quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. toomey: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. mr. toomey: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. toomey: thank you, mr. president. i am looking forward to proceeding to the national defense authorization bill. soon, earlier today, i requested to a consent request to get on the bill because i wanted an opportunity to offer an amendment i had based on the efforts of our chairman and his confidence that i will be able to offer this amendment, i'm prepared to agree to allow us to get on the bill and i look

forward to doing that. i want to address two amendments that i am hopeful will be included, mine and one other. one of them has to do with the tariffs on -- especially on steel and aluminum that come under section 323 of our trade laws and another is an amendment that i intend to offer with respect to the cfius reform. let me start with the section 232 tariffs. this is a section of trade law that allows the president to restrict imported goods that threaten our national security. so it's -- the law has been the law of the land for some time and gives wide latitude to the president and the commerce department to determine what imports constitute at threat to our national security and then, secondly, the legislation existing law does not prescribe what the remedy will be, that is

also left up to the president. so a great deal of discretion left in the hands of the president. well, in march of this year, after a nearly year-long investigation, the president imposed tariffs on imported steel and aluminum, 25% on steel, 10% on aluminum. then there were some exclusionings and some were made permanent. they were negotiated. the seclusion, the ability -- exclusion, the ability of countries to sell steel to the united states without american consumers being subject to this tax had a condition and the condition was they would agree to other restrictions to their exports like quotas on the volume of their exports that would be permitted. and shockingly to come the president decided to even impose these taxes -- taxes on american

consumers -- when they buy steel that originate in the e.u., canada, and mexico, which originally had an exclusion, but they no longer do. these allies make up 40% of steel by tonnage and all three seemed intent on imposing retaliatory tariffs, which is what typically happens when tariffs are launched. now more recently the president announced whether foreign vehicles sold to the united states consumers, like my constituents, whether those cars and trucks represent a national security threat with the possibility that they will impose 25% taxes on americans who buy those imported cars and trucks. i think this is a very bad idea, mr. president. this is a bad path to be going

on, it's a bad policy. most importantly, it is a direct tax on american consumers. that is irrefutable. consumers -- our constituents, will have to pay higher prices for the products subject to these taxes. the price of a honda civic made japan or a volks volkswagen jete in germany will go up 25% by an american who wants to buy one of these vehicles. it is clear to me that this will do nothing to safeguard our national security. i fail to see the national security threat when a pennsylvanian decides to buy a toyota corrolla. it is not clear how that is a national security. so, in fact, there is no real national security threat that these tariffs are a response to. they are an effort to impose a protectionist policy for

economic purposes. and in picking steel, it's particularly disturbing that section 232 would be invoked as the justification for the taxation on steel imports. section 232 is for dismiecialt threats, -- national security threats, as i mentioned. last year net steel imports accounted for 25% of america's total steel consumption. in other words, domestically we produce a large majority, like 75% of all the steel we need to sciewvment now, our -- consume. now, our military, for national security purposes, they need 3% of our domestic consumption. we produce 75%. how is it even plausible that there's a national security reason that we shouldn't be

importing this steel in well, what about where it's coming from? that's interesting. the biggest sources of imported steel are canada and mexico where we have trade surpluses in steel. and now, again, using the justification of national security, we've put tariffs, taxes that americans have to pay, when we buy steel from canada and mexico, close allies, contiguous countries. i mean, to suggest that we have a national security need to tax americans when they buy this small percentage of our total consumption from these close allies and neighbors, come on. it's not credible. in fact, for national security purposes, arguably, it undermines our national security because it raises the cost of the steel that our defensive needs -- you know, that we need

to build the things we need, we pay more for that steel. how is that good for america? so it's clear to me that the president is using section 232 in a way that is not intended by congress. it's clear to me, anyway. and prior to this year, section 232 was only invoked five times in all of its history, but now we have this being invoked on steel and aluminum and maybe automobiles as well. here's the things. it's congress that has the responsibility for establishing tariffs, taxes to regulate trade. it's explicit, the constitution article 1, section eight, i quote, the congress shall have the power to collect taxes, powers and excises.

article 1, section 8, congress will regulate congress with foreign nations. well, obviously this is an explicit instruction that it is congress's responsibility to determine the level of tariffs and whether or not there will be. what congress has done over the years is passed laws that delegate this authority to the president. well, first of all, i think it's a bad idea for congress to take constitutional authority that is enshrined in our founding document and just pump it over to another branch of our government. we shouldn't be doing that. we ought to be abiding by the constitution, following the constitution, and accepting the responsibility that the constitution gives to us. so i have long felt that this is a responsibility that congress should take back, that the prior legislation giving this authority to the president was a mistake. it's time to take it back. well, senator corker, it's my understanding, is likely to

offer an amendment that would do something that's very simple and it's an elegant solution to this dilemma with respect to section 232 tariffs. that is to simply make them subject to congressional assent. it would no longer be allowable, permissible under our law if this amendment were to be passed and signed into law for any president to unilaterally invoke section 232 and impose taxes on the american people. in response, there would be a period of time during which congress would review and would have to have an expedited up-or-down vote, not subject to filibuster, not drawn out, but a quick up-or-down vote to determine whether or not that would be allowed. this, i would suggest, mr. president, would be completely in keeping with our explicit constitutional responsibility in this very important area. so i am very hopeful and optimistic that senator corker will, in fact, offer his

amendment, it will be allowed, we will debate it, we will have a vote and we'll see how that goes. i intend to offer a separate amendment, and my amendment has to do with cfius. cfius is an acronym that stands for the committee on foreign investments in the united states. what it does, this is an interagency committee, multiple agencies within the executive branch, review the national security implications of foreign direct investments. so when a company that is headquartered in another country wishes to make a purchase of an american company, if there is a national security implication or threat to that investment, which there could be, then under the existing cfius framework, this committee makes a recommendation to the president and the president has the authority to block the transition to forbid the purchase of an american

company, say by a foreign company if there is a perception that this is a threat to national security. well, senator cornyn has introduced legislation that would update and modernize the authorities, dramatically broaden the power and the authority of cfius, and i am supportive of what senator cornyn wants to do here. i voted for his legislation in the banking committee. this reform of cfius has been put into the national defense authorization bill, so if and when we get on that bill, we will also be contemplating this broadening of the powers of cfius. so how does it broaden? how does the cornyn legislation broaden cfius? well, first of all, it dramatically expands the transactions that can be reviewed by cfius. for instance, under current law, cfius has no legal authority to

review if a foreign company chooses to buy real estate that is undeveloped. a raw piece of land somewhere, there is not subject to cfius review. but what if an unfriendly government has an investment in a company in their country that wants to buy a big tract of land right next to a sensitive military installation of the united states? that might be a convenient place for them to set up listening devices and other ways for them to spy on our military capabilities, for instance. so i think it's a good idea to give cfius the authority to look at real estate transactions. it would also expand cfius's authority to look at nonpassive investment in critical technology or infrastructure by any foreign person. it would review any change in foreign investors' rights regarding a u.s. business, and there are many other new categories of transactions. so cfius historically, roughly

speaking, i think they review something on the order of 200 or 250 transactions per year under existing law. if this new reform is adopted, then the experts believe that cfius will likely review something on the order of 2,000 or 2,500 transactions per year. so it's a very, very broad expansion in the power of the government to block foreign direct investment into the united states. we should be clear about one aspect of this. the reforms to cfius is largely a response to very aggressive and in many cases inappropriate behavior by chinese companies,

companies that are headquartered in china. very, very often, there is some chinese government ownership, and there is a long history of the chinese through these vehicles engaging in wholly inappropriate activity, including coerced technology transfer on the part of u.s. companies through a variety of means. this is a real problem and expanding the authority of cfius is an important element, in my view, in dealing with this problem. so this is part of the reason -- this is the main reason why i am in favor of expanding the powers of cfius. but it's also really important that we not -- in the process that we not unduly undermine foreign direct investment in the united states that is not a threat to our national security at all. in fact, that's the vast majority of foreign direct investment in the united states when toyota decides to build a

new manufacturing facility to make cars in tennessee, that is not a threat to america's national security. if they were to make an investment with a car company in the united states and establish a joint venture and start making cars in michigan, this would not be a threat to national security. the vast majority of transactions are not at all a threat. and, in fact, they are a source of important jobs. in my state of pennsylvania, there are 334,000 pennsylvanians who work for foreign-based companies that have invested in and operate and create jobs in pennsylvania. 186,000 of those jobs are in manufacturing. and consider this. in 2015, the total amount of foreign direct investment in the u.s. so the total amount of money invested by people and companies who are somewhere other than america but they choose to invest in america, the total amount was almost half a trillion dollars. $465 billion. do you know how much of that

came from china? less than six. out of almost $500 billion. so it's a very, very small percentage. in 2016, the numbers were comparable. about $460 billion in total foreign direct investment. about ten of that from china. china's not even close to being in the top ten countries that are the source of foreign direct investment into the united states. now, that doesn't mean it's unimportant to consider when chinese companies are making investments. it's very important. but my point is the vast majority of the foreign direct investment into our country is good for our economy. it creates jobs and opportunities, and we don't want to disrupt that. if the implementation of this reform, the cfius goes badly, it could have a chilling effect on foreign direct investment, and that would diminish our economic growth, our economic strength,

and cost us who knows how many jobs, and that's what i want to make sure we avoid. in the course of the implementation, the way this is going to happen under the law is the reformed cfius, the legislation that we're going to consider as part of ndaa, it requires this committee, this cfius committee, to develop the rules that will basically define the terms of their own operations. so, for instance, they will have very, very broad discretion. if their discretion is too broay exercise it too broadly, if they end up with applying cfius restrictions too broadly, we will lose the foreign direct very much that is good for us. if they define it too narrowly, then it's a chance we won't catch bad actors that we should catch. let me give you a few examples of how the rule making is going to determine how cfius applies.

one of the key terms throughout the legislation is critical infrastructure and technology companies, right. those are the companies with technologies that we don't necessarily want to end up in the hands of an adversarial country like china. well, guess who defines what is a critical infrastructure and technology company. cfius does. we don't here in the senate, congress doesn't. we empower the committee, cfius, to decide what constitutes a critical infrastructure and technology company. we also empower cfius to decide when a company is attempting to circumvent the rules. that's an important -- that's an important issue because following the rule strictly so as not to be caught up in this could be deemed to be a circumvention, and so that's an important factor. there are lots of other rule makings that we require of this

committee, and it is the way they make those rules which will determine exactly the extent to which we continue to foster foreign direct investment or we choke it off. my concern, mr. president, is that congress should not simply blindly hand this off to the executive branch and hope for the best. that would not be fulfilling our obligation to enact the legislation as it should be enacted. so i intend to file an amendment. my amendment is very simple. it's just going to provide congress with the opportunity and the requirement to review the major rule makings, the big parts, the important parts of defining the terms and circumstances under which cfius will operate before they can go into effect. so cfius will go ahead, promulgate these rules, and before they become operative, there has to be an up-or-down vote by congress.

we have written this so that there will be an expedited procedure. it will pass with a simple majority. there has to be a vote. the vote actually has to happen at almost the exact same time frame that -- for the rules implementation. in other words, after a rule making is finished, there is a 60-day delay before it becomes operative. it is during that window when congress would have its vote. and it could not be filibustered, it could not be delayed. but what it would do, it would ensure that we're involved in this process, we have the oversight we're supposed to exercise to make sure it is done properly, and that we would work with the administration. now, if congress would reject one or more of these rules, that doesn't stop the administration. they would then work with us to address whatever concerns led to the objection and then submit a new rule. it is modeled somewhat after the brains act that is very, very broadly supported on this side

of the aisle, but i should point out it's much, much more limited because this congressional review of the rule making under my amendment applies only to the rules made by cfius under this legislation. so it's a very, very narrow application. there were 39 republican cosponsors of the rains act. if that were the law of the land, if that were adopted, we wouldn't be having this discussion because it would automatically apply to the rule making of cfius. so it's hard to see why anyone who would support the rains act would support this. i am certainly hoping my democratic colleagues will support this as well. let's be honest. they have not been big fans of the trump administration. many of them have voted against the cabinet and agency leaders that president trump has nominated who will be responsible for carrying out these rules. for them to vote no on this amendment would be to -- for them to insist that they not have the opportunity to review

the work of the trump administration. given their obvious and vocal skepticism about the trump administration, why in the world would they refuse the opportunity to have veto power over a really important rule making? i can't imagine why they would. so i hope they will support this, as i hope my republican colleagues will as well. another important point, just to reiterate, the congressional approval applies only to the rule making of cfius when it is done. it certainly does not apply to the individual transactions that would subsequently be reviewed by cfius under these rules, just to the rules themselves. and it certainly would not result in killing cfius reform. congress has demonstrated a very broad bipartisan consensus that we need to broaden the authority of cfius, so i'm quite confident that when these rules are done, if they are done in a sensible fashion, congress is going to

agree to them because congress wants cfius to have this new authority. i will point out it would have almost certainly the effect of encouraging the administration to work closely with congress to make sure that they are, in fact, developing rules that are consistent with congressional intent, and that's exactly the way it should work. so, mr. president, if this amendment passes, i foresee greater collaboration between the administration and congress on the implementation of this cfius reform. i think that will likely lead to a better product, one that ensures that we will catch the bad actors who are trying to make investments in the u.s. for the purpose of acquiring technology we don't want them to have and allow for the good, constructive, helpful foreign direct investment that we all benefit from. so my hope is that we'll get on this defense authorization bill soon, that these and many other

amendments will be -- will be debated and voted on, and we'll be able to pass this with a very strong, affirmative vote. with that, i yield the floor.

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. merkley: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: the senate is not in a quorum call. mr. merkley: thank you, i ask unanimous consent that my intern have the privileges of the floor for the balance of the day. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. merkley: and also that i be allowed to use a prop in my presentation. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. merkley: thank you. today we remember robert f. kennedy, whose life was brutally, savagely cut short 50 years ago. robert kennedy was a presidential candidate, a united states senator, a member of this chamber, an attorney general, a naval officer, a father, a son, a husband, a brother, but more

than all of that, he was a beacon of hope amidst turbulent and difficult times in our nation and he was an inspiration to generations of americans. speaking at his younger brother's funeral, our former colleague, senator ted kennedy, said robert kennedy, quote, need not be idolized or enlarged in death beyond what he was in life. that he can be remembered simply as a good and decent man who saw wrong and tried to right it, saw suffering and tried to heal it, saw war and tried to stop it. i was inspired by his efforts to right wrong and heal suffering and stop war. inspired enough that when i

became a u.s. senator and was assigned an office that happened to be the former office of robert kennedy, i pointed that out to visitors, that here in my office once sat the great robert kennedy who did, in fact, see wrong and try to right it and suffering and heal it and war and stop it. in may 1968, i was in sixth grade. i was an 11-year-old out in oregon and bobby kennedy, as we affectionately refer to him, was campaigning in my state. he was going very quickly from community to community, delivering speeches in one high school after another. and my grade school sixth grade

teacherrer announced that he would -- teacher announced that he was going to give a speech at my future high school. i was only in sixth grade. i never set foot in that high school yet. i spoke to my father. my father was a mechanic, he worked very hard, he was often in the evening quite happy to settle in, watch the national news, read the newspaper and reflect on the news of the day. so i came in and i said i understand robert kennedy is giving a speech and we could go see him. and my father said, it's the end of the day, son, and i just don't feel like going out again. and at that moment i wish so much that i had said, i think i'll go down to that high school, find my way down to that high school i had never been to and see him speak, but i didn't and it's one of the things i

regreted all of my life. when he was campaigning in oregon and going from high school to high school, he went also to some iconic places. here he is in the surf near fort myer. fortfire is a place i use -- fort myer is a place i used to camp as a kid. it has an historic shipwreck, and now it is pretty much rusted into the sand and disappeared, but i can imagine robert kennedy walking and seeing that wreck as he was walking on this beach. and he went out to baker county in baker, oregon, and this is an iconic photo of him on the runway, with the mountains in the background with his dog. there is a version of this picture that ted kennedy gave to me the month before he passed

away. and you can see here the snow- covered mountains and walking down the runway in one of those few moments of peace and reflection in his speeches all across the state. senator kennedy -- ted kennedy, when he gave me this picture, he also wrote me a letter, this is in july, the month before ted kennedy passed away, and he said, i always loved this photo of bobby an his dog freckles, taken in bakers city on may 22, 1968. he said he has a copy of it hanging in his office. and he knew a little bit from our conversations that bobby had been an inspiration to me and he wrote, i know that bobby played an important role in shaping

your views, and i thought you'd like to have a copy of the photograph for your senate office as well. i only wish i could give it to you in person, he wrote. and i do have that photo proudly displayed on my senate office wall. it's a reminder of the very special feelings that we had about the campaign. we had war abroad in vietnam in 1968. we had riots at home over the war. we had deep, deep civic tensions between the generations, and there was a sense that his leadership and his ability to bridge the divides amongst races and genders and classes could, in his words, bind up the wounds among us and to become in our

hearts brothers and countrymen once again. those words have resonance for today, what our -- with our divisions so deep. anyone who spent as much time paying attention to robert kennedy's life, knows that his life was full of contradictions. he was a man of wealth and well educated and could quote poets and philosophers, but who also had the ability to touch the hearts of and fight for the poorest among us. he was a ruthless enforcer of the law who never thought twice about taking on organized crime or foreign dictators, but had a heart of tenderness and could spend hours playing with young children. he was a younger brother who

stood in the shadow of his older sibling, but he stepped out of that shadow to inspire us and to run for the presidency of the united states. bobby was raised in a family that recognized the privileges it had. the advantages its had from its history, its affluence, its connections. also recognized that with all that they had an extra responsibility, a sizable responsibility to use those advantages to help others. and that, too, is something that is worth all of us thinking about. whether it was the fight for civil rights, championing the poor and destitute, living in third-world conditions in ap laich ya, the mississippi delta, challenging south africa students to stand up against apartheid or organizing to end

the war in vietnam. his life was dedicated to helping others. when our nation seemed poised on the brink of tearing itself apart, there was bobby kennedy preaching a message of love, of wisdom and compassion to one another. a message of reunification, a message of reconciliation. but with all this, his efforts to take that vision, that vision of wisdom and compassion and reconciliation to the presidency never happened because that opportunity was cut short by an assassin's bullet. that happened just after bobby kennedy left oregon and flew down to california, just two weeks after i had the opportunity to see him speak at

a high school gymnasium and didn't seize the moment to do it. as bobby kennedy said in his speech to the city club of cleveland, our lives on this planet are too short. the work to be done is too great. but we cannot let that stop us if working together to seek and build a new world. we will never know whether robert kennedy would have succeeded in his election to be president or exactly what would have flowed from a second kennedy administration. we can only speculate on how our nation's history might have been changed, our different our country might have been with his vision, his inspiration, his effort to tackle the issues of poverty, the issue and challenges of war, the issues and challenges of division in our nation. but one thing we know for sure

and that is the world is a lesser place this last 50 years because robert f. kennedy is not in it. but his thoughts live on. and here in this institution, members of the senate, we should carry those thoughts forward on these important issues that he addressed of war and poverty and bigotry and discrimination, of ensuring opportunity for all. in his speech to students in cape town, south africa, robert kennedy said, each time a man stands up for an ideal or acts to improve the lot of others or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope and crossing each other from a million different centers of energy and daring, those ripples build a current which can sweep down the mightiest

walls of oppression and resistance. that is advice we need now more than ever, that we need to each work to create those ripples that together can create a mighty current to set our nation back on track. because when it comes to war, we now have not one but many. a war in afghanistan based on false assumptions, a war in iraq based on falsified information, wars in africa and syria and yemen for which the issue of authorization has never been debated on the floor of this senate despite the constitutional call to do so. and when it comes to prosperity despite our nation's enormous growth and wealth over the last four decades, we still have

people suffering. we have people suffering still in appalachia and still in mississippi, still in our inner cities and still in our rural towns, because income equality has surged. over four decades we have seen the workers' wages flat or declining while the costs of everything goes up from health care to housing to the cost of a child attempting to attend college. and while we may have come a long way from the fire hoses and dogs turned against peaceful protester demanding voting rights and civil rights, a long way since attorney general kennedy crusaded for civil rights calling in the national guard to register the university of alabama's first african american students, while we may have come a long way on that trail, we still have a long way to go as we saw in charlottesville last year, as we

saw through the last several years of campaigning, an administration in which the temptation too often has come from the oval office to denigrate different groups of americans, whether they be african americans or haitian americans or latin americans or women americans or americans with disabilities or muslim americans. and when we hear that, let us remember the vision of america of equal opportunity and stand with our brothers and sisters in any given group arm to arm, hip to hip and say here in america we believe in the vision that indivisible, that we cite in our pledge of allegiance, that recognizes we come from tremendous number of backgrounds but together those talents, those differences weave together a nation of greater strength and greater beauty and greater

opportunity for the future. 50 years after his passing, i think it is value to all of us to reflect on the lessons of the life of robert f. kennedy. his hope, his optimism, his fierce determination to fight the battles to make the world a better place. r.f.k. was famous for quoting george bernard shaw saying, some people see things as they are and ask why. i dream of things that never were and say why not. i think it's up to all of us, each and every day to dream of the things that have never been here in america but could be, a greater, more beautiful, stronger, more prosperous, more hopeful america and say why not.

:

mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: we're not. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that the senate be p 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 the immediate consideration of calendar 61, h.r. 88. officer without objection. the clerk will report. mr. mcconnell: calendar number 61, h.r. 88, an act to modify the boundary of the shiloh national military park located in tennessee and mississippi and so forth and for other purposes. the presiding officer: there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. the senate will proceed. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported amendment be agreed to, the murkowski amendment at the desk be agreed to, the bill as amended be considered read a third time and passed, and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection.

mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar number 172, h.r. 1719. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 1723, h.r. 1719, an act to authorize the secretary of the interior to acquire approximately 44 acres of land in martinez, california, and so forth 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: now, mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of the following calendar bills en bloc -- calendar 432, 433, 434, and 415. the presiding officer: without objection, the clerk will report

the bills en bloc. the clerk: calendar number 432 it h.r. 1900, an act to designate the veterans memorial and museum in columbus, ohio, as the national veterans memorial and museum and for other purposes. calendar number 433, s. 2857, a bill to designate the senator dick museum in seattle, washington, as the national nor dick museum and for other purposes. calendar number 434, h.r. 1397, an act to authorize, direct, facilitate, and expedite the transfer of administrative jurisdiction of certain federal land and for other purposes. calendar number 415, a bill to authorize the national emergency medical services memorial foundation to establish a commemorative work in the district of columbia and its environs and for our purposes.

the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measures en bloc? without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that the bills en bloc be considered and read a third time. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. mcconnell: i know of no further debate on the bills en bloc. the presiding officer: is there further debate? hearing none, the question is on passage of the measures en bloc. all those in favor, say aye. those opposed, say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the measures are passed en bloc. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table, all en bloc. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. mcconnell: now, mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10:00 a.m. thursday, june 7. 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 proceed to executive session for the consideration of the marcus nomination under the previous order with the time until 12:30 equally divided between the two leaders or their designees. finally, at 12:30 -- 12:30 p.m., all debate time on the nomination be expired and the senate vote on confirmation of the marcus nomination with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mcbeing if there is no further business to come before the senate i ask that is it stand adjourned following previous order, following the remarks of senators tillis, brown, and portman. the presiding officer: without objection.

:

the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. brown: thank you, mr. president. barely a day goes by that doesn't bring news of another consumer protection rollback, another hand-out to wall street, day after day after day in this body or downtown. this weekend we heard that the federal reserve plans changes to the volcker rule, the radio you will that stops big banks from taking big risks from americans' money. the month before the chair -- the federal reserve vice chair randal quarles said the fed wants to loosen rules on foreign megabanks. those are the banks like sant amendment of. der and deutch bank. banks headquartered abroad but abusing the public trust in this company, have been fined in the past. the federal reserve vice chair who once was in the bush administration and prediction after prediction missed the implosion of the economy in 2007 and 2008, he wants to loosen the rules on foreign banks.

-- on foreign megabanks. i don't even understand the logic let alone the sensibleness of it. and now today we've learned that mick mulvaney is continuing his systematic dismantling of the consumer protection bureau by dismantling -- by disbanding the consumer advisory board. it is a board of 25 advocates for american consumers and industry experts. it's required by law to meet twice a year. again, required by law to meet twice a year. but mulvaney now says they won't hold any meetings -- not today, not tomorrow, not next week, not next month, period. when they were supposed to meet with mulvaney to advocate for american consumers, done with that, i guess. not ever until mulvaney replaces all the members with his handpicked cronies. so he is saying -- even though federal law says you've got to meet with them, required by law to meet twice a year, mulvaney says'm