Benjamin Cardin

Mr. CARDIN

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I come to the floor to speak about the rise of a failed state, Venezuela, and the manmade tragedy President Maduro has imposed on his citizens. For 3 months, Venezuelans have taken to the streets in daily protests. They are speaking out against their country's economic collapse, against widespread food shortages, the disintegration of their medical system, against endemic corruption, and against a government that denies them their human rights and fundamental freedoms. Appallingly, President Maduro has responded to the protests by unleashing his National Guard. As a recent Washington Post article stated, ``Mr. Maduro and the corrupt clique around him are hanging on by the brute force of tear gas, water cannons, mass arrests, and shootings by snipers.'' Since April, Venezuela's increasingly unstable crisis has left over 75 dead, thousands jailed, and thousands more injured. Yet, instead of listening to his people's legitimate demands and mitigating this tragedy, President Maduro is attempting to rewrite the Constitution, despite widespread opposition. Additionally, he declared this week that ``what couldn't be done with votes would be done with weapons.'' This is our hemisphere. This is a hemisphere that prides itself in democratic states, and here is the President of Venezuela saying he doesn't care what the voters say. With Maduro threatening to use arms against his people, one can only imagine the bloodshed and abuses will continue unabated. Despite these threats, protests endure because Venezuelans see no alternatives. They have no other recourse against standing in lines for endless hours to scour the empty shelves at their markets. They have no other way to channel their sorrow over the spike in maternal and infant mortality rates in hospitals that lack supplies to treat the most basic diseases. They have no other way to express their outrage at the military profiting from corruption in food procurement contracts, even while children increasingly suffer the ravages of malnutrition. Parallel to the protests, chaos is becoming commonplace. In the past 72 hours, the National Guard troops have stormed the National Assembly and assaulted opposition legislators. They came into the Parliament and assaulted the opposition. The supreme court has stripped the attorney general, Luisa Ortega, of her authorities for her criticism of President Maduro. We have seen lootings and the burning of government buildings. Alarmingly, a rogue police officer commandeered a helicopter and launched grenades and small arms fire while flying over the supreme court. These incidents from just the last 3 days should make it clear to all we are now dealing with a failed state in our own hemisphere. As this crisis cripples Venezuela, I call on all sides to refrain from violence. I also want to recognize that the current situation is the product of 18 years of systematic efforts to dismantle Venezuela's democratic institutions. Since coming to power, President Maduro--like Hugo Chavez before him--has filled the ranks of government with loyalists who have led the economy to hyperinflation and the brink of default. State oil companies like PDVSA, the country's only source of revenue, has been purged of its expertise. In a truly devastating blow to democracy and the rule of law, the judiciary has been entirely sapped of its independence so it now functions as a political appendage of the executive branch. In the 18 months since the opposition coalition won control of the National Assembly--and I must tell you there was hope when we saw the voters in Venezuela enacted a new government in their Parliament--the supreme court has overturned every piece of legislation passed, gave itself authority to approve the national budget, and in April temporarily usurped the rest of the legislature's authorities, completely reversing the will of the people. Additionally, as Venezuela's civilian and military justice systems have become accomplices to persecution and torture, the number of political prisoners has soared. Leopoldo Lopez, Judge Afiuni, Daniel Ceballos--these are just some of the more well-known names among the more than 350 political prisoners recognized by Venezuelan human rights NGO Foro Penal. These are people who are in prison as a result of their political beliefs. It is no surprise the decay of judicial independence has led to an alarming rise in corruption and impunity. It is now a stated fact that senior officials have syphoned billions out of Venezuela and are engaged in the illegal drug trade. In response, the United States has designated a dozen people under the Kingpin sanctions, including Vice President Tareck El Aissami. Interior Minister Reverol was indicted in the United States last year for drug trafficking. Even Maduro's nephews were convicted in the United States on drug charges. The sum of these trend lines is truly disturbing. Today, Venezuela is a failed state, where authoritarian leaders profit from links to corruption and drug trafficking, while the Venezuelan people are subject to precarious humanitarian conditions and human rights abuses. Against this backdrop, we require little explanation why more than 18,000 Venezuelans sought asylum in the United States last year. We are all concerned about the flight of people at risk. What is happening in Venezuela directly impacts people trying to seek safety coming into the United States. If all this wasn't enough, in late 2016, Venezuelan State oil company PDVSA used its U.S. subsidiary Citgo as collateral to secure a loan from Rosneft, a company that is controlled by the Russian Government and is currently under U.S. sanctions. The result is, the Russian Government holds at least 49.9 percent of Citgo's mortgage and could come into control of critical U.S. energy infrastructure, including refineries, terminals, and a large network of pipelines. This should concern every Member of the U.S. Senate. So the question for the United States and the international community is, How do we respond? What do we do? We cannot let this circumstance continue. Thankfully, supported by a growing diplomatic coalition that includes Mexico, Brazil, Costa Rica, Peru, Canada, and the United States, the Secretary General of the Organization of American States, Luis Almagro, is marshalling international pressure. Mr. Almagro has called on President Maduro to heed the demands of his citizens, free political prisoners, permit the delivery of humanitarian assistance, commit to a timetable for overdue elections, and restore the authority of the National Assembly. However, despite Mr. Almagro's leadership, the results of last week's meeting of Foreign Ministers was a stunning failure to reach consensus on a hemisphere response. Appallingly, eight countries refused to vote their conscience, among them Haiti, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Trinidad, and Suriname. They did not use the power under the OAS to recognize that Venezuela today is not living up to its charter commitment to be a democratic state. There is a process at the OAS to take action. They were unable to do that--a major setback. As efforts at the OAS continue, all must remain clear that there are no alternative facts when it comes to Venezuela, there is just a manmade tragedy that demands collective action. While providing full support for multilateral diplomacy, the United States must also lead. In May, I introduced bipartisan legislation to address the multifaceted crisis in Venezuela. My bill will authorize humanitarian assistance and require the State Department to coordinate an international approach to humanitarian challenges. The legislation will also provide strong congressional backing for OAS efforts, as well as funding for international election observers and civil society groups working to defend human rights and democratic values. Given the rising instability in Venezuela, the bill would codify two lines of targeted sanctions against Venezuelan officials involved in corruption and undermining democratic governance--the very authorities the administration used to rightly sanction members of the Venezuelan supreme court last month. Congress should act, as we have done in so many other places where we show congressional leadership to make it clear that this type of activity will not be allowed to continue and that Congress will take a strong position to give appropriate authority to sanction those individuals who are responsible. Finally, the bill would require the State Department and U.S. intelligence community to prepare a report on the role of Venezuelan officials in corruption and drug trafficking. As the instability in Venezuela grows, every day we decide not to act only makes the crisis worse. I urge my colleagues to work with legislation I have filed. Let's work with the Congress and the President to make it clear to the Venezuelan people they are not alone, and we will not tolerate a country in our hemisphere to become a failed state. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize LGBTQ Pride Month, a time to openly acknowledge and celebrate the contributions lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer or questioning individuals have made to our Country and the progress they have made over the years toward equality and civil rights. Pride, equality, freedom--these values are at the core of Pride Month for LGBTQ individuals and families in Maryland and across the United States. Every American deserves the same freedoms, the same opportunities and the same protections under the law to love whom they love. Respect, dignity, hope--LGBTQ Americans have helped drive the innovation and bold ideas that make America exceptional. They have stood sentry in our military, made scientific advances, created jobs from Main Street to Wall Street, made all of America laugh and cry, and so much more. LGBTQ individuals have enriched our communities and made us a stronger nation. Fear, apprehension, caution--those of us who defend civil rights every day understand that these are discouraging and uncertain times. It pains me to say the full admission of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer or questioning individuals into society has yet to be granted. The open expression of one's sexual orientation and gender identity has been--and oftentimes still is--wrought with discrimination and hardship. Despite the highs of Windsor and Obergefell, the LGBTQ community feels the pain of the senseless shooting at Pulse nightclub 1 year ago, blatant discrimination in States like North Carolina, and the incomprehensible abandonment of transgender students in schools, and the decades of injustice that reach back far beyond Stonewall. The results of last year's Presidential election brought an unwanted chill to the winds of momentum that had swept through the LGBTQ community. Insensitive language from the current administration adds an ominous cloud over the potential for future progress. To all of my lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer or questioning sisters and brothers, I say this: You are not alone. I support you. I will fight alongside you. We will not allow extremism to take away the inherent rights afforded to each and every one of us. Equality and liberty will prevail over any who would use hate and bigotry to frighten or intimidate others. I have joined with nearly half of the U.S. Senate as a sponsor of the Equality Act, S. 1006, historic, comprehensive Federal legislation that would ensure full Federal nondiscrimination equality for LGBTQ individuals by adding sexual orientation and gender identity to other protected classes, such as race or religion, in existing Federal laws. Despite major advances in equality for LGBTQ Americans, including nationwide marriage equality, the majority of States still do not have explicit LGBTQ nondiscrimination protection laws. The Equality Act would fill in the gap by explicitly banning discrimination in a host of areas, including employment, housing, public accommodations, jury service, access to credit, and Federal funding. When the White House broke more than a decade of tradition by failing to recognize June as LGBTQ Pride Month, I joined my colleagues in picking up the mantle by introducing the first-ever Senate resolution recognizing June as LGBTQ Pride Month. The resolution notes major milestones in the fight for equal treatment of LGBTQ Americans and resolves to continue efforts to achieve full equality for LGBTQ individuals. As we build a new future of equality for all, despite the current headwinds, it is important that we learn from our Nation's past and use it as a source of strength and a teachable moment for those unaware of the history the LGBTQ community and what our Nation has been through. It is my firm hope that we are not seeing a redux of a McCarthy-like rise in political-driven discrimination. For this reason, I was taken back a bit at the confirmation hearings of Rex Tillerson and Nikki Haley, who are now serving as America's top diplomats, that neither of them would say the phrase ``LGBTQ.'' Following that peculiarity, it has been widely reported that the Trump administration has scrubbed LGBTQ content from various Federal Government websites--in some cases changing the agency's official nondiscrimination policy. Juxtaposed with the Obama administration that lit up the White House in rainbow lights during Pride month and backed up those concrete actions of support, this attempt to erase LGBTQ individuals from government was disturbing. I was alarmed because I knew that it had been tried before during the McCarthy era. It had a damaging effect on U.S. foreign policy back then, and it cannot be repeated. In what came to be known as the Lavender Scare, according to the State Department's Bureau of Diplomatic Security, employees were forced out on the ostensible grounds that their real or perceived sexual orientation rendered them vulnerable to blackmail, prone to getting caught in ``honey traps,'' and a general security risk. Many more individuals were prevented from joining the State Department due to a screening process that was put in place to prevent those who ``seemed like they might be gay or lesbian'' from being hired. David Johnson's ``The Lavender Scare: The Cold War Persecution of Gays and Lesbians in the Federal Government,'' University of Chicago Press, 2006, the definitive academic study of the issue, found that at least 1,000 people were dismissed from the U.S. Department of State alone for alleged homosexuality during the 1950s and well into the 1960s before the ``scare'' ran its course. The Senate bears a special measure of responsibility for the Lavender Scare, as the State Department's actions were in part in response to congressional investigations into ``sex perversion of federal employees,'' reports on the employments of ``moral perverts by Government Agencies,'' and hearings or pressure placed on the Department through the appropriations process. Last year, in my role as ranking member of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, I urged then-Secretary of State John Kerry to shine a spotlight on this dark period in American diplomatic history by issuing the first-ever public apology for the Department of State's targeting due to perceived sexual orientation. This month, I introduced new legislation called the Lavender Offense Victim Exoneration Act of 2017, or the LOVE Act. Similar to what was enacted for the men and women of our military, who also were forced to hide their real self to the world, the LOVE Act would make amends and help right the wrongs that were leveled against our U.S. diplomats during this un-American and unacceptable episode in our history. The Lavender Scare is a painful but little-known chapter in American history, and even though times have thankfully changed in so many ways for the LGBT community, we must have the courage of our conviction to recognize wrong, apologize, and move forward with common sense and compassion whenever it is required. A few have asked me, Why now? Why do we need to relive past transgressions when there are ``more important things to do''? The answer is clear: The current administration may work to avoid using the words lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender, but Congress should take firm action to show LGBTQ Americans that their valuable contributions to our country--today or 60-plus years ago--are very real and they are recognized. We cannot and should not turn our backs on the individuals who sacrificed so much for the benefit of the American people. We cannot and will not turn back the clock on the hard-fought civil rights of the LGBTQ community. The theme of the 2017 Baltimore Pride celebration is ``Pride Unleashed,'' a commitment to ``work boldly and to live freely.'' I can think of no better mantra for LGBTQ Marylanders and allies as we fight side by side to protect civil rights and celebrate the strength of our diversity. I implore you and all of our colleagues to join the fight for LGBTQ equality. The administration also should take firm action to show LGBTQ Americans that their valuable contributions to our country are recognized and appreciated. It is the responsibility of each and every citizen to root out systemic intolerance. Inclusion and diversity are some of our Nation's greatest strengths; yet these values are now in peril. We cannot and will not turn back the clock on hard-fought civil rights for the LGBTQ community.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I want to thank Senator Wyden for his leadership on this issue and so many issues, his position as the ranking Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee. He serves this body very well, and he has done that today in outlining the flaw of the healthcare bill that was presented a week ago by the Republican leadership and what it would do to our healthcare system. I want to acknowledge that I am very proud that I was in the Congress when we passed the Affordable Care Act. Today, millions of Americans have coverage who didn't have coverage prior to the enactment of the Affordable Care Act. I am also proud about the quality of that coverage. That coverage has guaranteed benefits so that individuals know they will be covered for their needs--no preexisting conditions, no caps. It is affordable, and we made sure it was affordable to the people of this Nation. I have listened to the debate from some of my Republican colleagues about how the Affordable Care Act is collapsing under its own weight. Nothing could be further from the truth. The problems we are experiencing with high increases in the individual marketplace are caused in part by the actions of the Trump administration to try to undermine the Affordable Care Act. Let me give an example in my own State of Maryland, where CareFirst-- the largest carrier in the individual marketplace--sought about a 50- percent increase in individual rates, and they were very direct. At least half of that increase is as a result of the uncertainty of the Trump administration putting the cost-sharing payments into the budget. That raises the premiums for all of those individuals in the individual marketplace. There is also the uncertainty as to whether the Trump administration is going to enforce the requirement that people buy insurance, which means only the people who have higher risks are likely to buy the insurance, raising the price for those who want to buy insurance. When we talk about the fact that there are increased costs beyond what we think are reasonable, recognize that it is the actions of the Trump administration that are causing a large part of that premium increase, which brings me to the bill that was unveiled last week by the Republican leadership. It moves us in the wrong direction in trying to fix the problems. It does that because it decimates the Medicaid Program. The largest expansion of coverage has been in the Medicaid Program. This bill will significantly cut back--CBO has scored that a total of 22 million individuals who have insurance today will lose their coverage, but it does more than that. It does that for what reason? Not to make healthcare more affordable--it does that in order to give tax cuts to the very wealthy. I am glad that we now have a little cooling-off period. We are not going to come back to the bill for about another 10 days, it looks like. I want my colleagues to know that as proud as I am of the Affordable Care Act, I acknowledge that we can make it better. I hope Democrats and Republicans will work together to move in the right direction on improving the Affordable Care Act. Let me give some examples. We know there is a high cost on the premiums, a higher increase than we would like. Why don't we join together to make sure there is predictable cost sharing provided to the companies that are in the individual marketplace? That would remove the uncertainty and reduce the premiums significantly in the individual marketplace. Why don't we work together, Democrats and Republicans, to increase the subsidies we provide to low- and middle-income families so that the premiums will be more affordable? We intended to do that under the Affordable Care Act, but after we got the cost scoring, we had to trim that back. Let's work together, Democrats and Republicans. Those two changes alone would deal with the concern that in the individual marketplace, we are seeing large premium increases. Together, we can solve that problem. Why don't we work for more competition? I have heard my colleagues talk about the fact that some of the insurance companies are leaving, and some are mainly because of the uncertainty as to whether they are going to get their rightful payments for cost sharing. We can do something about that. Why don't we, Democrats and Republicans, come together and say that there should be a public option with no public subsidy, so it is a level playing field of competition? That way, we are guaranteeing to every market in the country that there will be coverage for the people in your community. That encourages more competition. That gives stability in the marketplace. We could do that together. Then, Democrats and Republicans, let's work together to bring down the overall cost of healthcare in this country. We made proposals that--why are we paying more for prescription drugs, twice as much as our Canadian friends? Because they have an organized market, and they negotiate as an organized market. Why don't we come together and say: Let's take the entire market that we have for the government paying prescription drugs and have one negotiation? That would significantly bring down the cost of prescription medicine. Why don't we build on efforts that we have done for collaborative healthcare, for value-based reimbursement? That would significantly reduce the cost. We have seen that in mental health and addiction. We could see the same savings in kidney care and in diabetes and heart disease. There are ways we can improve the Affordable Care Act. Democrats are ready to work with Republicans to get that done. What we will not do is make this current system worse. We are not going to cut the Medicaid Program in order to provide tax cuts to the wealthy. Join us in improving the law to make premiums more affordable in the individual marketplace, to bring more competition into the program, and to drive down the overall cost of healthcare in this country. That is what Democrats stand for, and we are ready to work with Republicans today in order to get that done. I would encourage our colleagues to work together, and let's improve the healthcare system.

Mr. CARDIN. I yield to my friend from Oregon.

Mr. CARDIN. Senator Wyden is exactly right. I have met with the largest insurer in Maryland. I have gone over their rate requests for this year. They told me directly that the largest amount of their premium increase request is based upon the uncertainty. They don't know whether the cost sharing is going to be put in the budget, and they have to make their decisions on rates now. Not knowing that, they have to cover themselves, and they are asking for a rate increase under the concern that the cost sharing may not be in the payment. That was not only envisioned, we thought it was mandated in the Affordable Care Act. Now the President is talking about: Well, maybe I am not going to put it in. And we see some of his other activities. So if you are an insurance company and you are answerable to your board of directors and you know that this payment is how you are able to get low deductibles and copays, but you are not sure you are going to get the Federal payment, and you know that your customers are going to want the low cost sharing, you have to charge a higher premium just to cover yourself. That is exactly what was done in Maryland. If the President of the United States had said that money is going to go into the program because that is what Congress intended, we would have had significantly lower rates in Maryland in the individual marketplace. Predictability is critically important.

Mr. CARDIN. I will be glad to yield to my friend from Delaware.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, first I want to thank Senator Markey for his comments. I share his concerns. I agree with what he has said about the risk factors of the bill that was announced this morning by the Republican leader and what it could do to millions of people around this country and what it will do to coverage for hundreds of thousands of people in my State of Maryland who will lose coverage and just about every Marylander whose healthcare will be impacted if this bill were to become law. I want to start by saying that I think this is a shameful moment for the Senate--the Senate, whose traditions have made it be known as the most deliberative body in the world; the Senate, which has been known as a body that allows for robust debate and benefits from the views of all 100 Members, where each of us has opportunities to get our voices heard. That tradition has been badly damaged by what the majority leader has done in bringing a bill that affects one-sixth of the economy of our country to the floor of the Senate without the deliberation by our committees and without transparency to the American people. When I got to the Senate, I worked hard to get on the Senate Finance Committee. I did that because the jurisdiction of the Senate Finance Committee contains areas that I have devoted a good part of my public career to, including issues of taxation and issues concerning social programs in our State. But it also included healthcare, an area that I worked on when I was first in the Maryland State legislature. I wanted to be on the committee that had a role in developing the health policy of this Nation. I thought I could add to that debate with my experience, and I wanted to make sure that the people of Maryland had a voice as we developed healthcare policy in America. That role is being denied by what the Republican leader is doing in bringing this bill to the floor without the benefit of hearings. Let me just repeat that. There has not been one hearing held on the legislation being brought forward by the majority leader. There hasn't been one committee markup of the bill. Now, let me explain to the general public what a markup is. It is when the committees that have expertise on a bill--in this case, it would be the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee and the Senate Finance Committee--have had a chance to bring the public in to get their views on the legislation, have had the committee staff go through it and explain all of the aspects to the members of the committee, with an opportunity for us to offer amendments to improve the bill, and then, ultimately, taking a vote on the recommendation to the full Senate. That is the regular order, but it is particularly the regular order on complex pieces of legislation. I don't think there is a Member of this body who would say that this is not a complex field when we are dealing with healthcare--one-sixth of our economy. But the process that was used denied the people of Maryland and the people of this Nation the opportunity to have their voices heard through their elected representatives. It is a shameful moment. Now, I know this has been done before on the floor, but I will just repeat it one more time. Compare this to how the Affordable Care Act was passed by the Senate. We had transparency, opportunities for the public to have input. We had hearings--many, many hearings that took place. My staff tells me there were 50 hearings or roundtable discussions or walk-throughs. We had 26 consecutive days of Senate debate. There were hundreds of amendments offered by both Democrats and Republicans that were adopted on the bill before the bill reached the floor of the Senate. That all took place before we started the debate on the bill. You cannot justify this process. This is an abuse by the majority, and it will affect the functioning of the Senate. There are concerns about what this bill will do. The process is terrible. The impact on the Senate is terrible. But the real tragedy here is the impact, if this bill were to become law, it would have on healthcare in America. So let me talk a little bit about my State of Maryland. It has been projected under this bill that those who will not have insurance coverage will go back basically to what it was prior to the passage of the Affordable Care Act; that is, a little over 400,000 Marylanders are at risk of losing basic health coverage. Now, it is going to affect everyone with insurance in Maryland, and I will get to that in a moment. But as many as 400,000 people are in jeopardy of losing their insurance because of what is done with regard to the alliances and the Medicaid Program itself. Many more will lose quality coverage. Senator Markey talked about preexisting conditions. You claim that there is protection for preexisting conditions, but it does not guarantee that the services will be provided because the States are given tremendous discretion as to what would be required as essential benefits within the healthcare plans. So if someone has a mental illness or someone has a drug addiction, is there a guaranteed coverage that that person would be able to get services? If that person has a preexisting condition, it may very well not be covered because of the absence of essential health benefits. Let me just give you another example of what could happen under this bill, and this is a real example on gender discrimination. Obstetrics coverage is critical for a childbearing woman. Now, if that becomes an optional coverage because of the State plans and discretion that it is given, obviously only those women who are planning to have children will take that coverage. Why would someone who doesn't need that coverage take the coverage? What are the consequences of allowing that type of choice? It is very clear. Younger women are going to pay a lot more for their health insurance than they otherwise would. Is that fair? I think not. I think not. That is the consequence of the type of changes that are being made in the Affordable Care Act. I was very instrumental in making sure that we had full coverage for pediatric dental. Why? Well, unfortunately, in my State in 2007--the year I first started in the Senate--we had a youngster, Deamonte Driver, who lived not far from here, who died because of an untreated tooth decay. It became abscessed and went into his brain. He had to go through a couple of surgeries, and he lost his life. What was needed was $80 of dental care. He couldn't get access to it because there was no coverage for it. He had no access to that care. He lost his life and, of course, the healthcare system had to pay a lot of money when it only needed to spend $80 to keep him healthy. Well, we took care of that and fixed that with the essential benefits now, including pediatric dental. Is that protected under the Republican bill? The answer is unclear--probably not. It is up to the States. It may be different in one State versus another. We don't have the protection. Then we get to the affordability issue for Marylanders to be able to afford to have health insurance. Under this bill, there will be discrimination on those that are older. They are going to have to pay more for their health insurance. Is that right? No, it is not right. I heard the majority leader this morning give examples of how the Affordable Care Act is in danger, and he cited high premium increases. One of the States he quoted was the State of Maryland, and it was very misleading the way he did that. He was talking about the individual marketplace, and he was talking about one segment of that. What he didn't tell you is that CareFirst, the insurance company that is proposing that rate increase, indicated that at least half of that increase is the result of action taken by the Trump administration, because the Trump administration has not made it clear whether they will fund the cost-sharing provisions, which keep the costs down and affordable in the individual marketplace. That is a self-inflicted increase in premiums by the Trump administration. There is a second issue that CareFirst mentioned, and that is the President's insistence on not enforcing the individual mandate, and, by the way, that is in the Republican bill. It means that younger, healthier people will choose not to have health insurance. Now, if they happen to ride a motorcycle and wrap themselves around a tree and get flown to the Shock Trauma Center in Baltimore and we are going to treat him, guess who is going to pay the bill? All of us are going to pay the bill through uncompensated care. It is going to raise my insurance policy and everybody's insurance policy. That person should have had insurance, but that person thought he or she didn't need that insurance. So they didn't take out the policy. You find that those who will take out the insurance policies are the higher risks because they know they need the insurance. So those with high-risk issues will be in the pool raising the costs and that is why CareFirst has a higher ask, because they know it is less likely that healthier people will be in the pool than projected under the original Affordable Care Act. Why? Because of President Trump. So when the leader says that the Affordable Care Act is falling apart, the Affordable Care Act is strong, but it has been made vulnerable by the actions of the Trump administration, and the provisions in this bill will make it even weaker. Now, 1.2 million Marylanders are in our Maryland Medical Assistance Program, or Medicaid Program. Many of these people are working families. Many of these people are our seniors who need long-term care and are in the Medicaid Program because it pays for their long-term care expenses. Many of these people are veterans or returning warriors who are under the Medicaid Program. Under the Republican-released bill, they may make it a gentler slope before we get to the full impact of the Medicaid reductions, but the Medicaid reductions, if I understand correctly, are even more severe than under the House-passed bill. Now, I could speak for Maryland. I know our legislature. Our legislature is going to try to do what is right, but they have limited resources in order to try to meet the needs that are out there. It is just not right to say that we are passing these problems on to the States when the States don't have the fiscal capacity to deal with them. Who gets hurt? The 1.2 million Marylanders who rely upon the Medicaid Program and all Marylanders who don't want to see what we call cost shifting, when someone who doesn't have health insurance ends up in our emergency room and doesn't pay the bill and everyone else pays those bills. So why are we doing this? What is the reason we have gone through this pain? I have heard my colleagues talk about it, and it is absolutely true. The Republicans need to make room for the tax cut. They are pretty clear about it. Close to $1 trillion in tax cuts is what they need to do. Who benefits from tax cuts? The wealthy, those who have access to healthcare. Who pays for the tax cuts? Those who are the most vulnerable in our community. That is just wrong. My staff has put together a lot of individual letters that have been sent to us. I don't even need to go through them. I can tell the Presiding Officer just the experiences I have had walking on the streets to Baltimore or, quite frankly, walking anywhere, including here in Washington. When people come up to me and say: Senator Cardin, keep up the fight. Do you know what is going to happen if that healthcare bill becomes law? We have done some tests and we have certain genes, we are in a high-risk pool for cancer. We are not going to be able to get coverage if you let insurance companies go back to the practices they had before the passage of the Affordable Care Act. People say that if they didn't have the insurance they now think they are going to lose, they would have to go through personal bankruptcy. That is not a hypothetical. Before the passage of the Affordable Care Act, unpaid medical bills was the leading cause of bankruptcy. Are we going to go back to those days? I talked to a parent who has a child with a disability--and to think what the cost of that child is going to be in the healthcare system. They don't possibly have the means to be able to afford that if they didn't have access to healthcare coverage without discrimination. You leave these discretions to how the insurance companies will respond with their businesses, they are going to figure out a way so a family who has a disabled child will not have adequate coverage. That is what is at risk. Senator Markey is right--healthcare should be a right, not a privilege, and we are moving in the wrong direction. In Maryland, we have hospitals that are located throughout our State to meet the needs of the people of Maryland. We have hospitals that are located in areas where they have a lot of elderly and a lot of poor people, but because of the way we deal with our hospital reimbursements, we don't have cost shifting. We can have what is known as an all-payer rate, where whoever goes into the hospital, they pay the same rate so a hospital can locate in an inner city or poorer neighborhood. If you increase the cost sharing for people who don't have insurance, hospital facilities will not locate in those communities, adding to the costs of everyone's healthcare. One of the great benefits, one of the great achievements of the Affordable Care Act, is that we now have facilities that are more conveniently located to people in this country, whether they live in a rural area or urban setting. Some are healthcare centers and some are health clinics, but they are more conveniently located because more people have third-party coverage and have insurance in order to pay those bills. So I read with interest that certain segments of the advocacy community are going to be given certain concessions in this bill, and they think they are going to be OK. One is, I understand--and I am not sure what this term means, and maybe someone can explain it to me-- medically complex children. These are children, I assume, who have special needs. If I understand the bill correctly, there is going to be a carve-out in the Medicaid system so that these complex cases will be, at least for a period of time, reimbursed. Where are they going to get care? Right now they are getting care, in many cases, in a school-based health clinic that is going to be closed under the Republican bill that is out here because it is not qualified to receive reimbursement. The expansion of our qualified health centers under the Affordable Care Act is going to be in deep jeopardy. I met with the CEOs of our qualified health centers where we have expanded to deal with pediatric care, dental care, and mental health. That is in jeopardy of being contracted if you don't have the reimbursements from the people who live in that community that we have under the Medicaid expansion. That is in jeopardy. So don't believe you are protecting any vulnerable population when you don't provide the structure in which you can have reasonable reimbursements so that doctors, hospitals, and clinics can locate in communities and be treated fairly under our reimbursement structure. I am deeply disappointed. I am deeply disappointed with what we have done to this great institution on this, such an important subject. I am deeply concerned, about the impact this is going to have on the people of Maryland and our Nation, and I will join my colleagues in doing everything I possibly can, during the limited opportunities we have only on the floor of the Senate, not in our committees--to do everything I can to protect the interests of the people of Maryland and our Nation so healthcare can be a right and not a privilege. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a resolution to mark World Refugee Day, and to address the ongoing displacement crisis across the globe. War, conflict and persecution have forced millions of people to leave their homes, creating more refugees, asylum seekers and internally displaced people than at any other time in history. Today, there are more than 65 million displaced men, women, and children worldwide, the highest level ever recorded in history. To put this number into perspective--if the global displaced population were a country, it would be the 21st largest country, more populated than the United Kingdom. The global displacement trends we are witnessing now, due to conflict, severe human rights abuses, and climate change, are not going away. U.S. leadership in responding to these crises, whether it is the immense suffering of refugees from South Sudan or the plight of the internally-displaced in Syria and Iraq, is critical. How we respond--or whether we respond at all--will undoubtedly shape the landscape and the lives of future generations for years to come. The United States has a long and proud history of providing safe harbor to the world's most vulnerable refugees--women and children, survivors of torture and other violence, and those with severe medical conditions. This included after World War II and after the fall of Saigon, when we resettled hundreds of thousands of refugees. At the same time, we take the security of our citizens seriously. That is the reason the United States has the most rigorous refugee screening process in the world, involving the Department of Defense, Department of State, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Bureau of Investigation, and National Counter Terrorism Center. The process includes biometric checks, medical screenings, forensic testing of documents, DNA testing for family reunification cases, and in-person interviews with highly trained homeland security officials. The U.S. Refugee Resettlement program has been and should remain open to those of all nationalities and religions who face persecution. The Trump Administration's proposals that would have the U.S. State Department disqualify refugees from protection based on their nationality or religion fly in the face of the very principles this Nation was built upon. They also contradict the legacy of leadership our country has historically demonstrated, and dishonor our shared humanity. It is clear, however, that the Trump Administration is determined to undermine longstanding American tradition and values, and in doing so they weaken our National security. As we all know, one of President Trump's first executive orders sought to drastically reduce the number of refugees entering the United States and turn away refugees from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. This un-American policy, rooted in fear not fact, cannot be tolerated. We collectively must reject the misplaced notion that some refugees are more deserving of protection than others. Again and again, the Federal courts are signaling to the White House a real need for the President to immediately rescind his discriminatory executive order targeting Muslim refugees and travelers. Even while stayed by the courts, President Trump's executive orders have made America less safe, damaged our relationships with our allies, and harmed countless numbers of law-abiding citizens, travelers, and their families. America is a compassionate nation steeped with a history of welcoming immigrants and refugees. I was proud to join Members of Congress who filed legal briefs in opposition to the President's discriminatory executive orders, along with HIAS in Silver Spring, Maryland, whose motto is to ``welcome the stranger'' and ``protect the refugee.'' Recently the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit provided a valuable check and balance on the President's authority. The court correctly pointed out that the President's most recent Executive Order ``speaks with vague words of national security, but in context drips with religious intolerance, animus, and discrimination'' which violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. No American president is above the law. Turning away refugees--whether they are from Syria or Somalia, Burma or Iraq, whether they are Muslims or Christians, Hindus or Jews--means turning our backs on the international humanitarian system and the mechanisms of stability and security that are the bedrocks of international order. Refugees remain powerful ambassadors of the American Dream and our Nation's founding principles of equal opportunity, religious freedom, and liberty and justice for all. The Trump Administration again revealed its determination to erode American leadership with the release of its Fiscal Year 2018 Budget request. Their FY18 budget represents a wholesale repudiation of U.S. global leadership on virtually every critical matter, including humanitarian assistance and protection of the most vulnerable populations. The President's budget called for a 44 percent cut in humanitarian assistance--a truly horrifying reduction made even more appalling given the level of global need. According to a group of leading NGOs, the human cost of these cuts could be staggering. The proposed 18 percent cut to the Migration and Refugee Assistance account could result in over 3.5 million refugees and internally displaced persons not receiving assistance globally, including about 1 million in the Middle East and 1.1 million in Africa. The United States has been a beacon of hope for so many around the world for centuries, and it is imperative that we remain so for others in this century, and beyond. We need to be unified on this and the United States must lead by example. It is a universal human desire to live in peace and security and to create a better life for our families and loved ones. We must do our part to facilitate that. We need to keep our doors--and our hearts--open to those who so desperately need safe harbor. S. Res. 195 Whereas World Refugee Day is an opportunity to acknowledge the courage, strength, and determination of women, men, and children forced to flee their homes due to conflict, violence, and persecution; Whereas according to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (referred to in this Resolution as ``UNHCR'')-- (1) there are more than 65,600,000 displaced people worldwide, the highest level ever recorded, including nearly 22,500,000 refugees, more than 40,300,000 internally displaced people, and 2,800,000 people seeking asylum; (2) children account for 51 percent of the global refugee population, millions of whom are unable to access basic services, including education; (3) 10,300,000 people were newly displaced due to conflict or persecution in 2016; (4) more than 5,500,000 refugees have fled Syria since the start of the conflict, and more than 6,300,000 people are displaced inside Syria; (5) since January 2014, more than 3,000,000 Iraqis fleeing violence have been internally displaced, and 257,000 refugees have fled to neighboring countries; (6) South Sudan has the world's fastest-growing refugee crisis, which is now the largest refugee crisis in Africa, with more than 1,800,000 refugees, including 1,000,000 children; (7) increasing violence in Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras has led to a growing number of unaccompanied child refugees, who are particularly vulnerable to sexual violence, human trafficking, and kidnapping; and (8) ongoing conflict, violence, and persecution have resulted in the displacement of millions in Ukraine, Colombia, and the Central African Republic; Whereas 84 percent of the world's refugees are hosted in developing regions, with more than 28 percent hosted in the world's least developed countries; Whereas refugees who are women and children are often at greater risk of violence, human trafficking, exploitation, and gender-based violence; Whereas the United States resettlement program is a life- saving solution critical to global humanitarian efforts, which reflects American values, strengthens global security, and alleviates the burden placed on front-line host countries; Whereas refugees are the most vetted travelers to enter the United States and are subject to extensive screening checks, including in person interviews, biometric data checks, and multiple interagency checks; Whereas refugees contribute to their communities by starting businesses, paying taxes, and sharing their cultural traditions; and Whereas refugees contribute more than they consume in state-funded services, including schooling and health care: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate-- (1) reaffirms the bipartisan commitment of the United States to promote the safety, health, and well-being of the millions of refugees; (2) recognizes those individuals who have risked their lives working individually and for nongovernmental organizations and international agencies, such as UNHCR, to provide life-saving assistance and protection for people displaced by conflict around the world; (3) underscores the importance of the United States Refugee Resettlement Program as a critical tool for United States global leadership; (4) calls upon the United States Government-- (A) to continue providing robust funding for refugee protection overseas and resettlement in the United States; (B) to uphold its international leadership role in responding to displacement crises with humanitarian assistance and protection of the most vulnerable populations; and (C) to alleviate the burden on refugee host countries through humanitarian and development support while maintaining the United States' long-standing tradition of resettling the most vulnerable refugees regardless of their country of origin or religious beliefs; (5) reaffirms the goals of World Refugee Day; and (6) reiterates the strong commitment of the United States to seek to protect the millions of refugees who live without material, social, or legal protections.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Well, first, to Senator Corker. There is a reason Members want to serve on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. We had a long list of Members who wanted to join our committee in this Congress. Quite frankly, I think the reason they want to join is not only the challenges we have globally but the fact that this is a committee that works bipartisanly and respects the views of every single Member, both Democratic and Republican, on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. The bill we have before us reflects that--in the best tradition of the U.S. Senate and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. That is due, in large part, because of the talent, leadership, and commitment of our chairman. I thank Senator Corker for allowing us to reach this very important moment in the U.S. Senate, to be able to vote on a bill that is consequential for America's national security. I believe this is the first major bill we have had on the floor of the U.S. Senate, the first bill we have had amendments to, and I concur in the Senator's observations that our leaders allowed us to let the process work in the best traditions of the U.S. Senate. It is difficult for many of us to explain how the Senate operates at times. It really is difficult, but it is a body which respects the rights of each Member, and they have certain abilities to slow things down or bring us to a stop, and the process doesn't work the way it is supposed to work, but this bill has been handled very quickly on a major subject because we respected the rights of every single Member of the U.S. Senate. It doesn't mean we reach total agreement. We didn't, but we have a bill that accomplishes three very important things: First, it stands up to the aggression of Russia and Iran. Yes, we have been talking about this--and I am glad Senator McCain is on the floor. Senator McCain has been one of the most ardent crusaders to point out the risk factors of Russia to our national security and that of our allies. I started with Senator McCain in January. We sat down, and he informed me why we had to do certain things and make it very clear and not have any ambiguity because Russia would run right through that ambiguity. Thanks to that initial leadership, we have those provisions in the underlying bill. There will be no ambiguity as to what Congress is saying in regard to Russia's behavior. I also acknowledge we have a review process in here. Senator Graham brought that to our attention very early in the process in January so Congress can insert itself. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 2 additional minutes.

Mr. CARDIN. That review process will give Congress the right role to review executive actions so we are stronger, working together. It also gives the President a stronger hand in negotiating with Mr. Putin and Russia because Congress has said: You must accomplish certain objectives, such as getting Russia's aggression to end in Ukraine or get Russia to stop supporting war crimes in Syria, to stop interfering with our democratic election systems. That is what we say, and we are very clear about that. Then we take the third step, which I think is very important; that is, provide the wherewithal of U.S. leadership, working with our European allies, to protect our democratic institutions. All of that is included in the bill that we are going to have a chance to vote on in a few minutes, and I want to thank all who were involved. I am going to include staff who worked so hard on this. They were here 24/7 putting this bill together--Damian Murphy, in my office; Margaret Taylor; and Jessica Lewis, Dana Stroul, Lowell Schwartz, Sean Bartlett, Chris Barr, John Ryan, Leslie Bull, Danny Ricchetti, as well as Todd Womack, Rob Strayer, David Kinzler, and Ben Purser. They were extraordinary in helping us reach this day.

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

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, April was National Minority Health Month. I point that out because I have worked with many of my colleagues in order to advance minority health. We have done some very important things in recent years that I am very proud of, and many of those are included in the Affordable Care Act. I know that Senator Carper and Senator Blumenthal will be on the floor; Senator Carper is here now. They have been instrumental in advancing quality healthcare for all Americans, but we do recognize that we have a special role in regard to historic discrimination on minority health. I was pleased that the Affordable Care Act included the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities so that we could have a focal point at NIH to deal with the historic problems and have a game plan to advance that. I was also pleased that the Affordable Care Act provided coverage for minorities in greater numbers because when we looked at the number of uninsured, the number of minorities were a much higher percentage than the general population of uninsured. When we looked at inadequate coverage, we saw the same numbers. So we have made advancements. In April, historically, I had filed a resolution in order to acknowledge the progress we made and to continue our commitment to make sure that all Americans have access to affordable, quality healthcare and that we do not discriminate. That resolution had always cleared without any difficulty until 2017. For reasons I cannot explain, there were Republican objections, and we were not able to adopt the resolution commemorating minority health month. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of that resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. CARDIN. I thank Senators Menendez, Blumenthal, Brown, Hirono, Markey, Klobuchar, Van Hollen, Booker, Peters, Duckworth, and Carper for their help in regard to minority health and the resolution.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, let me return the compliment to Senator Corker. Senator Corker announced in his opening remarks about the bipartisan vote in our committee on the Iran sanctions bill. In the last Congress, we were able to get a unanimous vote on the Iran bill. We, under the leadership of Senator Corker, fully recognized that particularly on foreign policy, our country is much stronger when we speak with a united voice, so bringing Democrats and Republicans together is in our national interest. Senator Corker has listened to different views. He and I do have different views on many issues concerning foreign policy, but in almost every one of those cases, we have been able to reconcile those differences. That is true and it was very clear on the Iran sanctions and it is also very true on the Russia sanctions amendment that we will be voting on later today. To Senator Corker, I just want my colleagues to know we have a leader on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee who puts America's national interests first and has respected the rights of every Senator, not only in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee but in the U.S. Senate, that can add to the richness of our discussions and debate. I think we are much stronger today because of that. This is a good example of that, and I am very proud to be supportive of all these efforts and supportive of how this came about because I think it is important for our colleagues and the American people to know about that. Congressional Baseball Practice Shooting Mr. President, Senator Corker and I both want to express, before we start our debate on this issue, our concerns for our colleagues who were victimized by the shooting that took place in Virginia--an outrageous event--and for our security people as well as the innocent bystanders who were struck by the gunfire. Our prayers are with those who are recovering. We hope they will have a complete recovery. We are committed to making sure we keep our Senate and congressional family safe, and we will do everything we can to make sure that takes place. We will continue to work to make sure we preserve the democratic ideals of this Nation and the free society we live in. We know there are rifts, and we know we can do service and stand by those democratic commitments but also keep America safe. I think the work on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee had those goals in mind, and Senator Corker, through the Chair, I thank you for your attention to those details. Mr. President, let me talk for a few minutes about S. 722, the Countering Iran's Destabilizing Activities Act. This bill will impose new sanctions on Iran for its nonnuclear violations. I want to make that clear--nonnuclear violations. Their responsibilities on the nuclear side is now judged by the nuclear agreement that was entered into. We had a great debate about it last year, and we are not going to rehash that debate. I think every Member of this Chamber wants to make sure Iran complies with its nuclear obligations, but that is a separate debate. The debate we have here is on the nonnuclear activities of Iran that violate international norms and international agreements. We saw, for example, ballistic missile tests that violated their U.N. obligations that took place in January and in March. We have seen a significant increase in illicit arms shipments being done by Iran, causing destabilizing activities in many parts of the region. We see it in Bahrain. We see it in Yemen. We see it in Iraq. We know they are supporting Hezbollah in Lebanon. We see they are supporting Hamas in Gaza, and we know about their activities in support of the Assad regime in Syria. This all violates international norms. Iran today has violated, in an incredible way, human rights issues that violate international norms. Yesterday we saw a part of the impact of that as we had a debate on the Saudi arms sale, and we can argue the Saudi's culpability with what is going on in Yemen, but there is no question about Iran's activities supporting the Houthis in Yemen causing atrocities in that country. They are clearly very actively engaged in violating internationally recognized human rights. We also see cyber attacks on the United States that have come from Iran, and they are detaining at least five U.S. citizens today illegally. There are increased activities in Iran in relation to the nonnuclear side of their activities. For that reason, S. 722 looks at strengthening the sanctions regime so we can make it clear, yes, we will comply with the JCPOA, the nuclear agreement, but we need to have better activities--improvement on the nonnuclear side. Basically, the bill increases the sanctions menus that are available for ballistic missile violations, for support of terrorism, for human rights violations, and for violating the arms embargo. Those who knowingly do those violations or materially assist will be subject to additional sanctions by the United States. We codify the IRGC, that was done by Executive order, and we codify some of these other Executive orders as it relates to Iran. We coordinate. This is done in a way that it coordinates with what Europe is doing and making sure it is a consistent approach that we have taken in the past. We ask the administration to develop a regional strategy so the Congress and the American people know our policies in the Middle East. That provision was drafted before the Trump administration. This is a desire by Congress to have a better articulated regional strategy, recognizing the dangers in that region. Iran is a major player in the region against U.S. interests, and we need to know what our strategy is in confronting those challenges. Quite frankly, with the Trump administration, we haven't heard that coordinated strategy, and this legislation will require that report be given not just to Congress on a regular basis but to the American people. I want to underscore how this agreement is totally consistent with the nuclear agreement that was entered into 2 years ago--the JCPOA, as it is referred to. I want to go through quickly how this came about. Senator Corker talked a little bit about it. Senator Corker is absolutely correct. Senator Menendez has been a leader on Iran sanctions way before this Congress. He was very much involved in the original sanctions legislation passed by Congress. That led to putting enough pressure on the international community to join us, which ultimately led to Iran having no choice but to negotiate. Senator Corker and Senator Menendez had introduced legislation that was out there, and we had a chance to review it, which is how the process should work. As a result of that review, both Senator Corker, Senator Menendez, and I--all three of us--reached out to interested groups to understand what the Congress has done. Many of the people we talked to were involved in the negotiations with Iran who had different views than we did on the final outcome of that agreement, but we wanted to make sure we weren't violating any of the provisions of the JCPOA so we sought their input. As a result, there was revised legislation that was offered known as Corker-Menendez-Cardin, which incorporated the ideas of all three of us, but really the outside groups working with us, to make sure it was totally consistent with the JCPOA and consistent with the intent of the original bill. I think that bill was well scrubbed. I think it did not violate the JCPOA, but we went through another process, another review, another opportunity for those who could perhaps see things we don't see quite as clearly when it comes to Iran and our European allies. We went through a second scrubbing, and we had a managers' amendment that was offered in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that tightened the bill up even more dealing with those issues. I think I can state very confidently that there is nothing in the underlying bill that violates the U.S. commitment under the JCPOA nuclear agreement. It is my intent, and I think the intent of almost every member of this committee that the United States should comply with the JCPOA. Even though I didn't support it, I think it is important we comply with it today. The other aspect I wanted to go through is that--and I don't want to give the wrong impression. There are people who are involved in the negotiations of the nuclear agreement who would state--some would say they oppose the bill, some might say it is not helpful, some might say Iran might take it the wrong way. Any one of those arguments aside, I do not think you will find anyone who says that it violates the JCPOA. I want to give a little bit of history here because this was anticipated, that we would need this bill, when we acted on the JCPOA, by those of us who supported and opposed the nuclear agreement. As the chairman will recall, shortly after the failure to reject the JCPOA--that action--I filed additional legislation that I thought was necessary, along with many of my colleagues, who voted for and voted against the JCPOA. I voted against it. Those who voted for it thought it was necessary. It included the regional strategy so that we would know what the administration was doing. We expedited procedures to deal with nonnuclear violations if Iran used the sanction relief they got under the nuclear agreement to increase their terrorist activities or ballistic missile activities or human rights violations. In fact, they have done that, and that is why we filed the bill right after the action on the nuclear agreement. This is consistent with what we thought would be necessary. Yes, we had hoped Iran would change its activities, but we were not naive about it. We knew that this was going to be a long road. We knew that Iran did not respond to niceties and that we were going to have to keep the pressure up for them to be able to take the action that was needed. I know many of us were encouraged when we saw the votes a couple of weeks ago in Iran whereby the Iranians voted for a more open society, a more transparent society. I must say that Iran has a wonderful history of very talented people who want democratic principles, and I am sure that is true among many of the people in Iran today. It is their leaders with whom we have an objection, not with the people of Iran. The people of Iran want a more open, democratic society. This legislation will help get to that point by making it clear to the leaders in Iran that they must change their behavior as it relates to terrorism, as it relates to human rights violations, as it relates to their other international obligations. That is the reason this bill has become so important. Let me give one more example on the consistency. There are many provisions that we have changed. One is that we all acknowledge that the United States and our partners are fully at liberty to take action against Iran for terrorist activities, which is not part of the nuclear agreement, but there is some confusion as to how that is done in relationship to the sanctions relief that is provided under the JCPOA. In listening to their concerns, we will set up an independent review process within the next 5 years that will resolve that issue before we hit the 8-year mark so that we are not jeopardizing thwarting a crisis in the future that might occur. I really just want to point that out because this bill is totally consistent with the obligations of the United States under the Iran nuclear agreement. Amendment No. 232, as Modified I talked briefly yesterday about the amendment that is pending. I want to spend just a moment, if I might, in underscoring some of the details of the amendment that is passing. I am for S. 722, and I am for the amendment that was crafted in the same spirit as was the underlying bill--in a bipartisan agreement. It involved not just the Senate Foreign Relations Committee but the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee because the jurisdictions on sanctions do overlap between the two committees. As I said yesterday, I thank Senators Crapo and Brown--and Chairman Corker has already mentioned this--as they were extremely helpful in making sure that we tailored the financial sanctions in a way that is workable and consistent with that of our European partners so that we can make sure we have collective strength. I am sure the Presiding Officer has been in meetings with our European friends and knows how they feel about Russia. He knows how they feel--that they are the direct bull's-eye with regard to what Russia is doing. They want the United States to be strong, and they want the United States to provide leadership, but we need to provide it in a manner that is consistent with their security interests. With regard to the way this bill has evolved, I think we have a better bill that is consistent with those concerns. With Russia, we know their activities. We know their cyber activities against our democratic institutions. As we have said frequently, all countries collect cyber information, but the use of that cyber information to attack our democratic institutions is an attack on our country. That cannot go unchallenged. We have to protect ourselves and take action when we have been attacked. This bill does that. We also know, not just recently but historically, that Russia has been very aggressive in its interfering with the sovereignty of other countries. Today, in Moldova and Georgia, you see the consequences of Russia's aggression. Of course, in Ukraine, with the annexation by Russia of Crimea and its continued activities in eastern Ukraine, Russia has violated every single commitment of the OSE's Helsinki Accords and has violated the sovereignty of other countries. We also know about Russia's activities in support of the Assad regime in Syria and, by the way, in other countries in that region. It has assisted in horrible human rights violations--just terrible. We have seen some of the videos of the tragedies of innocent children as a result of Mr. Putin's support of the Assad regime. In January of this year, Senator McCain and I introduced legislation that would have imposed new sanctions on Russia because of these activities. We wanted to make sure that this was bipartisan, so we had 18 Senators cosponsor the bill with us--10 Democrats, 10 Republicans-- to make it clear that this was not an attack on one administration but that this was America and that we had to be together in a strong message against the Putin regime. That bill included sanctions on cyber activities. It included sanctions on their Ukrainian activities. It included sanctions in regard to their Syrian activities. The legislation also incorporated what has been known as the Democracy Initiative, which provides ways in which we can provide a more unified front with our European allies in defending against the cyber attacks we have seen coming from Russia. At the same time, Senator Graham filed a bill, with my cosponsorship, that would require congressional review before the President could give sanction relief to Russia. The review was patterned very similarly to the review we had under the Iran nuclear agreement. So those two bills were pending, and there has been a lot of debate about them. We then received a draft bill from Senators Crapo and Brown as it related to the sanctions. It was focused--I would not say exclusively but primarily--on the financial and energy sectors in order to make sure those sanctions were drafted in the proper way, and we went through considerable negotiations. Senator Corker, as I pointed out before, brought additional text to the discussion in an effort to try to bring this together. Although I am mentioning Senators' names, we know it is the staff. Our staffs have been working around the clock to try to make sure we get this done right. So I thank the majority and minority staffs on the Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee and on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. There are many parts to the amendment that will be voted on at 2 p.m. One part codifies additional sanctions against Russia. I have already mentioned Senator Menendez's role in Iran. He was very instrumental as it relates to Russia. Senator Durbin has been very active. I must tell you that there has been no Member on the Democratic side who has been more vocal than Senator Shaheen on the need to take action against Russia. There are many Members on our side who were active on this. I thank my colleagues for their contribution. We do codify the Executive orders that were issued that were related to both Ukraine and cyber attacks. With the adoption of this amendment, we would be codifying--giving congressional support for what took place by President Obama. It expands the list of where sanctions can apply to the energy projects and foreign financial institutions that facilitate such projects. For actors who try to undermine cyber security, it provides for their being subject to sanctions, and it provides secondary sanctions for those who materially assist those actors in undermining our cyber security. It provides sanctions against suppliers of Russian arms to Syria. It goes after the actors who are involved in the corrupt privatization of Russia's governmental assets. We do not support those who are supporting Mr. Putin's corrupt regime. It deals with sanctions against Russia's activities on pipelines, the Russia railway, metals, mining, and shipping. So it is comprehensive, and most of these sanctions are mandatory. It is not ``may''; rather, it is that the President ``shall'' in most of these circumstances. As is the tradition, the President also has the ability, if there is a significant national security issue, to weigh whether that sanction should be applied. Yet we use a different standard in most of these sanctions that requires the President to certify before he issues those waivers that there has been, basically, significant progress made by Russia in removing these sanctionable activities. So we have a pretty strong hand that we are giving President Trump in his negotiations with Mr. Putin. In addition, this bill provides for congressional review. We talked about that--a bill that was originally introduced by Senator Graham and me. As I indicated, it is very similar to the Iran Review Act. I think this is very important in that it puts a lot of transparency into the negotiations between the Trump administration and the Putin administration. As Senator Corker was talking about earlier as to how one President can do something by himself--and I hope that the amendment is adopted and that the bill passes the House and becomes law--the President cannot by himself remove a sanction until he has given Congress notice and an opportunity to review that. We can have congressional hearings. We can put a spotlight on it. Then we will have an expedited process whereby we could reject the President's decision to give relief, and all during that process the sanctions will remain in place. It is a very strong congressional review, and it is our responsibility to do that, but it also brings in the American people and brings in a more transparent process. What we have found is that, with that transparency, it is a much stronger hand that President Trump has in his negotiations, knowing that he has to go through this process at the end of the day in his negotiations with Russia. Sometimes we call it the strength of our independent branches of government. The executive branch can say ``Look, we would like to move faster, but we have to do this with the legislative branch'' or ``We would like to do this, but we cannot get it through Congress.'' Use the independence of the Congress. We are certainly very strongly against what Russia is doing. Use that to increase the pressure on Russia to do the right thing. That is what this bill does. This is why it is helpful to the President of the United States to have this congressional review. It would reply to anything from cyber sanctions that had been imposed under the Obama executive order to the attempt to return the compounds that are located in Maryland and New York. All of that would be subject to a congressional review before the action by the President could become effective. I mentioned earlier that the bill does include the authorization of democracy funds, as I call it, that assist our allies in their fight against Russia's aggression, particularly in cyber. It authorizes $250 million, and it applies to our work with the EU member states, the NATO member States, as well as with candidate nations. It is a pretty strong opportunity for us to work together. I have had many meetings with our European colleagues and friends. Yes, every country recognizes that it is vulnerable against Russia's attacks--believe me, they do--and they are doing everything they can to protect themselves. What I find disappointing is that there is not enough coordination. We know how they acted in the United States and how they acted in France and now how they are likely to act in Germany and what they did in Moldova. We know how they are likely to proceed, but do we have a common strategy to prevent this type of manipulation by Russia of our democratic institutions? This authorization and the funding--I thank Senator Graham and Senator Leahy for putting money into the fiscal year 2017 budget to start this process going forward. We have approved that, and that is now in the budget. It allows us to coordinate those efforts among the United States and our European friends to protect against what we know is going to be continued activity by Russia. There are obviously investigations going on. Part of the investigation is to understand what Russia is doing, quite frankly, so that we can protect ourselves. I think that will be very helpful, this information, and the role of the United States in working with our European allies to protect against certain continued malicious activities by the Russian Federation. There is a provision in this bill that deals with Ukraine. We make it clear that we will not recognize Crimea's annexation of Ukraine, that we will continue to stand with the people of Ukraine in regard to their sovereignty, and we ask for a plan to reduce Ukraine's dependence on Russia energy imports. We know that Ukraine is vulnerable because of energy, and we know that we have to develop a plan to deal with that. There are many Members involved in that, and I wish to acknowledge my friend from Ohio, Senator Portman, for his work in regard to the Ukraine provisions. There are new counterterrorism financing provisions, which are pretty comprehensive, so that we make sure that we have all the tools we need in order to track the financing of terrorism activities. That is in there. So let me just tell my colleague how proud I am to be associated with the underlying bill as well as the amendment that we are going to vote on at 2 o'clock. Both the underlying bill and the amendment were developed in the best of the bipartisan manners of the U.S. Senate. I wish to thank, again, all of those who were involved to give us this opportunity to speak with a strong, united voice against the activities that Iran is doing globally and that are destabilizing so many countries through their terrorism and ballistic missiles and human rights violations and arms embargo violations, and to make it clear to the Russian Federation that we are not going to let them attack our country, that we are going to stand up to that and work to be sure to keep our allies safe. With that, Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I just want to follow up briefly with Chairman Corker. The two of us became friends in 2007, when we were both elected to the U.S. Senate the same year and were part of the same class. But I think the two of us really became close friends a little over 2 years ago, when we were confronted with how Congress should deal with the nuclear agreement being negotiated by President Obama with Iran and our European friends, along with Russia and China. As the two of us worked around the clock to try to develop an appropriate review process so that Congress could play a constructive role--we recognize that we are the legislative branch, and we have oversight functions, but there is an appropriate role for us with regard to Executive actions--we came out with something that no one expected could be done; that is, nearly unanimous support in this body for a review statute in regard to the Iran negotiations. Chairman Corker has taken this same template and has now used that to apply to Russia in the removal of sanctions on Russia. It started with a bill that was put together by Senator Graham and me. It has been modified through the negotiations we have had, as Senator Corker has commented, with Senator Brown and Senator Crapo. But it does, in effect, provide that there will be notice to Congress before the administration can give any sanction relief to Russia, so there can be transparency and a discussion and a debate. Then there is a process by which Congress, if we feel strongly and can get the necessary support, can disapprove of sanction relief. I think that is the proper way for us to deal with one of the most important bilateral relationships in the world--between the United States and Russia--and it is appropriate that it is going to be an amendment to the Iran sanctions bill because the review process came out of the Iran agreement. The review process would be triggered if there is action taken by the President to give relief, but the legislation also includes additional sanctions, as the chairman pointed out, with Russia. It does this in a way that codifies the President's Executive orders so that there is now congressional support for Executive orders. It expands those sanctions in the area of cyber, as the chairman pointed out, and for energy projects, financial institutions facilitating transactions, Russian arms and related materiel to Syria, the corrupt privatization of government-owned assets. I particularly thank the chairman for the way he was able to recognize that, in Russia, what we don't want to see us contribute to is corruption, and we concentrate on the corruption issue, not the business issue. It is the area of corruption that becomes the important thing. We tighten up a lot of the different sanctions. Then we set up a process where there needs to be certified progress made; otherwise, these are mandatory sanctions the President must impose. As the chairman pointed out, negotiations included aspects of legislation that was first introduced by Senator McCain and me on sanctions, by Senator Graham and me on review of sanction relief, by Senators Crapo and Brown on proposed legislation dealing with sanctions, and Chairman Corker had significant drafting issues that he brought to the table in our negotiations. So it was a free discussion, and the end result is--I said this before but I want to underscore this--the Banking Committee brought some very helpful suggestions to make sure the financial sanctions worked. It is one thing that we want to make sure there are penalties, but we have to make sure they work right, and I compliment the work of the Banking Committee in making sure that we use the right standards and that this will meet international muster. It is absolutely essential that this template be one in which our European allies can follow our leadership. If we didn't do that, we could have been isolated, which would not have had the same impact as I think these sanctions will have in working with our European allies. The chairman mentioned several of our colleagues on the committee. I need to mention Senator Shaheen and Senator Menendez, who played very, very important roles in our caucus. Senator Durbin and Senator Schumer also played roles in this, and I acknowledge their contributions. Included in this bill is the democracy initiative, which deals with providing more unified support with our allies in Europe in fighting Russia's propaganda and attacks on our democratic institutions. Senator Portman made major contributions to that, as the chairman has also acknowledged, and then, brought to us mainly through the Banking bill, we have a strategy to trace terrorism and financing in terrorism, which I think is very important to be included in the amendment. We will have a chance to vote on this amendment at 2 o'clock tomorrow. I encourage my colleagues to adopt this. Senator Corker and I expect to be back on the floor tomorrow as we manage the underlying bill, at which time I will want to comment on the importance of our passing the Iran sanctions bill, which is vitally important because of Iranian activities taking place today. For all of those reasons, I encourage my colleagues to please read the amendment that has been filed in a bipartisan effort to deal with this challenge that Russia has provided through their activities in attacking our democratic institutions, in their continued aggression in Ukraine, and their human rights violations in Syria. I might add that Senator Menendez's provisions on human rights sanctions are included in this amendment. It really does, I think, capture the essence of the broad consensus of the U.S. Senate and is worthy of our support. I yield the floor.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, this June marks the 50th anniversary of the reunification of Jerusalem. I am honored to have supported S. Res. 176, which commemorates the 50th anniversary of the reunification of Jerusalem. This resolution reaffirms the Holy City of Jerusalem's central role for the Jewish people dating back many millennia. Since 1967, all people of all religious faiths are able to visit and worship at the holy sites of Jerusalem. I will always stand with Israel as it ensures that all individuals enjoy opportunities to visit and worship at Jerusalem's holy sites. The United States has stood with Israel for the past 50 years and will continue to do so. The intervening 50 years have included momentous changes in Israel and throughout the region, including peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan that stand to this day. These events give me hope for a future in which Israel and all of its neighbors together benefit from a comprehensive, warm peace.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, this Thursday, the Sydney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins is hosting an event that includes a memorial cancer research symposium and a dinner in honor of the late Dr. Albert H. Owens, Jr., who died this past January at the age of 90. It is fitting to pay tribute to Al Owens, who served as president of the Johns Hopkins Hospital and was one of our Nation's pioneering oncologists. Al Owens was born into a medical family. His father, Dr. Albert H. Owens, Sr., was a dentist; his mother, Grace Masters, was a head surgical nurse at Mount Sinai Hospital. He originally matriculated to Harvard University, but his college education was interrupted by his service as a medical officer in the Navy during the Korean war. He subsequently earned his bachelor's and medical degrees from the Johns Hopkins University and the school of medicine, respectively. He joined the faculty in 1956. A year later, A. McGehee Harvey, who was head of the school of medicine's department of medicine, established a cancer research and treatment division within the department. He asked Al to head the new division. There was a slight problem: The Johns Hopkins Hospital did not have available space. So Al moved inpatient, clinical, and research oncology activities to Baltimore City Hospitals, now Johns Hopkins Bayview Medical Center. He opened Johns Hopkins' first cancer chemotherapy unit at Baltimore City Hospitals in 1961, making it one of the first university-based centers of its kind nationwide. In 1973, Al was named the first director of the Johns Hopkins Oncology Center, which had won Federal designation as one of the Nation's first comprehensive cancer centers. In 1977, he moved the center from Baltimore City Hospitals back to the main campus, where it was housed in a brand new facility, named the Oncology Center. Over the next decade, the Johns Hopkins Oncology Center--now named the Johns Hopkins Kimmel Cancer Center--became one of the most prestigious cancer centers in the country. Al was named president of the Johns Hopkins Hospital in 1987, but he relinquished the presidency after only 18 months so that he could devote all of his time to developing a new oncology center for the hospital, but during his brief tenure as president, he decreed that the hospital would become smoke-free. We take smoke-free buildings for granted now; 30 years ago, it was a revolutionary move. Thanks to Al's tireless devotion, the Harry and Jeanette Weinberg Building was completed in January 2000, followed shortly thereafter by the opening of the Bunting Family and Jacob and Hilda Blaustein Family Cancer Research Building. In 2006, the David H. Koch Cancer Research Building opened. These two research buildings are connected by the Albert H. Owens Auditorium, which was named in his honor. Al was a beloved teacher and mentor, as well as a superb doctor, researcher, and administrator. His enthusiasm about cancer research was limitless. He frequently would visit young faculty members-- unannounced--asking them to describe the most exciting research project they were working on that day. Al is survived by his wife, Sally W. MacConnell; children Albert Henry Owens III, Elizabeth Ann Owens, David Tilden Owens, and Sarah Louise Owens; and five grandchildren. The Baltimore Sun ran an obituary at the time of his death; I ask that it be printed in the Record following my remarks. There is an epitaph to Sir Christopher Wren, who is buried in St. Paul's Cathedral in London, which he designed. The epitaph reads, ``Si monumentum requiris, circumspice.'' The English translation of the Latin is ``if you seek his monument, look around.'' This is a fitting epitaph for Dr. Albert H. Owens, Jr., too, but it is not just the buildings dedicated to cancer research that you will see. Look around, and you will see people, probably including members of your family and your friends, who are alive today because of Al's unrelenting dedication to finding treatments and cures for cancer. They are his living monuments. I encourage my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to this wonderful and extraordinary man. The material follows: [From the Baltimore Sun, Jan. 26, 2017] Albert H. Owens Jr., Pioneering Oncologist and Former Hopkins Hospital President, Dies Dr. Albert H. Owens Jr., a pioneering oncologist who helped establish new ways to fight cancer and was a former president of Johns Hopkins Hospital, died of congestive heart failure Jan. 13 at Hopkins. The Churchville resident was 90. Born on Staten Island, N.Y., he was the son of a dentist, Dr. Albert H. Owens Sr., and Grace Masters, a Mount Sinai Hospital head surgical nurse. He was a graduate of a high school in Port Richmond, N.Y. His studies at Harvard University were interrupted by his Navy service in Korea, and he earned bachelor's and medical degrees from the Johns Hopkins University. He became a Hopkins researcher and worked in liver metabolism. Hopkins colleagues said that in 1957, Dr. A. McGehee Harvey, who headed the Hopkins medical department, created a cancer research and treatment division. Dr. Harvey asked Dr. Owens to head the new oncology division. ``At first, they gave him a card table, a secretary and a PH meter,'' said Dr. Donald S. Coffey, a colleague for many years who is a professor emeritus of urology, oncology and pathology. ``Up to this time, there was no treatment for cancer other than surgery and radiation. Al went to work immediately and started drawing blood from his patients.'' The hospital did not have room for the new treatment service, and Dr. Owens saw his patients and conducted research at the old Baltimore City Hospitals, now Hopkins Bayview Medical Center. ``He found a place in the backwater of the old buildings there and soon assembled a first-class team,'' said Dr. Coffey. ``His great genius was his ability to bring great scientists and clinicians together. He would also say, `We have to do everything right for this patient.' '' He recalled Dr. Owens as a quiet listener who would talk about patients as though they were his own children. ``Al Owens was one of the great figures in cancer. . . . He should receive a great deal of the credit for what cancer care and research have become today,'' said Dr. William G. Nelson, Hopkins Kimmel Cancer Center director. ``He was a wonderfully thoughtful person and was not prone to hyperbole. He liked people who worked on cancer seriously. And like great leaders, he distributed the credit.'' A Hopkins statement described Dr. Owens as ``a slightly bashful, bow tie-wearing researcher and clinician.'' In 1973, he became the first director of the Johns Hopkins Oncology Center. In 1977, he moved his work back to Hopkins' East Baltimore campus and a new oncology center. Much expanded, the facility is now named the Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center. ``Al was an exceptional leader who believed that the best way to foster science that would improve patient outcomes was to put basic scientists and clinicians into the same building so they would naturally bond as team members sharing projects, discoveries, frustrations and coffee on a daily basis,'' Hopkins professor Dr. Stuart A. Grossman said in a statement. ``He radiated interest and enthusiasm when it came to cancer research and frequently dropped unannounced into the offices of young faculty members, asking them to describe the most exciting research project they were working on that day.'' Dr. Owens was named Johns Hopkins Hospital president in 1987 and held the post for 18 months. He then resumed his work fighting cancer, but not before he instituted a smoke- free policy throughout the hospital. An auditorium at the medical campus is named in his honor. ``Dr. Owens was not only a superb oncologist and mentor, but a first-rate gentleman,'' Dr. David Ettinger, Hopkins professor of oncology, said in a statement. Dr. Owens was a past president of the Maryland division of the American Cancer Society, the Association of American Cancer Institutes and the American Society of Clinical Oncology. Dr. Owens resided at Medical Hall, a historic Churchville home, where he cultivated bee colonies. Plans for a memorial service at Johns Hopkins Hospital are pending. Survivors include his wife of 20 years, Sally W. MacConnell, a Johns Hopkins administrator; two sons, Albert Henry Owens III of Washington, N.J., and David Tilden Owens of Minneapolis; two daughters, Elizabeth Ann Owens of Baltimore and Sarah Louise Owens of England; and five grandchildren.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize May as Asian Pacific American Heritage Month and celebrate the many contributions of Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders, AAPI. The Asian American and Pacific Islander community is diverse and draws from a variety of distinct cultures, each of which has strengthened this country-- providing leaders, innovators, scientists, activists, artists, and citizens. As we take the time to recognize Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders and their heritage, it would be negligent to forget that this year marks 75 years since President Franklin Delano Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066. He signed Executive Order 9066 in the aftermath of the attack on Pearl Harbor and authorized the Department of War-- today known as the Department of Defense--to establish ``military zones.'' The military had complete authority over these zones, including control over who entered and who was permitted to leave. The military zones became internment camps. In total, some 75,000 Americans of Japanese ancestry and 45,000 Japanese nationals were imprisoned in these camps across the country. At the time, many attempted to justify the internment camps by citing Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor. They cited the need to protect our homeland from potential espionage. They cited the fact that Japan was our wartime enemy. They cited the likelihood that the next attack would come from someone ``looking like'' the enemy. What they failed to explain was why no internment camps were established for Americans of German ancestry--or Italian ancestry. Japan was not our only wartime enemy; yet Japanese Americans were the only ones thrust into imprisonment under the guise of ``national security.'' It is not difficult to guess why. Japanese Americans were targeted because their heritage was thought to be easier to perceive. Of course, in many cases, the U.S. Department of War did not draw distinctions between Americans of Japanese ancestry and Americans of other Asian or Pacific Islander ancestry. If you were thought to look like the enemy, you were a target--full stop--and were at risk of being imprisoned illegally by the American Government. This is one of the darkest periods in our history. We must not forget it. We cannot forget the tens of thousands of innocent families who were stripped of their basic human and legal rights and property, racially profiled, and degraded. We cannot forget that ``national security'' was then--and is now--a poor justification for racial profiling and a transparent attempt to sanction and institutionalize racism. These are lessons the Asian American and Pacific Islander community has carried for generations, all while making our country stronger and more inclusive. The AAPI experiences--when we take the time to hear them--force us to engage in self-reflection, to be more aware of our own biases, and more cautious of our own impulses. As the former chairman and ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on East Asia and the Pacific, I have worked hard to stay mindful of the needs and concerns of the AAPI community. I have learned that, while we have come a very long way over the past 75 years, the AAPI community still battles nativism that portrays its members as something other than ``real'' Americans. They still bear the burden and pain of discrimination, and they still struggle to have their voice and their perspective heard during the great debates of our time. The changes Republicans are seeking on healthcare, for example, would have far-reaching consequences for the AAPI community. Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders have one of the highest incidences of Hepatitis A. In fact, in 2013, they had the highest Hepatitis A rates out of any ethnic group in the country. In 2015, tuberculosis was 30 times more common among Asian Americans than among any other group. Both Hepatitis A and tuberculosis would be considered preexisting conditions-- conditions that would have made many Asian American and Pacific Islanders uninsurable before President Obama signed the Affordable Care Act into law and conditions that would result in sky-high premiums under the misguided American Health Care Act. By comparison, the Affordable Care Act has reduced the uninsured rate for minority communities by at least 35 percent. It also expanded Medicaid, allowing over 250,000 more Maryland beneficiaries to access an array of mental health services like therapy, psychiatric rehabilitation, and many others. The Affordable Care Act's Medicaid expansion had similar positive impacts for mental health services across the country, which affects Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders directly as they continue to work tirelessly to reduce suicide rates. For these reasons, when we think of healthcare, we must consider the human cost our policies inflict on every community--on every American. Likewise, immigration bans based on country of origin, race, or religion are awakening newfound fear that minority communities will be targeted once more, that racial profiling will rear its ugly head again, licensed and sanctioned by the Federal Government. The AAPI community's concern is warranted; people's fear is understandable. Each Member of Congress must realize that caring about the mistakes of our past means working with purpose and with conviction to prevent them from happening again in the present. We must use our votes where our values need defending and our voices where there is silence. As we move forward through Asian Pacific American Heritage Month and beyond, I implore every member of this Chamber to remember that the best way to honor that heritage is to respect the community bearing it. Hearing their experiences, carrying their lessons with us into the policy arena, and considering their needs and fears as our own, these are the substantive ways by which we can truly honor Asian American and Pacific Islander Heritage. I am committed to honoring it accordingly and join every American of Asian or Pacific Islander heritage in celebrating this month as their own.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize and celebrate Jewish American Heritage Month. As a proud Jewish American, I am honored to have the opportunity to acknowledge our heritage and the ways by which it has helped shape this country. The list is a long one, but this year, I want to focus on Mendes Cohen, whose legacy serves as a microcosm of our community. Mendes Cohen was born in Richmond, VA, in May of 1796 to Israel and Judith Solomon Cohen, both of whom were immigrants. Mendes's father came from Germany, and his mother came from England. His father died when Mendes was just 12 years old. The event was a tragedy, of course, for Mendes, his six siblings, and his mother, who moved the family to Baltimore for a fresh start shortly thereafter. Mendes grew up not far from where I grew up; he was raised not unlike I was raised. He believed in the value of public service. He believed in serving his country and working for the good of his community. He held fast to an ideology based on tolerance, equality, and fraternity. It was precisely this ideology that led him to fighting in the War of 1812 at Ft. McHenry. After the war, he and his brother Jacob began lobbying to change Maryland's constitution so that Jews could run for public office. In 1826, he was successful, and by 1847, he was a delegate in the Maryland General Assembly. He carried his love of country and belief in public service with him throughout the remainder of his life, going on to serve as a delegate to the State Peace Convention during the Civil War. Mendes was, simply put, a historic marvel. He was a forward thinker, an activist, a consummate public servant, and a proud Jew. He broke down the single greatest barrier to Jewish entry into public life and opened the door for Jews--including me--to pursue public service. Today, as I stand in this Chamber as a U.S. Senator from Maryland, I am struck by the impact of Mendes Cohen's legacy. If I were able to speak to him now, I would tell him: thank you. Thank you for paving the way for me to have it all: my faith, my family, my heritage, and my career in public service. If Mendes were able to speak now, I imagine he would tell us that his work is unfinished. He would encourage us to continue carrying the torch of public engagement and civil service. He would remind us that path toward progress, by its very definition, has no endpoint. These values underpin the broader Jewish community in Maryland and across the country. We learned early in our own history that the tide of oppression and bigotry can rise quickly and that, when it floods one shore, it floods them all. We learned that, when it comes for one community, it spares none. We learned that we must be our own stewards--that pluralism and equality demand constant guardians and that, when prejudice threatens them, nothing but our own tenacity can fend it off. That tenacity is needed now more than ever, as we are confronted by resurgent anti-Semitism in every corner of the world--even here, at home. In the past few months, we have witnessed hate speech targeted at the Jewish community on social media, the ostracism and vilification of Jewish students on college campuses, and attacks against Jewish businesses and synagogues; yet it is precisely because the Jewish community has endured generations of persecution that promoting tolerance, equality, and inclusion has become a central tenant of Jewish American culture. Jewish Americans participated in the abolitionist movement in the 19th century. They joined the ranks of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee during the Civil Rights movement. The partnership between Julius Rosenwald and Booker T. Washington resulted in the construction of thousands of schools for African-American children in the South throughout the 20th Century. Jewish Americans are proud of their history promoting such causes. They are proud of their faith and their heritage, but they are also proud to profess their support of other people's faiths and heritage. They are proud to be guardians of a free and pluralistic society; they are proud to weave love out of millennia of knowing hate. That is the story of Jewish Americans. From Mendes Cohen to the American Jewish community's defense of diversity and inclusion today, every chapter we write, though unique, shares the same theme: progress--progress and equality. Jewish Americans have, therefore, helped make the United States the force for human and equal rights that it is today, but each day, we face challenges to those ideals, challenges that have felt increasingly ominous in recent months; yet this country will remain a beacon for the oppressed and the downtrodden. That beacon will stay lit due, in no small part, to the continued activism and conviction of the Jewish American community. This month, we thank them for that service, as we remind ourselves that our work goes on.

Mr. CARDIN

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

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, on Tuesday President Trump sent his proposed fiscal year 2018 budget to Congress. A budget is supposed to reflect the President's priorities and the values our country holds dear. Unfortunately, President Trump's full budget shows how much disdain he has for supporting American families here at home, how little he values America's strong leadership around the world, and how much he misunderstands the essential role the Federal Government has in keeping our air and water clean, roads and bridges functioning, and the public safe from deadly diseases and other threats. This President's budget shows how much he values corporate profits and polluters over children's health and demonstrates an irrational ignorance of basic principles that have worked for and against the American economy throughout the years. The budget wastes money on a border wall and deportation force that will not make America any safer and will tear apart families and communities. President Trump fails to uphold the promise he made as a candidate to protect American workers and seniors, and he breaks new ground in the level of uncertainty he is willing to inject into our economy, our local communities, and relationships with our historical allies and economic partners. More than any other Presidential budget in recent memory, this budget must be considered dead on arrival. President Trump's full budget for fiscal year 2018 is an exercise in extremism. President Trump wants to ax $610 billion from Medicaid--the program that lifts up America's veterans and the most vulnerable men, women, and children, capping the funding in order to finance tax cuts for big businesses and the wealthiest among us. The budget further slashes the social safety net by cutting the food stamp program and eliminating critical social services programs. It directly hurts children by cutting $6 billion from the Children's Health Insurance Program. The President wants to choke off funding for essential scientific research at the National Institutes of Health and infectious disease detection and response at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, while also slashing funding for key global health initiatives that ensure economic stability. Further demonstrating his misunderstanding of the ripple effect Federal investments can have, the President inexplicably wants to end the economic development assistance programs to rural and economically distressed communities. I was particularly disappointed that he would eliminate the Appalachia Regional Commission, which is very important to the people in the western part of my State as an economic tool that can bring badly needed jobs to Appalachia country. He wants to put the American dream out of reach for would-be homeowners and seekers of safe and affordable housing with the elimination of HUD's rental assistance and homeowner partnership programs. The President calls for shifting more than $143 billion in additional student loan payments to hard-working students and their families. And he recommends ending a vital program that helps first responders, law enforcement, teachers, nurses, librarians, public safety, and military have a chance to reduce the burden of their student loans so that they can continue to serve their communities. The President also continues the ill-conceived Republican assault on Federal workers and retirees with his proposal for wholesale slashing the programs and staff, such as the economic and environmentally important EPA and Chesapeake Bay Program, making it nearly impossible for many departments to carry out their basic mission. I want to talk a few minutes about the foreign assistance budget. I have the privilege of being the ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. In terms of our Nation's foreign policy, if the budget is a reflection of values, then what the Trump administration values is an American retreat from the world that would make the United States less safe and secure. The numbers speak for themselves in the narrow-minded budget release we have received. What is most perplexing about the administration's combined 31.7 percent gutting of international affairs spending--as Secretary Defense Mattis has said: If you don't fund the State Department Diplomacy Center, you had better give the Defense Department more bullets and soldiers. This is counterproductive to making the world a safer place for America. America is safer when the United States helps feed millions of starving people in Africa and the Middle East, helps Europe defend its democratic institutions from Russia interference, helps support countries and international organizations caring for vulnerable refugee populations, helps train farmers and other technical workers, helps lead the world in fighting climate change and promoting global health, and helps fund programs to protect human rights and promote democracy. In each of these areas, the administration has taken a penny-wise and pound-foolish approach that will cost lives abroad and endanger Americans here at home. Each of the programs I mentioned are either eliminated or there are significant cuts, making it impossible for our dedicated Foreign Service officers to carry out the critically important missions they undertake. As I look at the massive spending cuts put forward by the White House for vital national security, it is impossible to conclude that this is anything but an ``America alone'' budget--one that, if enacted, will have disastrous effects on our standing in the world. Luckily, the majority of Members of Congress know this budget is dead on arrival. I look forward to working with like-minded Republican colleagues to make sure nothing remotely close to this budget is enacted. Fortunately, our Founders developed a system of checks and balances with the Constitution providing that Congress appropriates public funds. It is our responsibility to pass the appropriations bill. I intend to do everything within my power to work with Republicans, using the model of the fiscal year 2017 Omnibus appropriations, to prevent enactment of this outlandish executive branch attempt to cripple our economy and do lasting damage to our Nation's global leadership. Congress has a responsibility to ensure that we have a more realistic budget that helps the American public, contributes to genuine economic growth, and furthers America's true values. I want to cite some examples in some areas as to how detrimental this budget is. First of all, there are economic assumptions made by the President's budget that are just not realistic. He assumes there is going to be a 3-percent economic growth rate, which economists tell us is simply not realistic. What does that mean? That means there is about $2 trillion that is being used by economic assumptions which have no justification, meaning that we are going to see significant budget deficits increase if this budget were to become law. The budget double counts some of these gains in order to offset tax reductions. He is putting our economy at risk. In healthcare, the President's budget continues the administration's misguided and ill-conceived efforts to jeopardize the health and well- being of our constituents under the Affordable Care Act. Make no mistake about it, President Trump is trying to make sure that the healthcare system in this country does not work. He is deliberately putting at risk the cautionary provisions that are in the Affordable Care Act, which ensure that many of our constituents have affordable health rates without outrageous deductibles or copays. The Trump administration is jeopardizing that. The Trump administration is jeopardizing the Medicaid system--$610 billion cut in the Medicaid system, which is critically important for some of our most vulnerable people. There are 280,000 Marylanders who gained essential health coverage through the Medicaid expansion who will be left without access to care. There are an estimated 1.25 million Maryland Medicaid enrollees who will no longer be able to depend on benefits like mental health and substance abuse, pediatric dental services, or maternity coverage. Our President is recommending a $6 billion cut in the Children's Health Insurance Program, the CHIP program. That is absolutely outrageous. There is a bipartisan effort in Congress to make sure the children of America have the health they need. Then there is a $7 billion--22-percent--cut in the National Institutes of Health. Democrats and Republicans have come together, recognizing that America has provided the true leadership and basic research to deal with the mysteries of illness, and the President wants to reverse that trend. That will not only cost us in terms of our health advancements, but it will also hurt our economy. The President cuts the funds to the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities. I thought we had made a commitment that we are going to narrow the gap of discrimination in our healthcare system. The President's budget moves in the opposite direction. In Social Services and Social Security, the President, on his campaign trail, promised not to cut the Social Security system. He broke that promise with this budget. These cuts are a ``Robin Hood in reverse'' budget. His cuts in the Supplemental Security Income Program and Social Security Disability Insurance Program will be devastating for low- and modest-income individuals, as well as persons with disabilities and those over 65 years of age. So we have seen cuts to programs the President claimed he would not cut when he was a candidate. The budget cuts nearly $200 billion from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, SNAP, or food stamps, which helps low-income Americans with food purchases. He also cuts the TANF Program, which helps people who are in need of assistance. The budget eliminates the LIHEAP, Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, the Weatherization Assistance Program, and State Energy Program. I guess Donald Trump wants low-income Americans to freeze in the dark. This is shameful and reprehensible. Yes, there is money for some advancements--the advancement of the so- called border wall with Mexico. I visited Mexico just a few months ago. I visited the U.S.-Mexico border. I couldn't find one border security guard, security personnel, who felt that building a wall made any sense. It will not keep out the illegal flow of people or drugs, and it will compromise our ability to work with our neighbors in the south to control immigration and to control drugs. The President's Executive order on immigration and the President's fiscal year 2018 budget ramp up deportation forces inside the United States, which will do more to harm our national security and public safety than to help. We shouldn't be moving in that direction. Legal Services is one of the areas I worked on for a long time with my Republican colleagues to make sure we fund the Legal Services Corporation. The Trump budget completely eliminates that funding. The late Justice Antonin Scalia said at Legal Services Corporation's 40th Anniversary Conference in 2014: ``LSC pursues the most fundamental of American ideals, and it pursues equal justice in those areas of life most important to the lives of our citizens.'' We believe in equal justice under the law. If a person cannot get legal help, they cannot get equal justice under the law. And the President says there is no Federal role for this. I hope that we will soundly reject that. The President's budget eliminates the Community Development Block Grant Program. That is very troubling. Here is one of the more flexible programs we offer the local government in order to be able to make their own decisions, and the President's budget eliminates that program. The President's budget eliminates many of our programs under agriculture, which will hurt our rural areas and hurt our farming community. The budget proposes to eliminate new enrollment in the Conservation Stewardship Program and funding for the Regional Conservation Partnership Program. I am very familiar with the Regional Conservation Partnership Program. It was put in the last farm reauthorization bill. It was done as an effort to help deal with conservation in critically important areas, including the Chesapeake Bay watershed. It is a very important program to preserving our bay and preserving farm land so that we can have both a healthy bay and healthy agriculture. The President eliminates those programs. I could go on and on about agriculture--the many programs that are either severely restricted or eliminated under the President's budget. In education, the fiscal year 2018 budget released by President Trump may be entitled ``A New Foundation for American Greatness,'' but President Trump and Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos have severely undercut our students, educators, and public schools. The budget proposes to eliminate the Preschool Development Grant Program, a program that has successfully placed more than 2,700 additional 4-year- olds in high-quality preschool programs across my State. The vulnerable children in this program get a boost that helps them to lower the achievement gap among students of color, low-income children, and children with disabilities across my State. We should be expanding these programs, not reducing them. And 85 Members of this body voted in favor of the Every Student Succeeds Act and the Student Support and Academic Enrichment Grant Program. That progress is jeopardized by the President's budget. Yes, he finds money for a new program to help school choice programs, which will undermine the progress we have made in public education. Mr. President, 95 percent of our students get their education through the public schools, and that is jeopardized by the $1.25 billion the President has included in his budget for school choice programs. Maryland families understand the value of higher education. For too many, the cost of higher education means that it is difficult, if not impossible, for their children to have the higher education they need. Yet the President's budget takes away some of the tools we have in order to afford higher education. That is just not right. We should be making higher education more affordable, not less affordable. In the environment, the President's proposed budget would eliminate the Chesapeake Bay Program. The Chesapeake Bay Program and related efforts are delivering encouraging results throughout the watershed and have built a tremendous movement forward. Yet President Trump has still targeted them for elimination. The local governments are doing their job in stewardship of the bay. The States are doing their job. Our stakeholders are doing their job. We depend upon the Federal Government to monitor and make sure that the programs are there--that all stakeholders are doing their fair share. The elimination of the Chesapeake Bay Program would jeopardize all of that progress. We cannot let that happen. The President's budget would cut the EPA budget by 31.4 percent, the most severe cut of any major Federal agency. The investment in our Nation's water and waste water infrastructure has been flatlined through this budget proposal. What in the world makes President Trump think that our Nation's drinking water infrastructure shall be kept at status quo? Don't we all remember what happened in Flint, MI? We have discovered similar things in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. In Baltimore, our public school system cannot connect their water fountains to the water supply because of lead contamination. We need to have a greater commitment to make sure that the water supply to America is safe. Under the budget, the Office of Compliance would be cut by one-third of its budget. That is EPA not being able to enforce the law. Aren't we a country of the rule of law? You would not think so under President Trump's budget. The President's budget also does not contain a critical infrastructure plan. We heard that during the campaign. But nowhere in this budget is he providing for that increase. Instead, it proposes cuts in some of the highway trust programs. Every day, civil servants perform countless tasks that help support and defend and protect America. Civil servants are saving lives, empowering small businesses, keeping America safe from harm, and otherwise ensuring a safe and prosperous future for our country, including our children and families. We know that our Federal employees often perform the type of work that no one else can do. It is a highly qualified Federal workforce. On May 5, Donald Trump issued a proclamation declaring May 7 through 13, 2017, as Public Service Recognition Week. He stated: Throughout my first 100 days, I have seen the tremendous work civil servants do to fulfill our duty to the American people. At all levels of government, our public servants put our country and our people first. He has a bizarre way of showing his appreciation. Earlier this week, he released a budget that punishes Federal workers by making them pay much more for their pensions, an additional $5,000 for an average Federal worker, while making these pensions much smaller. The relentless assault on the Federal workforce must end. The civilian workforce was smaller last year than it was 40 years ago, according to data from the Office of Personnel Management. Federal workers increasingly have been asked to do more and more with less and less. They have already sacrificed financially, contributing $190 billion to deficit reduction just since 2011. Workers hired in 2012 already are paying more for smaller pensions. Sequestration-related furloughs cost Federal workers $1 billion in lost pay, and there was a 3-year pay freeze from 2011 to 2013, and substandard rises since then. Salaries and wages have fallen 6.5 percent since 2010, adjusted for inflation. Now comes the latest attack on the Federal worker's pension, on top of continued attacks on pay, healthcare and other benefits, collective bargaining, and due process rights. President Trump would eliminate the annual cost of living adjustments for people in the Federal Employees Retirement System, including current retirees, and reduce them by half a percentage point for people in the old Civil Service Retirement System, including current retirees. According to certified financial planner Art Stein, the annuity would lose one-third of its value over 20 years if inflation averages between 2 and 3 percent annually, and nearly half of its value if inflation averages 4 percent. According to the National Active and Retired Federal Employees Association, the average FERS annuitant would lose $99,471 over 20 years, and the average CSRS annuitant would lose $60,576 over 20 years under the Trump budget. That is outrageous. That is outrageous. We are talking about people who are already retired. They can't reenter the workforce. They have no choice. Yet we are telling them that they are not going to get what we promised. It is important to understand that 85 percent of the Federal workforce is located beyond the Washington metropolitan area. Federal workers are in big cities and small towns across America, striving to make things better for their neighbors. Do we really want to engage in a race to the bottom with respect to our Federal workers? These are the people who make sure our parents' Social Security checks arrive on time. They make sure the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the food we eat are safe. They are trying to find a cure for our spouse's cancer and our sibling's type 1 diabetes. They support our sons and daughters in harm's way, and they care for the wounded warriors at home. They patrol our borders and discover and disrupt terrorist threats aimed at our community. They are working to ensure that our grandchildren inherit a habitable climate. When we punish Federal workers--30 percent of whom are veterans, by the way--we are not just harming them and their families, but we are harming each and every American. I intend to do everything within my power to work with Republicans, using the model of the fiscal year 2017 omnibus appropriations, to prevent the enactment of this dangerous executive branch attempt to cripple our economy and do lasting damage to our Nation's global leadership. Congress has the responsibility to ensure that we have a more realistic budget that helps the American public, contributes to genuine economic growth, and furthers America's true values. I yield the floor.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, shortly we will be voting on cloture on the nomination of John Sullivan, the nominee to be Deputy Secretary of State, and as the ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I urge my colleagues to support the cloture motion and support the nomination of John Sullivan to be the next Deputy Secretary of State.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I join the Senator from Iowa in supporting Governor Branstad as our next Ambassador to China. I have the opportunity of being the ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. I knew of Governor Branstad's reputation as the Governor of Iowa--that he was well thought of and that his leadership was recognized not only by the people of his State but in our Nation. So I was, before the nomination was made, impressed by his dedication to public service. I then had a chance to meet with him in my office. I must tell you that I was extremely impressed about how he was prepared to move on to be the Ambassador to China and how he spoke in favor of our strong ideals. We then had a confirmation hearing in our committee, and that very much confirmed his knowledge of the challenges that he has, his dedication to public service, and that he would be a strong advocate for American values. So I support his nomination and I urge my colleagues to confirm Governor Branstad. As Senator Ernst pointed out, our mission in China is a particularly important international responsibility. We know that China plays a significant role--maybe even a dominating role--in regard to North Korea and in trying to get North Korea to give up its nuclear arsenal. We also know that China has a very checkered record on protecting the human rights of its own citizens. We have major trade issues between the United States and China, in which our Ambassador needs to be engaged to protect American commercial interests. We have the continuing saga between Taiwan and China and living up to our commitments to protect the integrity of Taiwan. Then, we have a very dangerous situation in the South China Sea, where China has done many provocative activities that will require the diplomacy of our Ambassador in Beijing in order to encourage the use of the rule of law in direct negotiations between the parties and not claiming territory by provocative actions. So, for all of those issues, we need an experienced Ambassador in China to represent our interests. What really impressed me about Governor Branstad is that I do believe he has a passion for American values. I particularly appreciated his willingness--and would even say he was anxious--to represent American and global interests for China's improving their human rights record and dealing with the right of religious minorities, dealing with the right of dissent, and dealing with the right of free expression and the press. He very much spoke about the need for the rule of law. So while we welcome the emergence of a prosperous China, we want one that follows international institutional laws and norms. That is going to be the challenge for our next Ambassador. Let me comment on what I believe the Trump administration is doing that is going to make our next Ambassador's responsibilities even more challenging than perhaps they should be; that is, that we have seen already that in the discussions between President Xi and President Trump with respect to North Korea, it seems like the Trump administration is prepared to give up some of our American values in order to make progress with regard to North Korea, such as our interests in our American workers, our interests in the South China Sea, in maritime security, our relationship with Taiwan, and human rights, et cetera. That would be a bad deal. Yes, we want North Korea to be under control and to give up its nuclear weapons. Yes, we want China to exercise a much stronger role in convincing North Korea that it is in their interests to give up their nuclear weapon program. We want to do that. There are ways we can. It is in China's interests that North Korea give up its nuclear weapon ambition. They want a nonnuclear Korean Peninsula. We should not trade our values in order for that to be able to occur. The second matter, which I have talked about on the floor before, that is going to make it more difficult for our next Ambassador is the President's continued unwillingness to comply with the emoluments clause of the Constitution. As I have said on the floor before, every President before President Trump either divested of their conflicted ownership of assets or they set up a blind trust, but Mr. Trump did not. Shortly after his election, the Trump organization received trademarks through the Chinese Government that they had been unsuccessful in obtaining for years, in which they have spent literally hundreds of thousands of dollars if not more in legal fees. All of a sudden, 1 week after the President is elected, the Chinese Government grants these trademarks. It is hard to believe that the fact that they were dealing with the President of the United States did not weigh into decisions made by the Chinese Government. But it does not end there. We also know that a member of his family was in China to sell the EB-5 visas. That, again, presented a direct conflict. We actually know that his daughter received three new trademarks in an incredibly speedy turnaround--the same night that the daughter had dinner with President Xi. These things don't look good. The emoluments clause is where a foreign government tries to influence our President through doing favors. It is going to be very difficult for the American people--in fact, very difficult for the international community--to believe that it was not, in part, due to the position that Mr. Trump holds that these actions took place. That violates our Constitution. That is wrong. The bottom line is that our next Ambassador is going to have to deal with those issues. We have a hard enough assignment in dealing with North Korea, trade, the South China Sea, Taiwan, and human rights to throw in these additional hurdles. So I urge my colleagues to support Mr. Branstad's nomination. I believe that he is well-qualified to represent this country. I hope the Trump administration will give him a stronger hand to play. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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