive destabilization. since 1950, on the antarctica peninsula, the air has warmed 2.5 degrees celsius. warming ocean waters erode the

west antarctic ice sheets from below as the warming air melts them from above. once the ice shells melt back, you have the loss of the buttress effect, and the ice sheet on land can then accelerate with that buttress effect diminished more rapidly into the sea, causing a more rapid rise in sea level. the effect of this is actually measurable, and we measure it. observations from the nasa and german aerospace centers' twin gravity recovery and climate experiment satellites measure these losses to be around 125

gigatons of ice per year. well, what's a gigaton of ice? a gigaton is one billion tons. meredith nettles of the lemont-doherty earth observatory at columbia university described a gigaton-sized piece of ice this way. i quote her -- if you took the whole national mall -- here we are in washington. if you took the whole national mall and covered it up with ice to a height around four times as high as the washington monument. so imagine you have walked out here on the the capitol steps. you're looking out all the way down the national mall to the washington monument, and you're imagining that not only to the top of the washington monument, but four times as high is a single giant mass of ice.

as she said, all the way down from the capitol steps to the lincoln memorial four times as high as the washington monument. so then imagine 125 times that every year. the destabilization of the ice shelves is most dire in west anartica where research shows the massive glacier retreating at 300 to 400 meters per year along a 25-mile central segment, larger than pennsylvania, the thwaites glacier has discharged more than 100 gigatons of ice per year in recent years. that is the flood, 100 of those

blocks, four washington monuments high, running from here all the way down to the lincoln memorial 100 times, every day another one into the ocean, piling up, piling up. if we lost the thwaites glacier yes that alone -- glacier, that would contribute to the sea-level rise. so far we are dealing with less than a foot of sea-level rise. 12 to six feet is predicted, but add this in, the position of our coastal states become quite dire. these images were created with nasa satellite data. they show changes in antarctic ice mass since 2002. this data does not measure the floating ice shelves which are

shown here in gray. on the ice sheets dark orange and red colors indicate losses of ice sheet mass and light blue shades indicate gains. now, climate deniers focus on the gains in actually fraudulent abuse of data and the public's trust, but that's what they do. but overall during the past 15 years net, the west antarctic ice sheet experienced major ice mass loss, and the darkest red, representing the biggest loss is at the thwaites glacier. and, of course, when glaciers melt, the sea rise.

in april a u.s. geological survey funded by the pentagon found that our military bases on low elevation islands may become inhabitable within decades. we may have to plan to relocate them because they will no being longer -- will no longer be useful. there was a report that sea-level rise that places like jamestown in virginia and john lafeate historical park in louisiana, nasa is concerned enough about this antarctic ice situation that is launching new satellites to monitor it. fossil fuel industry front groups continue to deny and disparage the work of scientists at noaa, nasa, and other federal

scientific agencies. the polluters have an obedient mouthpie in "the wall street jourl" editorial page, which just last month ran climate denier fred singer denying that rising sea levels observed around the globe are the result of global warming. and, of cows, saying it's not -- of course, saying it's not the result of carbon pollution or fossil fuels. the journal page, of course, neglected to mention this denier's connection to the heritage foundation, heartland institute, and cato institute and other climate denier front groups bankrolled by the oil industry and the koch political apparatus. we even heard a republican congressman claim that erosion and rocks falling into the sea

are what's driving sea-level rise. anything but fossil fuel. he said, every time you have that soil or rock or whatever it is that is deposited into the seas, that forces the sea levels to rise because now you have less space in those oceans because the bottom is moving up. it's laughable. phil duffy, president of the woods hole research center and former senior advisor to the research program responded, human time scales, those are minuscule effects. but, once again, anything for the fossil fuel industry, complete subservients for the fossil fuel industry seems to be the rule around congress. about that sorted political equation, retired u.s. navy rear admiral dr. david tithly

probably said it best. he said, the ice doesn't care. the ice doesn't care who's in the white house, it doesn't care which party controls your congress, it doesn't care which party controls your parliament. it just melts. and, of course, in addition to the melt, a warming ocean expands following the law of thermal expansion and our coasts, as a result, face new and serious dangers. republicans in congress can't continue to ignore all of the evidence -- can continue to ignore all of the evidence, but that doesn't change what our carbon pollution does in the atmosphere and the oceans. our carbon pollution will still trap heat in the atmosphere, it

will still acidify the oceans. the laws of chemistry don't suspend because we can't pass sensible laws to solve this problem. the chemistry and the physics of these effects of our carbon pollution don't care what we do. the polar ice caps melting don't care that fossil fuel flunkies deny it, and denial of these facts doesn't protect our coasts and doesn't protect our coastal communities from looming danger. one day soon we are going to have to wake up. fossil fuel influence or no fossil fuel influence, we are

going to have to wake up. i yield the floor, mr. president. and i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: 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 consent that notwithstanding the provisions of rule 22, the confirmation vote on the axon nomination occur at 1 11:00 a.m. on wednesday, june 6. if confirmed the motion be considered made and laid upon the table and the president be immediately notified of the senate's action. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the senate resume legislative session for 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 senate proceed to immediate consideration of h. con. res. 113 which was received from the house. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: house concurrent resolution 113 authorizing the use of the capitol grounds for the greater washington soap box derby. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening

action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of s. res. 532 submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 532 designating the week of june 4 through june 10, 2018, as hemp history week. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered paid and laid upon the tle wh no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to immediate consideration of s. res. 533 submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 533 commemorating the dmitioning of the u.s.s. owe commissioning of the u.s.s. manchester. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? protection. mr. mcconnell: i ask the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon

the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the consideration of s. res. 534 submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 534 supporting the goals and ideals of national travel and tourism week and honoring the valuable contributions of travel and tourism to the united states. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar number 431, h.r. 4743. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 431, h.r. 4743, an act to amend the small business act to strengthen the office of credit risk management within the small business administration and for other purposes. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection.

mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the bill be considered read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the committee on small business be discharged from further consideration of h.r. 2333 and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: h.r. 2333 an act to amend the small business investment act of 1958 to increase the amount of leverage made available to small business investment companies. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. the committee is discharged and the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the bill be considered read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent when the senate completes its business today it adjourn until 10:00 a.m. wednesday, june 6. 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. finally, i ask that following leader remarks the senate proceed to executive session and resume consideration of the axon nomination under the previous order. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: so if there's no further business to come before the senate, i ask it stand adjourned under the previous order following the remarks of senator brown. the presiding officer: without objection. brown mr. president? ever.

the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. brown: last month we passed legislation to give our country more tools to respond to foreign investments from countries like china that pose a threat to our national security. i appreciate the presiding officer's interest in this issue also. the senate banking bill was attached to the defense bill in the armed services committee later that week. the house passed a similar bill through a committee at the same time. this is good news as we try to address threats to our national security and i hope we can get this to the president's desk quickly. the committee on foreign investment in the united states, so-called cfius, screens foreign investments for national security threats and blocks those that undermine our national security. it's countries like china have adopted new tactics and new techniques to acquire our critical knowledge and know-how, the laws that give cfius its authority haven't been able to keep up with technology. hence the reason that senator cornyn and senator feinstein and

senator van hollen and crapo and i have worked on this. i want to thank them for introducing legislation last fall to expand cfius' authority to keep up with these new tactics. the banking committee bill builds on their efforts to modernize cfius and make sure it has the tools it needs to tackle today's threats. no country, not even close, no country has been more aggressive than the people's republic of china in going after american technology and aviation and in robotics and new energy vehicles and others where the u.s. has established long-held -- established ourselves as a global leader for a long time. just three years, 2013 to 2015, the number of chinese -- from the beginning of 2013 to the end of 2015, the number of chinese acquisitions coming under cfius review jumped 38%. china is getting more clever, more sneaky, choose the word you like, finding ways to get around the rules to avoid review at

all. we see companies strurt turing deals so they can gain access to sensitive technology and information without triggering the cfius review. for example, the chinese investor wants to buy a controlling stake in an american company, cfius would review that deal and have the chance to block it. but if china instead -- chinese investors instead got seats on the company's board, they could still have access to the same sensitive technology without going through the cfius review. some foreign investors also might, for instance, decide to enter into a joint venture with an american company instead giving them access to all the technology and data and know-how but bypassing the cfius review process. the american business may not even particularly like joining up with this chinese company, but the chinese company will coerce them into a joint ven tir as a -- venture as a condition. this is what china is really good and u.s. corporations have been too weak-kneed in sum

cumming to this as a -- succumbing to this. they play for keeps. our corporations play far too often for narrow profits, even if at end it's bad for american national security and even at the end if it's bad for american economic security. our bipartisan bill will give cfius and our export control agencies the tools they need to ensure these types of investments don't slip through the cracks. the bill strengthens the siffiest review process, the export control laws and enforcement of both, particularly when it comes to critical technology and investments from state-owned companies. but so often and it's important as these updates are, cfius created a deal with national security threats but can't do any more than that right now we have no way to evaluate deals that may pose a threat to our economy. in 2016 foreign direct investments in the united states totaled $370 billion.

none of that, not a dollar of that, was reviewed to ensure it was in our long-term strategic economic interest. so some of those dollars, investments were reviewed to protect our national security from chinese threats, not one dollar was examined, was screened, was looked at, was reviewed to ensure that it was in our long-term strategic economic interest. that's why i've joined with senator grassley to introduce the bipartisan u.s. foreign investments review act. it would empower the department of commerce to begin screening all types, all large -- all types of large foreign investments for their long-term economic impact and consequences for american workers and american businesses. i want to thank senator grassley for working on this important legislation, updating cfius is important for our national security. that's paramount but it's also we need to expand it because it's -- because it's important that our economic interest be protected.

we understand the chinese, they subsidize their energy and their water and their land and their capital. they often are state-owned enterprises. they are able so often to come into our markets and simply break international trade rules but put our companies out of business and throw our workers out of work. we have seen foreign investments here that have raised serious concerns, including worries that those companies are pursuing investments for the sole reason or the principally reason to undermine american industries and give their own companies an unfair advantage. again, some of these companies or owned or controlled by foreign governments but they're also when it's chinese especially, they're -- their water and their capital and their energy are subsidized making our -- taking away our ability to cop peat because we don't -- compete because we don't do that we took a first step with an amendment in the cfius reform bill. for the first time the department of commerce in this bill that the presiding officer and i worked on in the banking committee for the first time the

department of commerce will be required to study what american companies, china is buying and what sectors so we can begin to assess how big the threat is. now we need to move forward in our comprehensive bill. we surely know that there are chinese investments in the presiding officer's state of louisiana. my state of ohio. there are chinese investments coming in that could in fact undermine our economic security, could cost our companies business, could cause some businesses to go out of business because of chinese subsidies for their investments and only put workers in louisiana and ohio and elsewhere out of business. it's simple. before we do business with a foreign entity, whether it's the government of china or whether it's companies subsidized by governments in that part of the world, for instance, let's make sure it will create jobs, i wi grow the u.s. economy. let'make sure it will not undermine our national security or american industries. we're already behind when it comes to protecting our economy

from chinese investment. i welcome investment from around the world. but i don't welcome it if it's going to undermine our national security and i don't welcome in if it's going to put american companies out of business and american workers out of jobs. senator grassley and i will continue working to change that. it's time to move forward. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate stands adjourned until