Benjamin Cardin

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise as the ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to comment on the nomination of Mr. Friedman to be the U.S. Ambassador to Israel. Shortly, we will be having that vote. I consider the U.S.-Israel relationship to be a strategic anchor for the United States in the Middle East and one of our most important relationships with any country. Since the creation of the State of Israel, support for this relationship has been bipartisan, bicameral, and supported by successive U.S. administrations. This bilateral relationship is also sustained by the deep bonds of friendship between the people of our two countries. This relationship has benefited Israel and has benefited the United States. Given the range of strategic challenges across the globe that our country faces and the unprecedented instability and violence embroiled in the Middle East today, it is critical that we take steps to unify support for the U.S.-Israel relationship across the political spectrum. Thus, I believe it is vital that the U.S. Ambassador to Israel be seen as a unifying figure in this enduring relationship. I really do believe that there is broad understanding and support in the Senate and the House for the special relationship between the United States and Israel--Israel, the only true democracy in the Middle East, a country that we can rely on for important intelligence information and that has an economy which is similar to ours. It is a country that has enjoyed a special relationship with the United States since 1948, when Harry Truman recognized Israel after the historic vote at the United Nations. Following extensive consideration of Mr. Friedman's record and taking into account his statements during his nomination hearing, I have concluded that his past record would make it very difficult for him to serve as that unifying force. For that reason, I am unable to support his nomination as America's top diplomat in Israel. I appreciate Mr. Friedman's efforts before the committee to express regret for his substantial record of divisive, inflammatory, and offensive statements. Unfortunately, I believe the body of Mr. Friedman's published works, not to mention his public statements, will compromise his effectiveness in representing the United States and all Americans, as well as the Government of Israel and all Israelis. Taken together, Mr. Friedman's statements and affiliations make it clear that he does not believe a two-state solution is necessary for a just and lasting peace. I am concerned that Mr. Friedman's history on this issue, in which he calls the two-state solution a scam, will undermine his ability to represent the United States as a credible facilitator of the peace process. There is simply no realistic, sustainable prospect for lasting peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians other than as two states, living side by side, with security. I thank Chairman Corker for the manner in which this nomination was handled before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. I think we had ample opportunity, and I thank Chairman Corker for that, but I do urge my colleagues to reject this nominee. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about a bill that I have introduced. I have introduced it in prior Congresses. But I think it is particularly important in this Congress. It is the End Racial and Religious Profiling Act of 2017. I am proud to have many of my colleagues as cosponsors of this legislation, including Senators Baldwin, Blumenthal, Booker, Brown, Cantwell, Coons, Duckworth, Durbin, Feinstein, Franken, Gillibrand, Harris, Heinrich, Hirono, Kaine, Markey, Menendez, Merkley, Murphy, Murray, Sanders, Stabenow, Udall, Van Hollen, Wyden, and Warren. In the House of Representatives, the bill's principal sponsor is Congressman Conyers. It is needed now more than ever before. I say that for many reasons, one of which is that we have seen a large increase in hate crimes in our community. Yesterday I was on the phone with a father from Harford County, MD, whose son was the victim of a hate episode related to that person's religion and ethnic background. We have seen in our community a large increase in hate crimes against the Jewish community. There have been a lot of bomb threats that have been called into Jewish schools and to the Jewish Community Centers. We have seen physical attacks and the desecration of cemeteries. So the minority community feels threatened. That has been escalating as a result of the actions of our President and his Executive orders. The Executive orders--he has issued two now that are dealing with the immigrant community--do raise the temperature in our community and the concern in our community that people are being threatened because of their religion, threatened because of their ethnic background, threatened because of their status as part of an immigrant community. All of that has added to the concerns in America today. The legislation that I have introduced would make it illegal for discriminatory policing--for police to use as an indicator for their actions a person's race, religion, or ethnic background. Discriminatory policing is against our values. Quite frankly, it is not what we stand for as a nation. We don't target people because of their religion. I will always remember that shortly after the Trayvon episode, I met with community activists in Baltimore. Many told me examples of how they were with their parents when the police stopped them randomly, for no reason at all, but solely because of the person's race and how communities felt threatened as a result of it. It is not what we stand for as a nation. It turns communities against police, rather than working with the police. It is a waste of resources. It does not work. It can be deadly as we have seen in too many communities in our Nation. In my own city of Baltimore, we had the episode concerning Freddie Gray, who died in police custody. I went to Sandtown, where Freddie Gray came from, shortly after that episode and met with the community, and I heard comparable stories about how good community activists felt like they were betraying their community if they worked with the local police, because they said the system was just stacked against their community and their race. So let me, if I might, quote from the Department of Justice report on the Freddie Gray case. Our congressional delegation asked for a pattern or practice investigation. In part of that investigation, they came out with this finding: There is overwhelming statistical evidence of racial disparities in Baltimore Police Department's (BPD's) stops, searches, and arrests. . . . BPD officers subject African- Americans to a disproportionate number of pedestrian and vehicles stops on Baltimore streets and search African- Americans disproportionately during these stops. . . . The policing practices that cause the racial disparities in BPD's stops, searches, and arrests, along with evidence suggesting intentional discrimination against African-Americans, undermine the community trust that is central to effective policing. . . . Indeed, we heard from many community members who were reluctant to engage with the officers because of their belief that the Department treats African-Americans unfairly. . . . These concerns were acknowledged by BPD leadership and officers, who explained that lack of trust-- particularly in many of Baltimore's African-American communities--inhibit officers' efforts to build relationships that are a key component of effective policing. . . . I say that because racial profiling--discriminatory profiling--is ineffective and is counterproductive. It actually makes communities less safe. I have the honor of being the Special Representative for Anti-Semitism, Racism and Intolerance in the OSCE, or the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe's Parliamentary Assembly. In that capacity, I have identified four major areas of concern within the 57 countries that represent the OSCE, including the United States. Those priorities are discriminatory actions against the Muslim community, the rise of anti-Semitism, the concerns of discrimination against the immigrant community, and also the concerns on discriminatory policing. Discriminatory policing is very much engaged in our concerns about the rise of anti-Semitism, racism, and intolerance. Now, I want to make it clear: The overwhelming majority of people in law enforcement are good people. They are professionals. They are trying to do their job. They are against racial profiling. But we need to protect the professionalism within the police departments and establish a national policy against racial profiling. My legislation is supported by over 1,150 organizations. Let me just, if I might, mention a couple of those, by quoting their leaders. Wade Henderson, president and CEO of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, who supports this legislation said: Discriminatory profiling is wrong, fosters distrust between law enforcement and the communities they serve and puts public safety at risk. Racial profiling infringes on civil liberties and squanders resources that should be used instead to catch criminal perpetrators. We urge his colleagues to join Senator Cardin and stand for effective law enforcement by supporting [this legislation]. Jennifer Bellamy, the ACLU legislative counsel, who also supports this legislation, said: For centuries, discriminatory profiling practices have harmed communities of color. It is not enough to be `against' racism and racial profiling, we need national leaders to end discriminatory practices. We know that profiling of any kind is ineffective and diverts law enforcement's time, money, and energy away from actual threats. The time is now to end racial profiling once and for all. Then, lastly, Hilary Shelton, the director of the NAACP Washington Bureau and the senior vice president for policy and advocacy said: This important legislation takes concrete steps to put an end to the insidious practice of profiling individuals by federal, state and local levels based on physical attributes or an individual's religion. It is difficult for our faith in the American criminal justice system not to be challenged when we cannot walk down the street, drive down an interstate, go through an airport, or even enter into our own homes without being stopped merely because of the color of our skin, who we are perceived to be, or what we choose to wear. I could mention many of the other groups and many other quotes. This legislation is pretty straightforward. It establishes a national uniform standard against discriminatory profiling at all levels of law enforcement--State, local Federal. For example, it tells us that we can't use as descriptors a person's race. We can do so when we are using it to describe a particular crime, but not as a predictor of future crimes. Let me close by quoting from Ron Davis, the former police chief of East Palo Alto, CA, where he said: [T]here exists no national, standardized definition for racial profiling that prohibits all uses of race, national origin, and religion, except when describing a person. Consequently, many state and local policies define racial profiling as using race as the ``sole'' basis for a stop or any police action. This definition is misleading in that it suggests using race as a factor for anything other than a description is justified, which it is not. Simply put, race is a descriptor not a predictor. To use race along with other salient descriptors when describing someone who just committed a crime is appropriate. That is what this legislation does. It establishes a national definition. It prohibits it in any form of policing in our country. It provides for training. It provides Federal grants for best practices. It requires the Attorney General to issue reports. It is legislation that is needed in our country. Former Attorney General Eric Holder adopted it at the national level, and he said: In this Nation, security and liberty are--at their best-- partners, not enemies, in ensuring safety and opportunity for all. . . . In this Nation, the document that sets forth the supreme law of the land--the Constitution--is meant to empower, not exclude. . . . Racial profiling is wrong. It can leave a lasting scar on communities and individuals. And it is, quite simply, bad policing--whatever city, whatever state. The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees ``equal protection of the laws'' to all Americans. Racial and discriminatory profiling is abhorrent to those principles, and it should be ended once and for all. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize the productive partnership between the United States and Costa Rica. I recently had the chance to meet with President Guillermo Solis, and I can attest that this is a bilateral relationship strengthened by Costa Rica's unwavering support for democracy and human rights, comprehensive economic relations, and a deep-rooted commitment to security and the environment. Since 1851, the United States has enjoyed formal diplomatic relations with Costa Rica, one of Latin America's most enduring democracies, and the close cooperation between our two countries is an example of how international engagement consistently advances U.S. national interests and national security. In recent years, Costa Rica has become one of the United States' most strategic security partners in Central America. In 2016, in response to the challenges of increasing cocaine trafficking in the region, President Solis's administration developed a security strategy that sets aggressive goals to expand its capacity to control Costa Rica's sovereign airspace and maritime territory. Last year, Costa Rica seized more than 24,000 kilos of cocaine that were ultimately bound to the United States. Despite a difficult fiscal situation, Costa Rica is projected to increase its investment in security by 20 percent in 2017. I commend the Obama administration's decision to donate two Island-class cutters to the Costa Rican Coast Guard, which will greatly boost Costa Rica's capacity to combat the narcotics trade. This also serves as a reminder of the strategic value of the State Department's security cooperation at a time when the Trump administration is proposing shortsighted cuts to our foreign assistance budget. Additionally, I want to call attention to Costa Rica's collaboration with the United States in addressing the humanitarian challenges related to individuals fleeing violence in Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras. Between 2013 and 2016, the number of migrants from these three countries who have requested asylum in Costa Rica more than quadrupled, a dramatic increase that reflects the urgency of the situation in Central America. In a clear demonstration of President Solis's leadership on these issues, Costa Rica and the United States signed an agreement with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, UNHCR, to establish a relocation and processing facility in Costa Rica for up to 200 at-risk migrants at a time from Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras. This critical screening provides immediate protection for those most vulnerable and opens opportunities for these individuals to be relocated to third countries. Our joint agreement with UNHCR is but one example of U.S. and Costa Rican collaboration at multilateral fora. Costa Rica has consistently voted with the United States at the United Nations on critical issues related to Syria, North Korea, and Ukraine. In the past year, Costa Rica has also used its voice and vote at the Organization of American States to express concern about the growing challenges to democracy and human rights in Venezuela. Furthermore, in August 2016, Costa Rica's commitment to human rights was on display when it became the first country to ratify the Inter- American Convention against Racism, Racial Discrimination and Related Forms of Intolerance--an important step toward a more just and egalitarian society within the Americas. The convention reinforces international standards on all forms of discrimination, reaffirms the commitment of member states of the OAS to the complete and unconditional eradication of racism, and takes a step forward in the legal definition of contemporary forms of racism. As a champion of environmental stewardship, Costa Rica has made great strides to develop renewable energy. Costa Rica recently set an ambitious carbon neutrality goal for 2021 and is well positioned to achieve this important objective. The country recently ran 75 days straight on renewable power, and, with continued foreign investment and U.S. diplomatic assistance, Costa Rica is on its way to becoming a carbon-neutral nation. I am hopeful that our diplomatic mission to Costa Rica will continue to support the country's interest in being a leader in the fight against climate change. Helping Costa Rica realize innovations in its power sector helps foster a broader strategic partnership with an important neighbor in our hemisphere. At a moment characterized by the Trump administration's isolationist rhetoric, it is critically important to recognize that the United States is safer when we cooperate with other countries in the region to fight the battle against organized crime and illegal drug-trafficking. At the same time, Costa Rica's cooperation with the United Nations to support orderly and lawful migration, its collaboration with its neighbors in the region, and its efforts to promote human rights regionally are worthy of our commendation. Costa Rica is a true partner of the United States, and it is imperative that we continue to strengthen and expand the cooperation between our two countries to promote more security, prosperity, and stability in Central America and across the hemisphere.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize the three decades of distinguished service journalist Steve Hammond has provided to the citizens of Maryland's Eastern Shore and the viewers of WBOC-TV 16 in Salisbury, MD, ``Delmarva's News Leader.'' Steve Hammond is a Maryland native, raised in Towson's Rodgers Forge neighborhood. He learned many of life's lessons on the football and lacrosse fields before graduating from the University of Delaware with a degree in mass communications. Since his mother, sister, and brother have all been involved in television production, it is no surprise, perhaps, that Steve gravitated toward the business of broadcasting and interned for several stations. He discovered he felt most at home in the newsroom and was drawn particularly to the variety of daily reporting. In 1985, after working without pay for 2 weeks to illustrate his potential value, Steve was hired by WHYY, a PBS affiliate in Philadelphia, PA. Two years later, on March 23, 1987, he joined WBOC-TV to serve as the first bureau chief for Dover, DE. It was there that he first began to anchor news broadcasts. It was a role, it turned out, which suited him perfectly. Today Steve Hammond is WBOC-TV's main anchor and managing editor. He has become a household name in the region, having covered countless elections, major crisis, and natural disasters. Steve has flown with the Blue Angels and interviewed U.S. Presidents. He also has filed reports from several foreign countries to tell the stories of local troops in harm's way in Iraq and Somalia. Steve is highly respected in his field and has been widely recognized, winning innumerable awards, including a prestigious national Edward R. Murrow Award and distinctions from the Associated Press and Radio Television News Directors Association; yet Steve is characteristically modest about his accomplishments. If he were inclined to brag about anything, it probably would be about his beloved family--his sons Graham and Hunter, and his wife, Heather, who are his favorite companions for a day at the beach. Steve Hammond is deeply invested in his community and has volunteered for many years for numerous charitable organizations, including Junior Achievement, March of Dimes, Easter Seals, Big Brothers/Big Sisters and The Salvation Army. He has helped spearhead The Salvation Army's Red Kettle Holiday Campaign on the Eastern Shore of Maryland. He also serves as a member of the board of trustees for Worcester Preparatory School in Berlin, MD, and is a member of Trinity United Methodist Church in Salisbury. Steve's coworkers, friends, and audience appreciate the dedication, service, and leadership he shown professionally and privately throughout his career. As he enters his fourth decade at WBOC-TV 16, I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Steve Hammond on 30 years of exemplary work and community service and wishing him all the best in the years ahead.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to extend my appreciation to a dedicated public servant at the Congressional Research Service, CRS, of the Library of Congress, Ms. Nina M. Serafino. Ms. Serafino recently retired after more than 35 years of service to Congress. This length of public service is not only a credit to Ms. Serafino, but also a demonstration of the dedication that she and many other CRS employees bring to support our work here in Congress. During Ms. Serafino's 35 years with CRS, she provided Congress with many types of assistance to help inform national policymaking on a variety of war and peace issues. From 1981, when she joined CRS, through the 1980s, she was deeply involved in bipartisan efforts to evaluate U.S. policy in Central America. Her work focused on providing a common understanding of the problems and possibilities in the region in order to shape U.S. options and alternatives. Particularly noteworthy was her original research on aspects of the Central American conflicts where there was a little or no information available from other sources. Responding to a congressional request, she conducted field research and delved into the Library of Congress's historical materials to provide a unique report on the many parties of the civic opposition to the Sandinista government in Nicaragua. Similarly, her field research on the Latin American ``Contadora'' effort significantly informed congressional deliberations regarding the peace process to end the conflicts in Nicaragua and El Salvador. With the advent of U.S. military involvement in peacekeeping operations in the Balkans and elsewhere beginning in the 1990s, Ms. Serafino contributed to congressional efforts to comprehend the plethora of institutional and budgetary considerations relevant to our government's ability to bring its full toolbox to bear in those operations. Providing information and analysis through reports, briefings, and several comprehensive conferences and workshops for Members and staff, Ms. Serafino assisted Congress in understanding the possibilities, constraints, and options for legislating and overseeing military and civilian tools and the development of interagency resources and mechanisms. As Congress sought to comprehend and deal with the post-9/11 world, Ms. Serafino supplemented targeted CRS work on Afghanistan and Iraq with conferences and reports that brought an historical perspective to congressional deliberations. The conferences and reports provided insights on a wide variety of international experiences in dealing with terrorism and contained historical information and pertinent analysis on previous U.S. interventions and occupations. Over the past decade, Ms. Serafino also developed a number of products on security assistance and cooperation. Most recently, as the U.S. Government has expanded U.S. military efforts to build partner capacity among foreign security forces worldwide, Ms. Serafino contributed an historical perspective on U.S. security assistance and cooperation development in the post-World War II period to inform our deliberations on an evolving legislative framework for such assistance. Her written work on post-9/11 topics has enlightened both Congress and the broader foreign policy and defense communities. Throughout Ms. Serafino's career, she won the respect and admiration of her colleagues for her geniality and expertise on Latin America and international security affairs. She won a Distinguished Service Award and several Merit Service and Special Achievement awards. Her steadfast dedication to serve Congress and her commitment to the highest standards of research made a lasting contribution to congressional policy discourse. I have said many times that the Federal workforce is a critical national asset. Ms. Serafino and the other talented and dedicated public servants at CRS are yet another example. While we will miss her contributions, I know my colleagues will want to join me in sending our best wishes to Ms. Serafino for a happy retirement.

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 have a tremendous amount of respect for Lieutenant General McMaster and a great deal of admiration for his willingness to answer the call of service for his Nation as National Security Advisor. So I want to be clear that none of my comments are intended as a reflection on General McMaster himself. But I am greatly concerned about the current state of the organization that General McMaster is being asked to run and that the way in which the President and his senior advisers appear to be running it is creating great risk for our Nation. The President's first National Security Advisor, who lasted less than a month in office, had failed to register as a foreign agent, a job that he held throughout the Presidential campaign and into the transition--so much for America first. The initial Executive order structuring the National Security Council system for the new administration deliberately omitted the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and the Director of National Intelligence from the Principals Committee--in other words, a National Security Council without the insight and guidance of our intelligence community or military. Every administration can structure the White House as it sees fit, but national security without intelligence or military advice is, frankly, mind-boggling. At the same time, the NSC was to include Steve Bannon, the President's political adviser. Although previous White Houses have had staff from outside the NSC sit in on NSC meetings on occasion and as appropriate, never before has an administration suggested that the NSC's work of safeguarding our Nation be subordinate to the political goals of safeguarding a President's political position and public opinion ratings. Alongside the NSC, this White House has established a so-called Strategic Initiatives Group under Mr. Bannon, which is reportedly undertaking strategic reviews of U.S. policy on sensitive issues-- including U.S.-Russia relations. Running a shadow NSC with crossing lines of jurisdiction and authority seems like a recipe for disaster. So all of this has created an environment of dysfunction and an organization in severe distress. It is one thing to run a family real estate company this way, but this is our national security that is at stake. If there is a crisis tonight--on the Korean Peninsula, with Russia, in the Middle East or Persian Gulf--it is far from clear that the NSC is in a position to provide our senior policymakers with the options they need and the decision-space necessary to safeguard America in a dangerous and unpredictable world. I wish General McMaster all the best, but hope that he is approaching the challenges of his job with clear-eyed conviction.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I take this time to talk about the Republican American Health Care Act that was released, I guess, about a week or two ago, affectionately known as TrumpCare. I start by saying, what is this legislation trying to achieve? When I listen to the Republicans talk about why they have introduced this bill, what their concern is with the Affordable Care Act, they usually mention their No. 1 concern is to deal with the increased premium costs that Americans have had under the Affordable Care Act. They normally will point to the individual marketplace, where we have seen increases in premium costs as the market has adjusted to the ratings of those who entered the individual marketplace. So it was very interesting, as I took a look at the Congressional Budget Office analysis of what the Republican TrumpCare bill would do. The Congressional Budget Office, let me remind my colleagues, is the objective scorekeeper. The leader of the Congressional Budget Office was appointed by the Republican leadership. It is the professional career people who make their best judgment of the impact of legislation that we are considering. Remember, the Republicans have said their principal objective is to bring down the cost, particularly for those entering the individual marketplace, but according to the Congressional Budget Office, in 2018- 19, the average rate in the individual marketplace will increase by 15 to 20 percent. Let me say that again. The Congressional Budget Office tells us the premium increases under TrumpCare will increase for the individual 15 to 20 percent. Now, that could be a lot higher. That is the average. So let me give you the number. If you happen to be 64 years of age, with an income of $26,500, under the Affordable Care Act, you would pay $1,700 in premiums. Under TrumpCare, you would pay $14,600, or a 750-percent increase. That would equal to about 55 percent of your income in the health insurance premiums. Obviously, that is not affordable. A person of that age and income would have no ability to purchase insurance at an affordable rate under the American Health Care Act or TrumpCare. Let me take a look at some other reasons why we may be looking at this repeal-and-replacement bill. I listened to the President. I listened to my colleagues, and they say, first, they want to make sure they do no harm, that everyone will be at least as well off as they are today, and that there would be more choice to the consumers in buying health insurance. Once again, I point to the Congressional Budget Office, the objective scorekeepers. What would happen if TrumpCare were enacted? What would happen as far as individuals who currently have health insurance today? According to the Congressional Budget Office, next year, 2018, there would be 14 million less people insured than there are under the Affordable Care Act. If you project that out to 2026, they indicate there would be 24 million more people who would lose their insurance. Let me quote from The Baltimore Sun in this morning's editorial, where they pointed out that number: Twenty-four million would equal all the residents of Utah, Mississippi, Arkansas, Nevada, Kansas, Nebraska, West Virginia, Idaho, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Alaska, Wyoming combined would have no insurance coverage. That is what 24 million represent in America. Clearly, this bill is not carrying out the commitment to do no harm because 24 million more Americans will certainly be in worse shape. Then I heard the President talk about the fact that he wants to do no harm to the Medicare Program or the Medicaid Program. I took a look again at what this bill does in regard to Medicare because the bill repeals the tax on high income; that is, there is currently in law a tax for unearned income above $250,000, a tax that goes into the Medicare trust fund, Part A. The TrumpCare repeals that tax. Therefore, the Medicare trust fund doesn't get the income. That would reduce the solvency of the Medicare trust fund by 3 years, jeopardizing the Medicare system. Clearly, if this bill was aimed at not hurting Medicare, it hasn't achieved that purpose. Let's talk a little about Medicaid. What does this bill do to Medicaid? According to the Congressional Budget Office, it shifts hundreds of billions of dollars from the Federal Government to our States. Our States clearly cannot handle that. I have heard from my Governor. I am sure my colleagues heard from our other Governors. There is no possibility that they could pick up that. The Medicaid Program will be in very serious jeopardy of being able to continue anything like it is today. For Maryland--the State I have the honor of representing--the passage of TrumpCare would jeopardize the over 289,000 Marylanders who have received insurance coverage as a result of Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act. They very well would lose their coverage. What does that mean? Well, they better stay well because they are not going to get preventive healthcare covered by insurance. They are less likely to get their preventive healthcare services and the screenings, and, yes, they will return once again to use the emergency room of hospitals as their last resort in order to get their family's healthcare needs met--the most expensive way to get healthcare in our Nation. With the elimination of essential health benefits for Medicaid expansion enrollees, what does that mean? That means the Medicaid population--which in Maryland is hundreds of thousands of people--would lose their essential health benefits, which includes mental health and addiction services. We are in the midst of an opioid drug addiction epidemic in America. I have traveled my entire State and have had roundtables with law enforcement and health officials, and they tell me about the growing number of addictions in their community. One of the things they need to do is to be able to get people care and treatment, and we are saying we are going to cut off treatment for millions of Americans. That is what TrumpCare would do, cutting off those benefits. This bill would shift costs. What do I mean by that? Well, it adds costs to the healthcare system. If an individual stays healthy and uses our healthcare system the way they should, it is a lot less costly than entering our healthcare system in a more acute fashion or using our emergency rooms rather than using healthcare providers who are a lot less expensive and more efficient. So we are going to add to the cost of our healthcare system because of inefficiencies. Many times that extra cost is not paid for by those who have no health insurance; the fact is, it becomes part of what we call uncompensated care. We had that before the Affordable Care Act. With the increase in uncompensated care, all of us who have insurance will pay more because we are going to pay for the people who don't have health insurance, who use the healthcare system and don't pay for the healthcare system. That is a formula for extra costs for all of us. This legislation would be an attack on women's healthcare. It would attack and eliminate not only the funding for Planned Parenthood, which is critically important in many parts of our country where they are the only healthcare provider for women's healthcare needs, but also eliminate essential health benefits for Medicaid expansion enrollees, which include maternal health. Those guarantees that exist today would no longer be there. With the pressure on the States, it is unlikely that they would be able to maintain the same degree of coverage for our women. Women are more likely to be vulnerable and on Medicaid. It is an attack on our elderly. I have already talked about Medicare solvency, reducing Medicare solvency by 3 years, but there are more attacks than that. Over half--I think it is 60 to 65 percent of the cost of Medicaid goes to senior care, long-term care or to care for individuals with disabilities. Most families in America get their costs covered for long-term care through Medicaid. The States are not going to be able to maintain the same level of coverage with the loss of hundreds of billions of dollars of Federal funds. Our seniors and individuals with disabilities will be in jeopardy of losing a lot of their long-term care coverage. The legislation, TrumpCare, increases the loss ratios for older people from 3 to 1 to 5 to 1. That increases the cost dramatically for older Americans. That is one of the reasons the AARP opposes the legislation. Let me quote them: This bill would weaken Medicare's fiscal sustainability, dramatically increase healthcare costs for Americans age 50 to 64, and put at risk the healthcare of millions of children and adults with disabilities and poor seniors who depend on the Medicaid program for long-term care services and support and other benefits. That is AARP. I already talked about the Congressional Budget Office being a neutral observer. The AARP, of course, is interested in what impact it has on our elderly population. They very clearly say that they are being put at risk. Let me also talk about affordability. When you have a person who can no longer afford coverage--I already mentioned that person 64 years of age who would have to pay 55 percent of their income in order to get health coverage. That person can't afford coverage. Let's say that person is relatively healthy, so they go without insurance. Well, they need insurance. Maybe someone is young and decides not to get health coverage; they will get it when they need it. There is a 30-percent surtax if you don't keep insurance. That is going to keep people out of the health insurance marketplace who desperately need healthcare. Once again I am going to quote from the Sun paper. The Baltimore Sun really summed it up fairly well, particularly with their attack on the Congressional Budget Office. I think that is a very unfair attack. We all obviously take issue at times with the estimates of the Congressional Budget Office, but it is the objective scorekeeper. It has the most accurate assessments we get on legislation we consider here. That is why we created the Congressional Budget Office--to give us that advice. The Sun paper, in their editorial this morning, said: Small wonder that President Donald Trump and certain Republican leaders were busy bad-mouthing the CBO even before its report came out. The last thing they needed is the nonpartisan number crunchers to offer an informed view instead of the usual political caterwauling about the ``failings'' of the Affordable Care Act. And this is particularly rich: Republicans say the CBO blew ObamaCare estimates years ago when it was circumstances well beyond the CBO's control that caused analysts to incorrectly predict ObamaCare enrollment. Should analysts have expected the Supreme Court to deem the Medicaid expansion optional and GOP-controlled States to refuse to accept it? Were they mistaken to assume Congress could actually follow the law and fund programs to stabilize state insurance exchanges? Might the CBO be off-target again? Absolutely. But it's at least as likely that the office is low-balling the most damaging effects of TrumpCare as it is potentially over- stating the harm. The Congressional Budget Office is as close to an umpire as exists in Washington. It has certainly been a lot more on target than the Trump administration, which has consistently misled Americans on almost everything from the definition of ``wiretapping'' to the claims of ``millions of illegal voters'' casting ballots in the last election. Even those overstated ObamaCare enrollment estimates were closer to being on the nose than those produced by the CBO's fellow forecasters at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and RAND Corporation. Once again, Mr. Trump and his minions have been caught making up facts. The President promised the ObamaCare replacement would provide insurance for everyone and it would be less expensive. Nobody can make that claim about TrumpCare. As the CBO points out, premiums will rise 15-20 percent overall for the first two years, and more for older Americans. The American public expects us to work together to improve our healthcare system. Instead of repealing and replacing the Affordable Care Act with this legislation that will put us in much worse shape, we should be looking at how we can build on the progress we have made under the Affordable Care Act. Yes, we can bring down costs. Let's bring down costs by taking on the cost of prescription drugs. We know that Americans overpay on prescription drugs. There is bipartisan support in the Senate to pass legislation using America's buying power to help our consumers pay less for prescription costs. Yes, we should have more competition with insurance carriers. Why not have a public option and see how well the private companies can compete with a public option? Yes, we can improve the way we deliver care and make it more cost- effective. We, in a bipartisan manner, went down that path in the last Congress under the Comprehensive Recovery and Addiction Act and the 21st Century Cures Act, where we looked at ways that we can collaborate on care for addiction services and mental health so people can get the care they need in the setting they need, whether it is an emergency room or a primary care physician's office. We have made progress making our healthcare system more cost- effective and efficient. That is what we should be doing--building on the Affordable Care Act rather than taking away critically important benefits. The Republican plan moves us in the wrong direction, and it should be rejected. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, first let me thank Senator McCain for his strong leadership on this issue and so many issues that deal with U.S. national security. Montenegro is a small country, but the principle that no non-NATO country can veto accession into NATO is very much a major national security issue for the United States. Make no mistake about it. Russia is trying to interfere with Montenegro's accession into NATO. I am also pleased to hear from Senator Shaheen, who has been one of the great leaders in the Senate on our European transatlantic relations, and I know how strongly she feels. I just want to underscore points that Senator McCain made. I am the ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee did approve unanimously by voice vote the accession of Montenegro into NATO. The Presiding Officer was part of that discussion, and I thank him for his help in moving this issue forward. This is not a controversial issue among the Members of the Senate or the Congress. This is something that should have been done by now. As Senator McCain has pointed out, 25 of the 28 nations have already ratified Montenegro's accession into NATO. It requires all 28. Another two are working actively on confirmation, and the last is the United States. We should be first, not the last. We should get this done. It should have been done before now. The point that Senator McCain made I have to underscore because we know about Russia's engagement here in the United States in our election. Well, let me tell you something. As to what Montenegro experienced during their parliamentary elections, where Russia put money into that country and tried to do violence in order to prevent their Parliament from ratifying the accession into NATO, we have to stand up against that type of bullying by Russia, that interference by Russia. As we are here today debating, Montenegro has been subject to a wave of anti-NATO and anti-Western propaganda emanating from Russia. There are also allegations that a recent coup planned had Russian ties. Blocking Montenegro's ability to join NATO will have real implications for how NATO is perceived. Once again, Russia does not have a veto on our enlargement of NATO. It is in the United States' national security interests that we ratify Montenegro's accession into NATO as soon as possible. I hope we can do it yet today. I yield the floor.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I want to underscore one point here because people watching this may not understand the specific request that Senator McCain made. What Senator McCain asked is that this resolution be brought to the floor of the U.S. Senate with debate and vote. Every Member can voice their views and then vote up or down. Senator McCain is absolutely right: On a vote there are going to be 97, 98, maybe even more Senators voting in favor of this resolution. I hope it is 100 at the end of the day. But we have one Senator objecting to the consideration. We have to have some democratic principles here. This is a national security issue. I think we should underscore the point of what Senator McCain was requesting. He didn't ask unanimous consent that it be passed; it is unanimous consent that we have a chance to vote on it. Each of us could have cast our vote and expressed our views. We are not denying any Senator the right to be heard on this issue or to cast their vote on this issue. It is disappointing that one Senator is holding this issue up, and it is affecting our national security. I yield the floor.

Mr. CARDIN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, in December 2015, this body came together to enact what then-President Obama called a Christmas miracle, the Every Student Succeeds Act, ESSA. This truly bipartisan, bicameral compromise reauthorized the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, ESEA, for the first time in more than 14 years on the compromise of local control for Federal safeguards. First enacted more than 50 years ago as a part of the civil rights era, the ESEA sought to ensure that all children, regardless of their ZIP Code, were able to obtain a high- quality education. The legislative process is about compromise, and I have concerns that last Thursday's vote to use the Congressional Review Act to repeal the Department of Education's ESSA regulations will roll back that compromise and leave our neediest students without the Federal safeguards they deserve. Ensuring access to a high-quality education is one of the most important duties of Federal, State, and local governments. I supported ESSA, along with 84 other Members of this body, to move our State and local school systems away from a Federal, one-size-fits-all ``adequate yearly progress'' accountability system and allow States to design their own accountability systems to identify, monitor, and assist schools. Rather than rely on a collective set of test scores to measure student performance as under No Child Left Behind, ESSA allows States to design accountability systems that will take into consideration student growth over the course of a school year. States will be able to consider multiple measures of student learning, including access to academic resources, school climate, and safety, access to support personnel, and other measures which can allow for differentiations in student performance within a school or a local school district. All of this is being done while ensuring students are held to the high, yet achievable, standard of being college- and career-ready upon completion of high school. While State and local school systems have newfound flexibility under ESSA, they must adhere to a Federal civil rights safeguards meant to ensure children with disabilities, students of color, low-income students, and our English language learners are not forgotten. Just as the Bush administration led Department of Education provided after the enactment of the No Child Left Behind Act in 2002, the Obama administration led Department of Education worked to enact regulations and provide States with guidance and technical assistance to properly implement ESSA. After work for nearly a year and feedback from more than 20,000 education stakeholders, the Department published its final accountability, State plans, and reporting regulations in November 2016. The regulations provided broad flexibility for State and local school systems to improve student outcomes in their States and districts while ensuring all students receive an excellent and well- rounded education. The regulations provided certainty to States and local school systems and clarified how to comply with their statutory requirements. The Congressional Review Act was the wrong instrument to modify the Department's accountability regulations. In 2006 and 2008, the Bush administration led Department of Education responded to concerns regarding the implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act by education stakeholders and updated the regulations and guidance necessary for State and local school systems to adhere to the law. Now that the Congressional Review Act has struck down the existing regulations, the Department is prohibited from issuing similar regulations or addressing future implementation concerns raised by those same stakeholders. Just as we have worked to move away from the one-size-fits-all Federal solutions under the No Child Left Behind Act, the Congressional Review Act wrongly utilizes a one-cleaver-eliminates- all approach. We could not pick and choose which parts of the regulations we would have wanted to keep, such as the regulation's additional year for States to implement their State-designed accountability systems before taking corrective action, all aspects of the regulation, and nearly a year's worth of the Department's work is eliminated. School systems will now have to rely on nonlegally binding guidance from the Department on how to adhere to their statutory requirements. In my home State, the Maryland State Department of Education has worked for more than a year to develop our State's education plan as required under ESSA. Our State superintendent of schools, Dr. Karen Salmon, has traversed the State, listening and engaging with Marylanders who seek to have a voice in their child's education. The purpose of ESSA was to ensure that we return the ability of our State and local school systems to provide for the education of our children in exchange for staying within certain Federal safeguards for our neediest students. This is what we are doing in Maryland. The concerns and feedback expressed by Marylanders will be incorporated into a revised State plan and submitted to the Department of Education later this year. All of this work to comply with the Department's draft and final ESSA regulations, all of the consultation with members of the local community, is now for naught now that the Senate agreed to the use of the CRA. Our State and States are left with uncertainty as to how to comply with their statutory Federal requirements. Our States are clamoring to move away from the uncertainty of the Department's No Child Left Behind waivers from 2012 and have a clear understanding of how to comply with Federal law. The elimination of the Department's accountability regulations further delays the ability of State and local school systems to move away from No Child Left Behind policies. Throughout Secretary DeVos's confirmation hearing, the Secretary repeatedly demonstrated a lack of depth in the longstanding debates surrounding the education community. I have concerns that Secretary DeVos, who did not understand the protections afforded to children with disabilities under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, IDEA, would be a forceful advocate to require States and local school systems to ensure that children with disabilities are counted and not forgotten. Given Secretary DeVos's expressed support for the privatization of our Nation's public schools and resistance to meaningful Federal oversight of nontraditional schools, I have concerns that any new regulations created by the Department could incentivize States and local school systems to promote the privatization of low- performing public schools or set different accountability standards between public schools and nontraditional schools. These concerns are not unfounded; Secretary DeVos has already informed States that the Department will be creating a new template for submitting State plans outside of what is required under the Department's existing accountability regulations. Our students need a Secretary of Education that will uphold Congress's ESSA compromise, local control for Federal safeguards. The use of the CRA to repeal the Department's ESSA accountability regulations provides Secretary DeVos with the ability to significantly undermine the bipartisan nature of ESSA and Federal safeguards necessary to protect our students. I am disappointed a majority of my colleagues voted in favor of this shortsighted measure that fails to protect our children with disabilities, students of color, low-income students, and our English language learners.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, along with the Presiding Officer, I have the distinct honor of serving on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and am the ranking Democrat on that committee. There are many areas of challenge for our national security. We could talk about what we think is the greatest threat to the national security of the United States. Unfortunately, there are a lot of candidates. One could certainly be China. China has been very provocative in the China Sea, raising concern about maintaining maritime security, which is so critically important to world commerce. Clearly China could be a candidate. North Korea could be a candidate. We know that in North Korea, they have a nuclear capacity. We know their government will gas and poison people who disagree with them, including family. It is a repressive regime, and they are developing the capacity not only to have a nuclear weapon but the capacity to be able to deliver that nuclear weapon beyond just the region in which they are located. So we could pick North Korea. We certainly could mention the threat of ISIS, which is a growing threat of terrorism that challenges not only the Middle East but our own country. We could mention the security threat of Iran. Iran was one of the greatest sponsors of terrorism of any country in the world, which is causing major problems for the Sunni Gulf States, in Syria, and in the Middle East. Clearly Iran is a candidate for major interest in our national security. But the country I would pick as the greatest threat to America's national security would be Russia. Russia has been very aggressive in trying to dominate beyond its own geographical borders. It has incurred into other countries and has attacked the United States of America. I want to take us back to 1975 when the Helsinki Final Act was passed, through the leadership of the United States and the USSR. I have had the opportunity through several Congresses to be either the chair or the cochair or the ranking member of the U.S. Helsinki Commission. I have spent a lot of time on the Helsinki work. What was remarkable about that document that was entered into in 1975 was that it recognized that security is beyond just military in that for a country to be secure, it must pay attention to its borders, yes, and its military, but it also must have economic security and must respect human rights. What was also very unique in the Helsinki Final Act was the commitment that these standards we agreed to would not only be of internal interest to the member country but that any country to the Helsinki Final Act could challenge the actions of any other country. We have not only the right but the responsibility to call out countries that fail to adhere to the basic principles that were agreed to in 1975. The Helsinki Final Act now applies to about 56 countries--all of the countries of Europe, Canada, the United States, and all of the republics of the former Soviet Union. Let me review with my colleagues the guiding principles that were agreed to in 1975 under the Helsinki Final Act, signed by Russia, so that they are bound by these principles. As I read through these 10 principles, let me talk about how Russia has violated every single one of the basic 10 principles they agreed to in Helsinki. No. 1, sovereign equality and respect for the rights inherent in sovereignty. No. 2, refraining from the threat or use of force. No. 3, the inviolability of borders. No. 4, the territorial integrity of states. In each of these cases, Russia has violated these basic principles. They invaded Ukraine and took over Crimea, annexing it against the will of a sovereign country. They are interfering in the eastern part of Ukraine as we speak, violating the territorial integrity of Ukraine. Russia's troops are in Georgia, violating the sovereignty of that country. Russia's presence in Moldova is not respecting the territorial integrity of a member state. Russia has violated the basic principles of sovereignty that were brought out in the Helsinki Final Act. Let me read some of the other principles. No. 5, the peaceful settlement of disputes. Russia shoots first. They took their troops into Ukraine. They took their troops into Georgia. They have not used peaceful methods. The sixth principle is the non-intervention in internal affairs. Russia attacked the United States of America in our free election system. That is not subject to any dispute today. They attacked America. They interfered with our internal affairs. They tried to influence our election. That is an attack against America and a violation of their basic commitments. Let me read through the remaining. No. 7, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. Ask the people who have disagreed with the Russian Government and who have tried to form a party whether there is respect for human rights and fundamental freedom in Russia today. Ask independent journalists who are arrested and killed for trying to carry out their profession. Russia today is intimidating civil societies and NGOs, and anyone who disagrees with Mr. Putin is subject to arrest, torture, and perhaps death. We know that in the case of Mr. Magnitsky, which is a cause that has been taken up by this body with the passage of Magnitsky laws. Another principle is equal rights and the self-determination of people. That is not present in Russia today. No. 9, cooperation among states. Let me conclude with the 10th principle: fulfillment in good faith of international legal obligations. Russia entered into an agreement with regard to Ukraine's sovereignty, only to invade Ukraine a few years later. Ukraine gave up its nuclear stockpile, believing that Russia would live up to its commitments. Russia has violated the Minsk agreements that were entered into to resolve the problems between Ukraine and Russia. Russia has not lived up to its international agreements. Let me sort of summarize why I think Russia is the No. 1 candidate for concern with regard to our national security. They have violated the sovereignty of many countries of the world. They have violated the sovereignty of Ukraine and continue to do so. They have violated the sovereignty of Georgia and Moldova. They have attacked the United States of America through cyber. It may not have been a MiG, but it was a mouse, and its intended purpose was to bring down our democratic election system and to favor one candidate. That cannot go unanswered. Today, Russia is engaged in Syria and supports the Assad regime, which attacks humanitarian convoys, uses the civilian population as an instrument of war, gases its own people--violating basic international human rights and committing war crimes. That is what President Putin is doing in Russia today. Russia's human rights records are deplorable. Kara-Murza has been poisoned not once but twice. He is an opposition leader. He is now in the United States and is recovering from the second poisoning episode. The Russian authorities tried to kill him. Why? Because he dared to oppose the Putin regime. We need to speak out. We need to know more about that. It does not end there. Russia is violating the INF, the International Nuclear Force agreement, which is a major concern to all of us. Russia's bottom line is that they are trying to dismantle the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, which has been the bulwark of security since the end of World War II, the relationship between Europe and the United States, providing a blanket of protection not just for our physical security, but providing international leadership in dealing with the development of democratic countries around the world. That is what Russia is trying to do today, is to dismantle that protection. What should we do? We have identified Russia as our No. 1 concern, and I think most Members of the Senate would agree with that assessment. I have talked to many, particularly on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. What should we do? What is the role of Congress? We know we are waiting for President Trump to give us his foreign policy as it relates to Russia, and that is an important thing for us to know--how the President intends to deal with a country that has done so many things against our national security interests. We have a role. We are the first branch of government that is mentioned in the Constitution, article I. We have responsibilities to act. We need to take steps, and I have encouraged my colleagues. There have been a lot of accusations made around here about Russia's contacts with Americans and that Russia is stealing information through cyber and planting that information through WikiLeaks in order to influence elections. There is the potential contact with General Flynn, what happened with the Russian Ambassador, and what happened as far as domestic wiretaps. There have been a lot of comments made around here, but we do not have the facts. First and foremost, we need an independent commission that is similar to what the Congress constituted after the attack on 9/11 so that we get independent, nonpartisan experts, without restriction to jurisdiction or turf, who can determine exactly what Russia's game plan is and what steps we can take to protect ourselves in moving forward and what action we should take against Russia. That is the first thing we should do. Congress should also pass a resolution. I have introduced one that would set up that type of an independent commission to look at what Russia has done. There is a second issue, though, that I want to bring to our attention, and I know the Presiding Officer is very familiar with it. It is the Countering Russian Hostilities Act, which is a bill I filed. I am very proud that this bill was not created by one Member, it was created by a group of us working together and recognizing that Congress needed to speak with a strong voice. I am proud that, in addition to my sponsorship, Senator McCain helped draft this bill. Senator Menendez is a key leader on this bill. Senator Graham is one of the architects of the bill. We have Senator Shaheen, Senator Rubio, Senator Klobuchar, Senator Sasse, Senator Durbin, Senator Portman, Senator Murphy, Senator Gardner, Senator Blumenthal, Senator Sullivan, Senator Daines, Senator Donnelly, Senator Young, Senator Whitehouse, Senator Coons, and Senator Cornyn. You might notice that I alternated between Democrats and Republicans because this is not a partisan effort. We all recognize the seriousness of what Russia has done to the United States. We all recognize that Congress needs to respond. When you are attacked, you don't stand by; if you do, you will get attacked again and the next time could be even more devastating. So we have to take action to protect ourselves. So what the Counteracting Russian Hostilities Act does, first and foremost, is it codifies the sanctions currently imposed against Russia for its cyber attack on the U.S. election. Secondly, it extends those sanctions for what we call secondary sanctions--businesses doing business with those that are sanctioned--so we can enforce the sanctions. The Presiding Officer recognized that when we were working on the North Korea sanctions law, we needed to strengthen that, and I congratulate the Presiding Officer on the work he did regarding North Korea, and I was pleased to join him. I am pleased he is joining with this group to see how we can strengthen our sanctions and pressure on Russia to know that they can't get away with this type of an attack against America, but then we go even further. We recognize that Ukraine today--we have sanctions against Russia, but we can strengthen those sanctions. We can apply those sanctions to the energy sector. We can apply those sanctions to prevent American companies from financing the Russian economy through the moneys they need for sovereign debt or privatization. So we extend the program of sanctions to include those types of activities. We take up two other major issues that I just want to share with my colleagues because these are contributions made by the Members who joined together to file this bill. We recognize that the rules of engagement have changed. Russia is using tactics today that we never thought would be used. They attack our country, get private information, give it to WikiLeaks, use it as part of a strategy to get news out there that could influence our elections. Then they develop fake news, use that fake news through social media to make it look like real news in an effort to try to affect our free election system in the United States. This is pretty frightening. We have to meet them. We have to protect ourselves. So this legislation provides for a democracy initiative similar to what we have done on our security initiative with Europe. We have stationed NATO troops on the border countries of NATO with Russia to let them know we will not tolerate the invasion of a NATO country. We have done that. That is our security initiative. We have to have a democracy initiative to protect the democratic institutions of Western Europe because Russia will use the democratic institutions to try to undermine the democratic institutions--the free press, the opportunities of free speech, the opportunities to try to influence through their money the election process. They have done that. They tried to do it in Montenegro during the parliamentary elections to affect Montenegro's accession into NATO. We have to protect the democratic institutions. This legislation would authorize that protection. Then it sets up a resource so we can fight this propaganda, so we can find ways to counter Russia's use of propaganda in order to carry out their nefarious activities. This is a comprehensive bill. I urge all of our colleagues to take a look at it. We are looking for input. We are looking to make sure this does exactly what we need it to do--to speak as one voice in Congress to make it clear to Russia that it is not business as usual; that we intend to take action and be strong and let them know they cannot do this type of activity; that America will protect its national security. There is another bill, let me just mention, that Senator Graham is the principal sponsor of that I have cosponsored and others have sponsored also. It is the Russia Sanctions Review Act. I mention that one because we had a great debate here in the last Congress on the Iran nuclear agreement, and part of the reasons we had a great debate is because the Senate Foreign Relations Committee was able to pass a review act and get broad consensus on it, get it signed by the President, which gave us a role. More importantly, it gave the American people a role in getting transparency on a very important agreement-- the Iran nuclear agreement. So we had time for public hearings. We had time for national debate. We had time for questions. Because that law passed, I am convinced the agreement was stronger. The administration knew there were millions of eyes looking at what they were doing; they just couldn't do it in the dark of night. It helped us, I think, carry out our responsibility as the legislative branch of government. So Senator Graham and I and others believe we should have a similar process, if there is going to be a fundamental change in the relationship between the United States and Russia; that the President should consult and work with Congress and give us an opportunity for transparency and for the American people to be heard. That is exactly what this bill does. It is a bill that I think is for good legislating, for good governance, and I would encourage my colleagues to take a look at this, and hopefully we will be able to get this done. I will just say in conclusion that we have no issue with the Russian people. They are good people. We want to have a good relationship with the Russian people. It is Mr. Putin and his government that are directing this country to do things in interference with the sovereignty of other countries--in violating human rights, in supporting violations of human rights, in war crimes, and they should be held accountable for that and for what they are doing in Syria, and, of course, very personally, attacking our own country. That is what we are aimed at. Mr. Khodorkovsky was in my office yesterday. I think my colleagues might recall that he was a leader in Russia--a great business leader. He made a lot of money. He decided Russia needed reforms to protect the rights of all people, that human rights were not strong enough, the right of expression was not strong enough, so he took up that cause as a successful businessperson. As a result, he was arrested, served 10 years in prison, and they tried to keep him out of politics because he did not represent Mr. Putin's politics. Well, he has been very active. He no longer lives in Russia for fear of his own life. He has been here championing the cause for good governance within Russia and the importance for the international community to be engaged in that. As he left my office yesterday, he said: Please continue to speak out. He said: Please continue to speak out. The United States must lead when a country driven by Mr. Putin does what it does. It is our responsibility to speak out about this outrageous conduct--threatening the integrity of so many countries and violating the human rights of so many people. We can make a difference. The Congress can make a difference. It is for all of those reasons that we need to act. I urge my colleagues to take a look at the legislation I have talked about on the floor and which so many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle have joined. Let's get together and let's speak with a united voice and let Russia know we are going to protect the national security of the United States of America, and we are going to protect the rights of our friends. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I thank Senator Durbin, Senator Menendez, and Senator Coons for joining on the floor today to talk about the threat that Russia poses. Senator Durbin is absolutely correct, and I thank him for his leadership on this. The only way the American people will have a full accounting of what Russia's intentions were and what they did in attacking our country is to have an independent commission. We had such a commission after the attack on 9/11. Democrats and Republicans came together. There was no controversy about that. We wanted to find out what and how we were attacked, how they got through our intelligence network, how they put together the horrific attack on our country, and then we wanted to know how we could get recommendations to protect us moving forward. I am going to tell you, that commission served a very important national security function because we learned a lot. We learned that we were stovepiping too much information. We weren't sharing it. The way the agencies were set up, it was more over turf than it was over mission. Congress acted on the recommendations, and we are safer today as a result of it. We don't know what Russia's intentions are all about. We suspect that they are trying to undermine our democratic system of government. We suspect that Russia is interested in regaining its reputation of the former Soviet Union. They are looking for a greater geographical footprint. We see that in their military operations, not just on their border countries such as Ukraine or what they are doing in Georgia or Moldova, but we see that also in the Middle East where they have a military presence today, and they want to have a footprint there. We believe they want to become a greater Russia. We know they don't like democratic systems of government. Their government stays in power through making sure that there is no effective opposition. They have quelled any opportunity for a Democratic opposition and for the free press. We know those--but what are their ultimate aspirations? What do they intend to do with the transatlantic partnership? We talked about that. We are safer today because of the transatlantic relations. NATO has made our Nation safer. The strength of the EU has made our Nation stronger. We know Russia is trying to interfere with that. They interfered with the Montenegro election in an effort to prevent Montenegro from agreeing to join NATO. We know they are trying to pull other nations out of Europe. We know that. What we need to have, though, is a full accounting as to what happened in the attack on our country and how we can prepare ourselves to defend ourselves. By the way, it might also give us a blueprint for what we need to do to show Russia we will not tolerate that type of activity. Senator Durbin is absolutely right. We have responsibilities in Congress. The committee I serve on, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee--our relationship with Russia, we have to have hearings. Senator Menendez was right in calling upon our committee to have additional hearings. What is Russia doing? How does it affect not only our relationship with Russia, but how do we deal with Europe? How do we deal with the authorization for use of military force? If we were attacked, can you use cyber as an attack vehicle? Does that require congressional authorization? We have to be prepared in our committees. The Intelligence Committee has a responsibility to find out exactly what happened and whether we need to change our intelligence network because Russia was able to invade our country. They were able to get private information and then send it to WikiLeaks to use politically against us. They may compromise some of our classified information. We don't know. We need to find that out. The Intelligence Committee has a function to play. The Judiciary Committee has a function to play. I know the subcommittee is doing some work under Senators Whitehouse and Graham. The Armed Services Committee certainly has a role to play. There is only one way the American people will get a clear view of how serious this matter is and that we are taking every conceivable possible step to make sure we protect the national security of the United States and our Democratic institutions, which are part of our national security, and that is to have an independent commission. There are no turf problems there. They can look at everything. They can have a transparent process, and the American people can get an eye as to what is happening. They can make the recommendations we need. I thank Senator Durbin for underscoring that point. It is something I think we will ultimately get to. I was hoping we could get to it sooner rather than later because I think the American people would have a great deal more confidence. I thank Senator Coons for putting this in historic perspective. He is absolutely right; we go back a long time as to what Russia's intentions are all about. I thought that was extremely helpful to fill in all of the aspects of what we are trying to do. Senator Menendez's point was very critical; our reasons for being here and our reasons for wanting to take action are to protect our country, the American people. We are not talking about any one person or any one election. This is not challenging the results of this past election. This is all about making sure that we protect the integrity of our free election system and, particularly moving forward, knowing that Russia may very well be engaged, as we speak, in trying to interfere with the elections in the Netherlands and Germany and France. We need to have a better game plan on how to deal with this. As Senator Menendez said--I think it is a very important point; I want to underscore this: You can't trust Russia. Let's be clear about that. Ask the Ukrainians. They signed the Budapest Declaration. The United States was part of that. They very clearly gave up their nuclear capacity, and in exchange they got the security from Russia on their jurisdiction, on their territory, on their sovereignty. Look how long that lasted before Russia invaded Ukraine, annexed part of Ukraine, and they continue to supply resources to disrupt the eastern part of Ukraine so Ukraine will have a very difficult time in its integration into Europe. That is what Russia is doing today in contravention to their written commitments with Ukraine. Then I might tell my colleagues: Look at the Minsk agreement set up to try to end this hot war, and Russia has violated all the aspects of the Minsk agreement. You can't trust Russia's agreements. As Senator Menendez pointed out--he is right--look at the INF. Look at the treaty obligations. Russia is violating their treaty obligations, which directly affect the security of Europe. These are pretty serious things. We counter this by unity. That is why I am so proud that we have Democrats and Republicans working together. This is not one party. Both parties recognize the danger of Russia. Both parties recognize that we have to protect ourselves. I would just urge my colleagues to follow this vigorous strategy, where we can show the American people that unity and that resolve and that we will not allow Russia to attack our country, that we are going to prepare to make sure that we defend our democratic system of government and that we will be united in standing up to those types of activities that are against our national security interests. I yield the floor.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, I will vote against confirming former Texas Governor Rick Perry as Secretary of Energy. There are too many policies he promoted while he was governor that cause concern. He refuses to accept scientific consensus regarding human causes of climate change. His support for clean energy and energy efficiency seems tenuous, at best, and he is in lock-step with the Trump administration's desire to boost fossil fuel production at the expense of human health and the environment. Governor Perry, while campaigning for the Republican nomination for President in 2012, proposed abolishing the agency he has now been nominated to run. I appreciate his candor and honesty in repudiating that position and acknowledging that he really didn't understand the Department of Energy's mission at the time. He has served our Nation and Texas as an Air Force pilot, a member of the Texas House of Representatives, the Texas Agriculture Commissioner, and the Lieutenant Governor and Governor of Texas. A key part of DOE's mission has been to promote clean and advanced energy technologies, via grants for research and development, and through the work of 17 national laboratories. In response to growing global demand for clean energy solutions, DOE under the leadership of Secretaries Steven Chu and Ernest Moniz launched initiatives to expand the global reach of DOE's clean and advanced energy missions. In 2009, then-Energy Secretary Chu announced that he would host the first Clean Energy Ministerial, CEM, to bring together ministers with responsibility for clean energy technologies from the world's major economies and ministers from a select number of smaller countries that are leading in various areas of clean energy. The CEM is a high-level global forum to promote policies and programs that advance clean energy technology, to share lessons learned and best practices, and to encourage the transition to a global clean energy economy. Previous CEMs have yielded remarkable national pledges from both the United States and foreign governments to develop and deploy clean energy technologies which in the aggregate have played a significant role in improving the global market competitiveness of clean and renewable energy technologies. DOE also serves as the linchpin of the U.S. pledge to Mission Innovation, a global initiative involving 20 nations aimed at doubling public clean energy research and development. The program, spearheaded by President Barack Obama and French President Francois Hollande with private sector support from Bill Gates via the Breakthrough Energy Coalition. The current U.S. Government investment portfolio of more than $5 billion spans the full range of research and development activities--from basic research to demonstration activities, RD&D. The U.S. Government investment portfolio includes programs at 11 agencies, with the largest investment at DOE. These programs address a broad suite of low carbon technologies, including end-use energy efficiency, renewable energy, nuclear energy, electric grid technologies, carbon capture and storage, advanced transportation systems, and fuels. At DOE, these programs are implemented through a number of mechanisms including cost-shared projects with the private sector research and development activities at the National Laboratories, grants to universities, and support for collaborative research centers targeted to key energy technology frontiers. The next planned phase for Mission Innovation, as envisioned by former Energy Secretary Moniz, was developing an international clean energy consortia, based on the principle of sharing institutional and technological resources to deploy shared energy solutions across international boundaries. The goal was to bring countries of all sizes together to develop, produce, and deploy clean energy solutions, with our 17 National Research Laboratories at the center of this results-oriented partnership. Unfortunately, all of this investment and America's ability to lead and profit from the clean energy revolution is in jeopardy. There is no credible reason to believe that former Governor Perry or President Trump appreciate the U.S. interest in growing clean energy research and cooperation. President Trump deliberately ignores the significant growth of solar energy in the U.S. Human health, the environment, and America's global competitiveness will suffer as a result of this backwards ideological outlook on U.S. energy research, development, and production. There were significant investments in wind energy in west Texas while Mr. Perry was Governor, but he also tried to fast-track 11 new coal- fired power plants in the State, a plan the courts ultimately scrapped. During Mr. Perry's two unsuccessful runs for the Republican Presidential nomination in 2012 and 2016, he consistently recited popular tropes coined by climate change denialists. For instance, in his book, ``Fed Up'' former Governor Perry called the science behind climate change a ``contrived, phony mess.'' During his 2012 campaign, former Governor Perry accused climate scientists of manipulating data in order to receive funding for their projects. While he was Governor, his administration deleted all references to climate change from a report about sea level rise in Galveston Bay. I am also concerned that, during the Perry administration, Texas dropped from 11th down to 27th in the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy's ranking of State energy efficiency policies. Under his watch, Texas filed suit in 2012 challenging the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's finding that greenhouse gases significantly endanger public health. Under his watch, Texas sued EPA a dozen times between 2008 and 2011. According to press reports, the Trump administration may eliminate several DOE offices, including the Office of Electricity and the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. Former Governor Perry was asked about these reports during his confirmation hearing but didn't commit to fighting for the offices or the vital programs they administer. Former Governor Perry was also an active member of the Outer Continental Shelf Governors Coalition, OCSGC. While the OCSGC supports offshore wind development, its primary purpose is to promote oil and gas production on OCS lands, including the mid-Atlantic, and expand revenue sharing for interested States. So States to the south of Maryland may push for OCS oil and gas production and reap increased benefits from it at the expense of all taxpayers. But if there is an oil spill that hits Maryland's coastline and enters the Chesapeake Bay, it will be our fishing and tourism industries that suffer. For all of these reasons, I will vote against confirming former Governor Rick Perry as Secretary of Energy.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. Russia and the President's Address to Congress Mr. President, on Tuesday night, along with my colleagues, I listened to the President of the United States address the joint session of Congress. As the ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I was particularly interested to hear what the President would be saying about American foreign policy. I heard him say during the speech that American foreign policy would be based on the respect of the sovereign rights of nations, which is something that I strongly believe in. I then thought I would hear the President talk about one of our greatest challenges from a country that is not respecting the sovereign rights of the United States of America, that country being Russia. But the President didn't mention Russia at all in his State of the Union address, which really surprised me. When we look at Russia's most recent conduct and know what they did in regard to their attack on the U.S. democratic election system, it is beyond dispute that they wanted to interfere with our free elections, they wanted to affect the credibility of our democratic election system, and they wanted to influence the outcome of the election. That is pretty clear from the evidence that we have seen to date. Yet the President did not mention that at all--a country that had attacked us as recently as just a few months ago. There was no mention in the President's State of the Union address. It wasn't an isolated attack by Russia on the United States. We knew that before that, when we saw Russia's influence in regard to Montenegro's elections and how they tried to impact their parliamentary elections to influence Montenegro's decision to join NATO. We know that Russia is attempting to influence the elections in Western Europe. So we have a country that is trying to bring down our democratic system of government by using our democratic system of government, and the way that we conduct open elections, to compromise our system. But that is not the only thing Russia has done that is contrary to the U.S. national security and our foreign policy objectives. We know that they have physically incurred into other countries. They have physically incurred into Ukraine. Today, Russia has annexed Crimea-- something we will never recognize. Crimea is part of Ukraine. Russia is continuing to support the separatists in the eastern part of Ukraine, compromising Ukraine's sovereignty. The President did not mention that in his State of the Union address. We know that Russia is in Georgia, in Moldova, and other sovereign countries; once again, no mention of that. And then Russia is very much engaged in the Middle East. We know that Russia's footprint in the Middle East is growing. They have their military presence in Syria, backing the Assad regime, facilitating Iran's participation in Syria. We also know that the type of conduct that has been conducted under Russian support, where civilians have been targeted, humanitarian convoys have been attacked, amounts to war crimes--a situation where Russia has culpability; yet, we don't hear anything about that. So we have a role. Congress has a role to play in making sure that we protect our national security interests. First and foremost, we have to know what is going on. We have to know what Russia was doing. We have to know what Russia's intentions were when they compromised our cyber security and used that information to try to influence our elections. We have to know what Russia's intentions are all about regarding the contacts they have made with Americans in their effort to influence this campaign. We have to understand what Russia's intentions are as they relate to democratic countries. We saw in General Flynn's case that a contact was made, and as a result of not coming forward with that, General Flynn has left the Trump administration. And then we find out yesterday that the Attorney General, as a U.S. Senator, had contact with the Russian Ambassador, and that information was not made available during the confirmation process. The timing of that meeting in Senator Sessions' office is concerning. It is concerning because it was right at the time that Russia was the most active in trying to get information that they could use to influence our elections. So this is an important aspect for us to understand. We need to understand why that meeting took place and what was involved in that meeting. There have been calls by Members on both sides of the aisle that we get that type of information. But I will add one more dimension to this: Why was the Russian Ambassador interested in meeting with Senator Sessions during the campaign period? Was this part of an overall strategy by Russia to try to influence the election? We need to get the answers to that. The only way we are going to be able to get a complete account of what has happened by Russia's attack on the United States is by setting up an independent commission. Russia may not have used MiGs to attack America. They may have used a mouse. But it was an attack. And when we were attacked on 9/11, Congress did right thing--they set up an independent special commission to understand what happened, how we were so vulnerable to an attack, so that we could take steps to protect ourselves from future attacks and hold those responsible accountable. That was a bipartisan effort by the Congress of the United States, setting up an independent commission, a commission where the members could devote their entire full time to the assignment, because that is how serious being attacked is. There was no limit on their jurisdiction. They could go where the facts led. They could give a report to the American people so there would be credibility that we, the policymakers, are going to have independent information in order to act to protect the national security of the people of this country. That is what that independent commission meant. That independent commission met. They made many recommendations on eliminating a lot of the stovepiping of intelligence information and combining agencies together. Congress acted on those recommendations. As a result, we are safer today than we were prior to 9/11. We need to be safer tomorrow than we are today from the attacks of Russia. The only way we are going to be able to get that objective information with the credibility so that we can act in the best interests for the people of this Nation is to have a nonpartisan, independent commission take a look at what Russia was doing, get all the facts, find ways and recommendations to make us safer, give the credibility to the American people, and then Congress needs to act in order to protect our national security. I know we have some committees looking at this. I know the Senate Intelligence Committee is doing some very important work. I support that. We have our responsibilities in Congress to take steps within the jurisdictions of our committees. I am for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee looking into what Russia was doing in order that we can protect the jurisdiction of our committee to do a better job in our bilateral relationship with Russia, or what Russia is doing in Europe or in other parts of the world that affects our national security under the jurisdiction of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. We need to do that work. The Intelligence Committee needs to do their work. Armed Services needs to do their work. Judiciary needs do their work. But we need one central investigation that includes the broad jurisdiction that can get to answer why the Russian Ambassador may have wanted to see a U.S. Senator who was active in one of the campaigns that close to the elections, that has an opportunity to understand why Russia was so active in their cyber attacks in America, getting so much information, so much political information, why Russia was trying to understand our election system. There is no evidence that they tried to manipulate individual votes. That didn't happen--at least we don't believe that happened--but we know they were looking into how we do that. Was that for some future use? We need to understand that to protect our democratic system of government. That is what an independent commission will allow us to be able to receive. I urge my colleagues to respond to the national security challenge of Russia, and let's establish an independent commission. There are other things we need to do. There are two bills I filed with my Republican colleagues to make it clear that it is not going to be business as usual with Russia. There are going to be consequences to what they have done to the United States and our national security interests. One bill that I filed, of which Senator Graham is the principal sponsor, is to make sure that Congress carries out its responsibility of oversight in regard to our bilateral relationship with Russia. It is the Russia Review Act, which would require the President of the United States to submit to Congress for review any attempt to eliminate or modify the current sanctions against Russia. He would be required to submit that to the Congress of the United States, hopefully working with us and consulting with us before he makes decisions but giving us an opportunity to weigh in before that decision could take effect. For my colleagues who remember the Iran nuclear agreement, it sounds very familiar. Senator Corker and I, Senator Menendez, Senator Kaine, and others worked on the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act. It passed nearly unanimously in the Congress. It required a President to submit that agreement to us before it could take effect. It made the negotiations much more transparent. As a result, I believe we had a stronger agreement, but we also had a more open process, and Congress had a chance to carry out its responsibility. In a similar vein, it is important that we pass the Russia Review Act so that we can carry out our responsibilities, preventing the President from taking unilateral action without consulting with us. This is bipartisan; we have Democrats and Republicans working on this. I hope we will be able to pass this bill in a timely way. The third bill I want to bring to my colleagues' attention as it relates to Russia's activities in the United States is legislation that I have filed with Senator McCain and many others. We have a large number of Democrats and Republicans who have cosponsored this bill that would increase the sanctions against Russia because of their attack against us. It would expand the options for imposing sanctions to different sectors that could affect Russia's energy, that could affect the ability of Russia to finance their sovereign debt, that could affect Russia's ability to privatize their industries by making it clear that we are not going to allow Americans or companies to help finance these activities because in reality they are financing activities against our interests, such as the cyber attacks, as we saw last fall. This legislation is comprehensive. It deals more than just with sanctions; it deals with another major problem that we have found. Through NATO and U.S. leadership, we have made it clear that we will defend the countries of NATO, and we have deployed troops to make it clear to Russia that they better not try to compromise the territorial integrity of the member states. This initiative has been well received by Europe and has countered Russia's attempts to cause a fracture within the European community. We need a similar initiative on democracy, a democracy initiative, because not only is there a threat against Europe from their geographical boundaries, there is a threat against Europe in regard to their democratic institutions. We know that. We saw that here in America. It is being challenged in Europe. So this democratic initiative would allow us to participate in strengthening the democratic institutions in Europe so that we don't allow Russia to use the democratic institutions to try to bring down the democratic institutions. There is another part of this legislation which I think is extremely important. We are all getting to better understand the tactics being used by Russia, this fake news--inventing news and then using the social media to make it look like it is the hottest news in town. We know they are good at that. We also know they are very good at propaganda, and they go in directions that we, prior to this election, thought we would never see in our own country. We are now seeing it more frequently. Part of this legislation is for us to develop a capacity to be able to counter this propaganda and fake news so that Russia's deployment of it will not compromise our national security. I think all three bills will be considered shortly and favorably by this body--setting up an independent review commission; requiring the President to submit any changes in the Russian sanctions to the Congress for review before they could take effect; and strengthening our sanctions regime against Russia for its conduct, including strengthening our commitment to democratic institutions and fighting this new cycle of fake news. I also listened to the President during the State of the Union Address when he said that our foreign policy calls for a direct, robust, and meaningful engagement with the world. That is another statement I happen to agree with. And then I thought about what I had heard a little earlier that day: that the President's budget was going to have about a 30- to 35-percent cut--it wasn't exactly clear, but it was a large number--to the State Department. I said: How are you going to have a robust and meaningful engagement in the world if you cut our diplomacy budget, you cut our development assistance budget? This is how we keep the world safe. This is how we get our goals accomplished globally. We have had so many hearings in our committee where there is a much greater need. We need to do more in Africa in promoting democracy. We need to do more in the Middle East in promoting good governance and inclusive governance so we don't have to have as many wars. We need to do things in our own hemisphere. We heard today in a hearing what is happening in Venezuela. There is a lot of work for America to do. A 30- percent cut? Is that a more direct, robust, and meaningful engagement within the world? It didn't sound that way to me. I was concerned about that and how we are going to be able to gauge. It was Secretary Mattis who said: If you don't give the Secretary of State the resources, you better give me more soldiers. And they are more expensive. We have the best fighting force in the world, and we are going to support our fighting force. The way we show respect for our soldiers is to use them only as a matter of last resort. Diplomacy is critically important for America's national security. A strong, credible Office of the President is equally important if we are going to be able to be the type of country that influences our values globally, and the President of the United States has put that at risk. That is why I am reintroducing my resolution to try to avoid a constitutional crisis. I introduced it before President Trump took the oath of office, and I am introducing it again to avoid a constitutional crisis. It deals with the emoluments clause of the Constitution of the United States. Every modern President of the United States prior to President Trump, in order to avoid conflict, in order to do what is ethically right and to comply with the Constitution of the United States--the emoluments clause--has either divested their financial holdings or has set up a blind trust. Some have done both. That is the way that the ethics officers tell us you can comply with not just the Constitution but with the highest ethical standards so that there are no real conflicts and you don't have any perceived conflicts, which can be just as damaging to the credibility of a public office holder. President Trump, by not divesting, by not setting up a blind trust, has put the Office of the Presidency, our country, in a compromising position. Let me give some specific examples, if I might. I will mention three countries. I could mention more. Saudi Arabia. Very interesting country, Saudi Arabia. In August 2015, the Trump organization filed eight separate business companies to do business in Saudi Arabia. As we all know, the President's Executive order that was originally issued that excluded immigrants from seven Muslim countries from visas did not include the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia even though, as we all know, many of the participants in the 9/11 attack against the United States originated from the country of Saudi Arabia. President Trump has vast business interests in Saudi Arabia. Let me quote President Trump: Saudi Arabia, I get along with all of them. They buy apartments from me. They spend $40 million, $50 million. Am I supposed to dislike them? I like them very much. It is not a question, Mr. President, of whether they like you or they don't like you; under our Constitution, they cannot give you any favor. If they give you a business favor, that is an emolument and violates the Constitution of the United States and violates your oath of office. In regard to Turkey, Turkey has two large-scale developments in the country that are under the Trump organization. The Trump organization has a partnership with a luxury furniture company, Dorya International, to build pieces to be sold under the Trump Home Collection brand and a multimillion-dollar branding deal with the Dogan Group-- the Dogan Group is run by one of the most politically influential families in Turkey--for a two-tower complex in Istanbul. According to President Trump's May 2016 financial disclosure, he received as much as $1 million in royalties from the first venture and as much as $5 million from the second venture. Because President Trump has not properly divested himself from his business, he will presumably continue to receive royalties from both ventures, and these business arrangements are not unknown to Turkey's leadership. President Erdogan presided over the opening ceremonies of Trump Towers, Istanbul. Shortly after the election, President Trump held a phone call with President Erdogan in which he praised his business partners. There are substantial business interests known by the Turkish Government that Mr. Trump has in their country. Mr. Erdogan is not shy about talking about and using the Trump Towers. He has bragged about it. We have a lot of foreign policy decisionmaking that affects Turkey. We need to know that when the President is making those decision, it is America's interest which is at the front and center, not the Trump Organization's interests that are affecting those decisions. That is why we have the emoluments clause, that is why we believe in avoiding conflicts, and that is why President Trump needs to divest of his interest or set up a blind trust. I will mention one other country, if I might. That country is China. For a decade, the Trump organization has been trying to get a trademark of its brand in China. I am going to quote from Mr. Trump on February 7, 2011, when he wrote to the American Ambassador in China. This is what Mr. Trump said: ``I spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees to secure my own name and globally recognized brand for Chinese individuals who seek to trade off my reputation.'' For 10 years he was fighting to get that trademark protection. It was granted on February 14, 2017, a few weeks after President Trump took the oath of office, shortly after President Trump stated that he would support the One China policy, something the Government of China strongly wanted him to say. We don't know connections. We can't draw connections. We don't know that. That is why the emoluments clause is in the Constitution, so you cannot accept any favors from another country. It is against our Constitution. Yet we have concerns as to whether the President is acting under that interest. That is just wrong and it needs to stop. What the President has done is established a circumstance where there is an appearance of conflict, where it looks like foreign governments are trying to influence his decisions. He has affected America's standing to advance good governance and corruption. I want to underscore that point. He is compromising America's moral authority on the values we hold so dear. Our Western democratic values are being compromised because leaders of autocratic countries, corrupt leaders, can say: If it is all right for the President of the United States to keep his business holdings while he is President, what is wrong with me having an interest in some of our entities here? It takes away our effective ability to use diplomacy to solve problems or advance our goals. We are being compromised. The current arrangement is simply inadequate. President Trump announced he is going to let his two adult sons handle his businesses, but he still maintains his financial interests. He gives a couple of different other things he is going to do. I will just go over one or two of them. He says he is going to donate the profits from his foreign hotels to charities. That sounds good. Let me just quote from Steve Carvell, a professor at the Cornell University School of Hotel Administration, who said: It's a monumental task to constantly run this down. Even if the company is trying its hardest and making its very best effort, it will be difficult to fulfill that goal. Let's get serious about this. The arrangements he set out will not solve the conflict. It will not comply with the Constitution of the United States. The Office of Government Ethics said on the President's proposal it is ``wholly inadequate.'' That is the Office of Government Ethics. They go on to say: ``The plan the [President] has announced doesn't meet the standards that the best of his nominees are meeting and that every President in the last four decades has met.'' I am a lawyer but would not claim to be a constitutional expert. Let me quote, if I might, from constitutional experts. Richard Painter, Norm Eisen and Laurence Tribe have written a comprehensive study of the constitutional provisions, concluding that ``since emoluments are properly defined as including `profit' from any employment, as well as `salary,' it is clear that even remuneration fairly earned in commerce can qualify.'' Richard Painter, the chief ethics officer for President George W. Bush, stated it in a blunter fashion. He said: This is a for-profit hotel. [Trump] is making profits over dealing with foreign governments. Same with the loans from foreign government-owned banks. Those are for a for-profit business. That is prohibited under the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution. Let me just conclude with this. This is not about any one person. This is about the Office of the President. This is about our constitutional form of government that depends upon the Office of the President being respected. It is bigger than any one person. The Framers of our Constitution went on to say: We recognize it. We know the faults of men. That is why we set up the Constitution, to protect against the frailties of individuals. This is about the Office of the President of the United States, not about any one person who may occupy it 4 to 8 years. We need to protect the Office of the President, and that is why we need to act now to avoid this constitutional crisis of the President of the United States, who has put our Nation at risk because of his personal conflicts and because of his violation of the Constitution of the United States. I call upon President Trump to live up to the values of the Constitution. Give the American people the transparency they deserve and completely sever his relationship with the Trump Organization before we are embroiled in an ethical and constitutional crisis that will not serve the best interests of the President, Congress or the American people. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I take this time to explain to my colleagues why I will be opposing the nomination of Scott Pruitt, the attorney general of Oklahoma, to be the next Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. I first want to start by saying I had an opportunity to visit with Attorney General Pruitt. He is a person who wants to serve our country, and we very much appreciate that. He has a distinguished career in public service, and we appreciate his willingness to continue to serve at the national level. My reason for opposing his nomination is that he has opposed most of the missions of the Environmental Protection Agency as the attorney general of Oklahoma. He has filed numerous lawsuits that would compromise the ability of the Environmental Protection Agency to protect our environment. I come to this debate acknowledging that there are national responsibilities to protect our environment. The United States must also be engaged in global leadership as it relates to our environment. The people of Maryland want clean air. The people of Maryland want clean water. No State can guarantee to its citizens that its air will be clean or that its water will be safe. These issues go well beyond State boundaries. They go beyond national boundaries. It is for that reason that we need an Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency who will lead our Nation both in the appropriate controls and regulations to protect our air and water but also work for our country in regard to the global efforts to protect our environment for future generations. Let me talk about the issue of climate change. Climate change is one of the greatest threats of our times. We know that this year, according to NASA--they looked at the temperature rise in 2016 and found it to be the hottest year ever recorded. We know something is happening in regard to global climate change. It is affecting so many different areas. We have eroding shorelines that our constituents see. We have major military installations located along our coast that are at risk as a result of rising sea levels from ice melt. We have populations that are at risk in the United States. Let me give one example, if I might. Smith Island, MD, is a very proud community. It is a community that historically has been one of the strongest in regard to watermen and dealing with the fruits of the Chesapeake Bay. It is a proud community, and it is in danger of disappearing because we have sea level rises resulting from ice melting from climate change. We know there is a problem developing that we need to deal with. It is affecting our economy. In my State of Maryland, the seafood industry is concerned about the future of the blue crab crop. They know that juvenile crabs need sea grass in order to be able to be protected and mature into full-blown blue crabs. With water becoming warmer, the future of sea grass is challenged, putting the blue crab at risk. That is just one example. There are many more examples I can give about how it is affecting the economy of my State. It is affecting our ability to enjoy our environment, the recreation itself, and it is certainly providing a real risk in regard to the real estate. We have some very nice real estate located right on the coast or on barrier islands that is at risk of being lost as a result of climate change. We see more and more major weather events occur on a much more regular basis, causing billions of dollars of damage and putting lives at risk. We know climate change is here. It is happening. The science is pretty clear. When we asked Attorney General Pruitt his view about the science of climate change, his answer was ``far from settled.'' The science is well understood. What we do here on Earth--the release of carbon emissions--is causing an abnormal warming of our climate. There are activities that we can do to reduce that effect on our climate. We know that. That is what science tells us. We know we can affect the adverse impacts of climate change if we take action. That is what scientists are telling us. The world came together on this issue in COP21. I was proud to head a delegation of 10 Members of the U.S. Senate as we went to Paris to make it clear to the international community that the United States wanted to be part of a global solution to climate change. Not any one country can reverse the trendline that we are on that is catastrophic; we need all nations to do everything they can to reduce the impact of climate change by reducing their carbon and greenhouse emissions. That is what the global community needs to do, but we have been unable to get the global community for all countries to live up to their responsibilities. Under President Obama and our leadership, we were able to get the world community--over 190 nations--to come together in Paris, in COP21, for every nation to take responsibility to reduce their carbon emissions so that we all can benefit from that effort. I am concerned as to whether Mr. Pruitt, if confirmed as the EPA Administrator, will continue that U.S. leadership. He has not been at all committed to U.S. programs on dealing with climate change, let alone our international responsibilities to lead other countries to do what they need to do. I will give one example. Part of our way of showing the international community that we are serious about the climate issue was the powerplant rule issued under the Obama administration. Attorney General Pruitt joined a group in opposing that powerplant rule through filing suit against the implementation of that particular law. We need someone who is going to lead on this effort in America and understand that we have responsibilities to lead the international community. We are at great risk from the impact of climate change, and that needs to be understood and recognized by the leader of the Environmental Protection Agency. I am not convinced Attorney General Pruitt would do that. I want to talk a little bit about clean air. Maryland has taken pretty aggressive steps to improve the air quality from emissions within the geographical boundary of the State of Maryland. That is what every State should do. But here is the challenge: Maryland is downwind from many other States' emissions, so we are seeing days in which our air quality is below what it should be, not because we haven't taken action but because we don't have a national policy to protect our clean air. The health of Marylanders depends on the Federal Government being aggressive in guaranteeing that all citizens of this country--that steps are taken to protect the air they breathe. I can tell you the number of children who have asthma who suffer when the air quality is not what it should be. It is not only wrong from the point of view that we have an obligation to our children to make sure we give them the healthiest air to breathe, it is also costing our economy because every day that child stays home, a parent cannot go to work. The child loses their time in school; they are being disadvantaged. If they have to take a day off from summer camp, the parent has to stay home, and it is wasting resources in this country. For many reasons, we need an Administrator of the EPA who is committed to a national effort to make sure the air we breathe is clean and healthy. Likewise with clean water. Some of us remember when the Cuyahoga River caught fire in 1969. We know that pollution was so bad, you literally could set our rivers afire. We took steps. And it was not partisan--Democrats and Republicans came together with the Clean Water Act. We recognized that the Federal Government has the responsibility to protect the quality of our water so that we have safe, clean water in America. I think we have been working to improve the Clean Water Act consistently on a nonpartisan basis, but now we have Supreme Court decisions that challenge what water the Federal Government can regulate. Congress has not taken steps to clarify that. The administration took efforts to try to clarify that under the waters of the United States, only to see a Court action to put that on hold in which Mr. Pruitt joined as the attorney general of Oklahoma, once again slowing down our effort to protect the clean waters of America. I have spoken numerous times on the floor of the Congress about the Chesapeake Bay and how proud I am to be a Senator from Maryland, one of the six States that are in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, along with the District of Columbia. We know that the Chesapeake Bay is a national treasure. It has been so designated by many Presidents of the United States. It is the latest estuary in our hemisphere. The watershed contains 64,000 square miles, has over 11,000 miles of shoreline, and 17 million people live in the Chesapeake Bay watershed--150 major rivers, $1 trillion to our economy. It is part of the heritage of my State and our region. We are proud that it is part of our life. It is part of why people like to live in this region. They know the Chesapeake Bay makes their life so much more enriched and so much more valuable. The Chesapeake Bay is in trouble. I could talk about it from a technical point of view. It doesn't flush itself as quickly as other water bodies. The historic oyster population is not what it has been. We have to, therefore, make special efforts to clean up the Chesapeake Bay. Over 30 years ago, almost 40 years now, while I was in the State legislature, when I was speaker of the house, I worked with Governor Harry Hughes, and we developed a State program to deal with the Chesapeake Bay. We did it the right way. We started at the local levels. We got all the stakeholders together: the farmers, the developers, the local governments, the private sector, our local governments, the State government. We worked with Pennsylvania because Pennsylvania is where the Susquehanna River flows, and that produces most of the fresh water that goes into the Chesapeake Bay. We worked with Delaware, Virginia, New York, and West Virginia, and we developed the Chesapeake Bay Program that is worked from the local level up. We get together to determine what is reasonable: What does science tell us we can do? We have all the stakeholders sitting around the table as we develop these plans. They all sign up. Our farmers recognize that clean water will make their agriculture more profitable. They recognize that. Developers understand that we need a clean Chesapeake Bay as part of our ability to develop profitable real estate in our community. These are not inconsistent. A serene environment, clean agriculture, a strong agriculture, a strong economy are all hand in hand together. It is not a choice between one or the other. We recognize that. That is why the Chesapeake Bay Program has never been partisan in Maryland. We have had Democratic and Republican Governors who supported the Chesapeake Bay Program. We have had legislators lead this effort from both parties. Senator Mac Mathias, who served as the U.S. Senator from Maryland, was the champion of bringing the Federal Government into the Chesapeake Bay Program. The program is working. It is making the bay safer today, but we still have a long way to go. We enforce it through the TMDL, the Total Maximum Daily Loads, so we can monitor that we are making the progress we said we could make, based upon best science. And that is what the local stakeholders have signed up for. When we did our TMDL's, it was challenged. It was challenged in the courts. Mr. Pruitt was one of those who brought a challenge against the TMDL Program in Maryland. I am thankful that the Third Circuit upheld the legal right of the TMDL, and the Supreme Court affirmed that decision by the Third Circuit. So we won the legal case. But it troubles me that a program that is from the ground up, from the local governments up, in which the Federal government is a partner--why it would be challenged when it was supported by the local communities. To me, that case should never have been challenged. We need the Federal Government to continue to participate with us. The Chesapeake Bay Program is supported through the farm bill, through the Water Resources Development Act, through the Clean Water Act, and through annual appropriations. So we need continued support at the Federal level for the Chesapeake Bay Program. And we need a champion in the Environmental Protection Agency that will help us in that regard. I want to talk briefly about the Safe Drinking Water Act. Safe drinking water is critically important. We know that in recent years, we have found too much lead in drinking water. We all know, of course, the story of Flint, MI. I could take you to Baltimore where our schools have to cut off their water fountains because of the unsafe levels of lead in the drinking water, if they were permitted to drink from the water fountains. We can tell you about so many communities in the Nation that have a desperate need to clean up their safe drinking water so that we can protect our children from lead poisoning. I hope my colleagues understand that there is no safe level of lead in the blood. It robs children of their future. It poisons them. I think most people are familiar with the Freddie Gray tragedy in Baltimore. Freddie Gray was a victim of lead poisoning when he was young. We owe it to our children to make sure we do everything we can so they are not exposed to lead. I asked questions about that during the confirmation hearing of Mr. Pruitt. The answers were less than acceptable and showed his lack of real information about the dangers of lead. Every Congress should look at their responsibility to build on the record, to leave a cleaner and safer environment for the next generation. The EPA Administrator should be committed to that goal. I do not believe Mr. Pruitt will be that type of leader. For that reason, I will vote against his confirmation. With that, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I yield the remaining time I have to Senator Schumer.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I oppose the nomination of Representative Mick Mulvaney to serve as Director of the Office of Management & Budget, OMB. Representative Mulvaney's radical views regarding the fundamental role of government in our society make him philosophically ill-suited to run OMB. I will list a number of those views. Social Security--In May 2009, Representative Mulvaney was a member of the South Carolina State Senate and voted to declare that Social Security is unconstitutional. He also wants to raise the retirement age to 70. Raising the retirement age to 70 would cut earned benefits by nearly 20 percent for all beneficiaries. With all the challenges people have saving for retirement, the last thing we should do is raise the Social Security retirement age. Medicare--Representative Mulvaney is on record advocating enormous cuts to Medicare and is a proponent of Speaker Ryan's preferred ``premium support,'' i.e., voucher, concept for Medicare. ``Premium support'' is a euphemism for privatizing Medicare. Representative Mulvaney said on Fox News, in April, 2011. ``We have to end Medicare as we know it.'' And he indicated that he wants to raise the eligibility age to 67. Medicare guarantees comprehensive health insurance coverage for almost 50 million Americans. Only 2 percent of elderly Americans are uninsured; nearly 50 percent were before Medicare was signed into law. Debt ceiling--Representative Mulvaney appears willing to jeopardize the full faith and credit of the U.S. Government. He claims that breeching the debt ceiling would not automatically trigger a default on Treasury debt; he calls such concern ``a fabricated crisis.'' Representative Mulvaney believes the Treasury would be able to ``prioritize'' payments and avoid a default. His ``pay China first'' policy is contrary to the opinion of several recent Treasury Secretaries, would be impossible to execute from a logistical standpoint, and is based on a 1985 Government Accountability Office report the agency has since walked away from. The Treasury Department lacks legal authority to establish ``priorities'' with respect to paying the Nation's obligations. Each law obligating funds and authorizing expenditures stands on an equal footing, so the Department has to make payments on obligations as they come due. Debt limit brinksmanship is expensive. According to the Bipartisan Policy Center, the 10-year cost to taxpayers of the 2011 debt limit standoff was $18.9 billion because of the increased interest rates on U.S. securities issued in 2011. On August 5, 2011, Standard & Poor's downgraded the long-term credit rating of the U.S. government for the first time in history, from AAA to AA+. Government shutdowns--Representative Mulvaney believes that shutting down the Federal Government is an acceptable way to do business. He stated on CNN that shutting down the government over funding the Affordable Care Act was ``worth it'' in October 2013 and embraces the term ``shutdown caucus.'' In a September 2015 Atlantic article, he argued that shutting down the government is important becauset it is what ``the base of the (Republican) party wants.'' Standard & Poor's determined that the October 2013 government shutdown cost $24 billion. Federal workers--Representative Mulvaney has sponsored numerous bills attacking the Federal workforce, including many that freeze Federal workers' pay. Federal workers have already ``contributed'' over $180 billion to deficit reduction through pay freezes and other measures. He has sponsored the Federal Workforce Reduction Through Attrition Act, the most recent version of which caps the Federal workforce at 90 percent of its current level. A previous version would have mandated that ``agencies do not appoint'' for 3 years ``more than one employee for every three employees retiring or otherwise separating from government service.'' Women's reproductive health--in September 2015, Representative Mulvaney spearheaded a letter signed by 38 House Republicans--all men-- opposing any legislation to fund the government that also continues to fund Planned Parenthood. In an August 2015 email to the Washington Post, Representative Mulvaney wrote that, if the Congress were to shut down the Federal Government over Planned Parenthood funding, ``so be it.'' Science and climate change--in a Facebook post from last September, quoted in Vox, Representative Mulvaney questioned the need for government funded research ``at all'' in the context of doubting the scientific consensus that the Zika virus causes microcephaly. Representative Mulvaney disputes the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change. During the Budget Committee's nomination hearing, when Senator Kaine asked Representative Mulvaney about human- caused climate change, Representative Mulvaney replied, ``I challenge the premise of your fact.'' The Union of Concerned Scientists opposes Representative Mulvaney's nomination, writing: He has backed legislation to change the regulatory process in ways that would give an even stronger influence to industry, increase political interference and undermine science-based decision-making . . . Too often, the voices of people who will be hurt the most by rolling back science- based safeguards are drowned out by industries. The next OMB director needs to enact science-based laws in a timely manner, with a focus on ensuring benefits for all Americans. Not surprisingly, Koch Industries has been a primary donor to Representative Mulvaney's campaigns and his PAC. Regulations--Representative Mulvaney's voting record has been hostile to regulatory efforts to improve health, safety, and consumer protections. This is especially alarming because as OMB Director, Representative Mulvaney will oversee the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. Representative Mulvaney has voted to curtail regulations regarding debit cards, medical devices, public swimming pools, excessive executive compensation, consumer financial protection, energy exploration, investment advisers, mortgage lenders, and so on. House Republican budget plans--the last time House Republicans brought a full budget resolution to the House floor, Representative Mulvaney voted against it because it wasn't extreme enough. He supported the Republican Study Committee, RSC, budget instead. Provisions of the most recent version of the RSC budget include: No. 1, a 10-year $261 billion cut to Social Security by cutting cost-of-living adjustments, COLAs, increasing the retirement age to 70, and ``increasing means-testing''; No. 2, $662 billion in cuts to Medicare by changing the program into a ``premium support'' model, i.e., ``voucher-izing,'' increasing the eligibility age, and phasing in means-testing; No. 3, $1.6 trillion in cuts to Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program, CHIP, which would be combined into one block grant program; No. 4, $925 billion in savings by repealing the Affordable Care Act exchanges; and No. 5, $2.2 trillion in cuts to undefined ``other mandatory'' spending. Notably, the budget would not raise one dime in new revenue from the Nation's wealthiest individuals and largest corporations. ``Nannygate''--Representative Mulvaney failed to pay FICA and Federal and State unemployment taxes on a household employee for the years 2000 to 2004. Representative Mulvaney admitted that the nanny in question worked full time--40 hours a week--for 4 to 5 years. Representative Mulvaney said that he didn't believe he owed payroll and unemployment insurance taxes on his nanny because ``she simply helped [my wife] with the children. We considered her a babysitter.'' This is despite the fact that, as the owner of several small businesses, he knew to pay these taxes for his other full-time employees. As a State Senator in South Carolina, Representative Mulvaney sponsored the following three bills: No. 1, to prohibit candidates from the ballot for the State legislature if they had not paid all Federal and State income taxes over the past 10 years; No. 2, to prohibit candidates from the ballot for State office if they had not paid all Federal and State income taxes over the past 10 years; and No. 3, to prohibit the governor from appointing anyone who had not paid all Federal and State income taxes over the past 10 years. Representative Mulvaney voted for H.R. 1563, Federal Employee Tax Accountability Act of 2015, which authorizes ``the head of an agency to take personnel actions against an agency employee who willfully failed to file a required tax return or willfully understated federal tax liability.'' It is worth noting here that Federal workers have a lower percentage of tax noncompliance than the general public--a 3.1 percent delinquency rate versus 8.7 percent. And Representative Mulvaney sponsored the Spending Reduction Act of 2011, which would have made people with ``seriously delinquent tax debts'' ineligible for Federal employment. Representative Mulvaney is the wrong choice to run the OMB,

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, today I wish to celebrate Black History Month, a time to honor and reflect on the many achievements and sacrifices of African Americans throughout our Nation's history. This February, we highlight the titans of African-American history. We honor the culture-shifting accomplishments of civil rights icons such as Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Dr. Dorothy Height, and our esteemed colleague, Congressman John Lewis. As the senior Senator from Maryland, I would be remiss if I didn't also honor Harriet Tubman, Thurgood Marshall, and--perhaps one of the greatest Marylanders in our long history--Frederick Douglass. There are some out there who may not know it, but Douglass was born in Maryland around 1818. He learned to read and write in Baltimore before escaping slavery. Despite unknowable hardship and systemic discrimination, he went on to become one of the most influential writers, orators, publishers, and abolitionists of his time. Though Douglass fiercely and vocally opposed slavery, he would want us to remember that he stood for the rights of all Americans, regardless of race, color, religion, gender, or national origin. These views--revolutionary for the time-- gained him increasing prominence, leading to 1872, when Victoria Woodhull chose him as her Vice Presidential nominee. Frederick Douglass was the first Black American ever to hold that title. His legacy continues to make Maryland proud. While we take time to recognize Frederick Douglass and others this month, we must also celebrate the countless men and women whose names and heroism will never grace the history books. Let us never forget all of those who suffered discrimination in silence, who endured civil rights abuses without recognition, who sat-in and stood up to oppression without accolade. We should use this month to lift up their memories and to recommit to the causes of justice and equality for which they also fought so diligently. In particular, we should honor the Black teachers who taught generations of children in the dark, against the odds and sometimes the law, with little more than old, secondhand books and makeshift buildings. We honor the businessowners who laid the foundations of the Black community in places like Baltimore, Harlem, Chicago, Washington, DC, and Tulsa. We honor the civil rights movement foot soldiers who rejected subservience and embraced rebellion by marching in the streets of Selma and Birmingham. We honor the factory workers who left the South behind with hopes of a brighter future, only to struggle in Northern cities for pennies. For too long, Black Americans' rich and vibrant history has been ignored or obscured by the specter of prejudice. But today, and for the rest of the month, in classrooms and cities across our Nation, we will shine a spotlight on that history. We will vow to honor it here, now, in the present and in the future, through protecting both the legacy of civil rights and the Americans who are counting on us to uphold them. As lawmakers and as leaders, it is our duty to fight on their behalf. It is our duty to pass laws that will protect all Americans, support all Americans, and defend all Americans, especially those who have been victims of institutional and systemic prejudice. That is why I introduced the End Racial Profiling Act in 2011. It is incumbent upon every Member in this Chamber to be an advocate for the men and women of color who are singled out every day simply because of their skin color and appearance. These individuals are your constituents. They are my constituents. They are our fellow Americans. They deserve our commitment and an attention span that lasts longer than 1 month a year. Discriminatory profiling based on race--or religion or gender identity, nation of origin, sexual orientation--has no place in our society. It is un-American; it is also counterproductive. Racial profiling doesn't keep us safer. To the contrary: it breeds hostility and distrust, and it turns communities against law enforcement and against each other. It wastes resources that our law enforcement agencies can't afford to spend. And the more time we waste targeting Americans because of their race or religion, the less time we are devoting to those who are actually committing crimes or trying to harm us. My End Racial Profiling Act, which I plan to reintroduce this week, would eliminate this harmful practice and instead offer resources for more police training, mandate greater accountability, and offer recourse for Americans who have been unduly profiled. Our duty to African Americans does not end there. That is why, as ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee, I intend to introduce the National Security Diversity and Inclusion Workforce Act, which would codify and build upon President Obama's efforts to diversify our national security workforce. Having a workforce that looks like America is not just good personnel policy, it is also a national security imperative. Our diversity is one of the strongest assets that the United States has. It allows us to connect and work with different communities and countries across the globe; it helps us to foster the relationships we need to fight terrorism across the globe. And having a diverse set of backgrounds, skills, knowledge, perspectives, and experiences contributes to better national security decisionmaking. We should lead the world and protect our homeland not just by preaching pluralism and tolerance, but by practicing it. While we embark on that mission, we should take with us the words of Frederick Douglass: ``If there is no struggle, there is no progress.'' Everyone in this body has a responsibility to be part of the struggle and, through it, to be part of progress. Everyone in this body has a responsibility to embrace struggle, even when it occurs right here on this floor, if it is in the name of progress. I am talking about protecting the Voting Rights Act. The right to vote is fundamental to every democracy. Every vote counts and must be counted fairly. I am talking about ending the senseless and discriminatory practice of racial profiling. It is painful that, in 2017, we still need to explain that Americans should not be considered suspects or targets because of the color of their skin. I am talking about criminal justice reform--and prioritizing criminal justice reform in this Congress. I am talking about recognizing the incredible contributions of Frederick Douglass, Dorothy Height, Harriet Tubman, Katherine Johnson, Mae Jemison, and others in our public school curricula. Many Americans would not even recognize their names, and that is a tragic failure on our part to honor Black history. I am talking about not just talking, but committing to these causes through actions around our States and through legislation right here in this Chamber. Whether through passing my End Racial Profiling Act or my National Security Diversity and Inclusion Workforce Act or any other bills introduced by my colleagues, Black History Month reminds us that we can and must do more. Let us begin by remembering that Black history is American history. Their story is our story. When we celebrate Black pioneers and activists and inventors and artists, we celebrate the diversity and the strength of character that are the reasons we are here today.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, today I wish to shine a spotlight on the dire security and humanitarian situation in northeastern Nigeria and the Lake Chad basin, precipitated by Boko Haram, and to urge the new administration to organize quickly to address it. Nigeria has been referred to as one of the anchor states of sub-Saharan Africa and our bilateral relationship is one of our most important on the continent. It is the most populous country on the continent. It has the biggest economy. It has contributed troops to regional and U.N. peacekeeping missions for decades and is a major oil-producing country. Nigeria's population is forecast to grow to 400 million by 2050, overtaking the United States and becoming the world's third most populous country. Nigeria's political and economic influence in the region is difficult to overstate, and it will only increase as the population and economy grow. That is why I joined Senator Corker in writing to President Obama urging high-level engagement with Nigeria in the wake of the 2015 elections, elections which, while perhaps not perfect, turned out to be a positive story of respect for democracy in the region. For the first time in the nation's history, there was a peaceful transition of power between opposing political parties. Though people feared the worst, Nigerians proved they can be leaders on the continent and in the world. However, for Nigeria to fully realize its enormous promise, it must deal with a range of challenges from rampant corruption, to insecurity and intercommunal violence in the Niger Delta and the Middle Belt, tensions in the southeast, and most immediately the continuing threat Boko Haram poses in northeastern Nigeria and other countries in the Lake Chad basin. It is critical that we help with these efforts. Since 2010, Boko Haram has devastated northeastern Nigeria. According to the 2016 Global Terrorism Index, Boko Haram has the chilling distinction of being among the deadliest terrorist groups in history, with the second highest death toll from attacks out of all terrorist groups since 2000. In recent years, its attacks have spread to Cameroon, Chad, and Niger. The group, which pledged allegiance to ISIS in 2015 and now calls itself the Islamic State West Africa Province, has killed almost 16,000 people. Thousands of others have died as a result of clashes between the military and Boko Haram. The terrorist group has kidnapped thousands, including nearly 300 girls from Chibok in April 2014. The whereabouts of almost 200 of the girls remains unknown. Countries in the Lake Chad basin are experiencing what U.N. officials and aid workers have called a forgotten crisis as a result of the terrorist group's activities. Nearly 2 million people have been displaced in Nigeria alone. Two hundred thousand Nigerians have fled across borders as refugees. Eight-and-a-half million people in northeast Nigeria are in need of humanitarian assistance. Nearly 2 million people are estimated to be at risk for starvation. Continued insecurity has prevented aid workers from reaching some areas, so the actual needs may be even greater. Last November, Doctors Without Borders expressed fears that malnutrition could wipe out the under-5 population in parts of Nigeria's Borno state. In his 2015 inaugural address, President Muhammadu Buhari cited Boko Haram as the most pressing issue facing his administration, and to his credit, he has taken some action. The command center for counter Boko Haram operations has been relocated to Maiduguri, and Nigerians are coordinating military action with other countries in the Lake Chad basin. However, despite the Nigerian Government's claims, Boko Haram has not been largely defeated, and attacks continue. Just last month, the Nigerian military warned of a horrifying new tactic: women suicide bombers carrying babies in order to evade detection. The reports of continued attacks are profoundly disturbing. As tempting as it is to focus on a military solution, we must be very wary of falling into the trap of thinking that the scourge of Boko Haram can be overcome through military means alone. It is critical that we continue to encourage and support the Nigerian Government's use of all of all available tools to counter violent extremism in the northeast. The Obama administration engaged former President Goodluck Jonathan on the need to develop a holistic civilian-security focused counterterrorism strategy, one that addresses legitimate political and economic grievances in affected communities, but that approach was never fully embraced. There has been movement towards a countering violent extremism approach under President Buhari's leadership, and we should continue to encourage Nigerians to do more. One of the most important ways to engender the trust of the population is to provide access to justice for human rights abuses by security forces. After nearly 2 years in office, Buhari has yet to keep commitments to do so. The government created a human rights desk for the national army last year, which I welcome, but the establishment of the desk in and of itself is not enough. The military has made very serious mistakes for which it must be held accountable. In mid-2015, Amnesty International released a report alleging that the deaths of 8,000 civilians are attributable to the Nigerian military in northeast Nigeria. The report calls for the investigation of specific military commanders who are alleged to have had knowledge of torture, extrajudicial killings, and arbitrary detentions in overcrowded facilities that lead to thousands of deaths. Buhari said he would launch an investigation. However, we have yet to see any one prosecuted, tried, or convicted. The results of a commission of judicial inquiry into the massacre of more than 300 people in the northern city of Zaria in December 2015 were made public last year. The inquiry found that the deaths were a result of excessive force on the part of the Nigerian army. To date, there has been no action on the part of the federal government to hold abusive security forces accountable. Impunity for human rights abuses serves to undermine all of the work we are doing to counter violent extremism. In addition to widespread allegations of extrajudicial killings, there are accusations that the military has stolen humanitarian supplies and sexually exploited and abused those living in camps for internally displaced. And many of those freed from Boko Haram have been kept in internment camps for indefinite amounts of time, subject to a screening process that appears inconsistent and is not transparent. Internally displaced persons have reported that the military and local militia take men and boys seeking refuge in camps for screening and they are never seen again. All of these actions have a deleterious effect on efforts to win the hearts and minds of the communities of the northeast, a critical objective to any strategy to defeat Boko Haram. Military impunity is why I remain leery of the proposed sale of Super Tucano fighter aircraft to Nigeria. Now is not the time for the United States to focus on the provision of aircraft and heavy munitions, especially in the wake of the Nigerian Airforce's bombing of a camp for IDPs last month that may have killed up to 200 innocent people and injured many more. Make no mistake. I support security assistance provided in compliance with the Leahy laws. But I support assistance that will have an actual impact on the Nigerian military's effectiveness. Lack of airpower or munitions are not its problem. The real impediments to success include poor command and control, insufficient air to ground coordination, impunity for human rights abuses, and little to no experience working with local communities and humanitarian partners. Addressing those issues could have an enormous impact on the ground. To help Nigeria respond to the challenges in the northeast, I urge the new administration to take three steps immediately. First, increase our overall humanitarian assistance budget. The administration should ensure that the President's budget request for fiscal year 2018 provides increased baseline funding for all foreign assistance programs. Such funding is currently 30 percent lower than it was in fiscal year 2010, and it is critical that we return baseline funding to a normal and sustainable level following several years of inadequate requests. An approach that erodes baseline funding while temporarily substituting emergency funds is not workable if the United States wants to continue to set an example in the world. An increase in the budget will enable us to make a significant pledge at the February 24 donors conference in Oslo. We have been generous, but the scale of the emergency demands that we--and our partners--do more. The United States has always led the international response to emergencies such as these, and we must continue to do so. But we can't get blood from a rock. There is no way we can provide adequate money to help the traumatized people in Nigeria and other countries of the Lake Chad basin unless we ensure that the budget for humanitarian assistance is robust without relying on transient funding like OCO. I encourage the administration to continue to inform Congress of the status of the humanitarian response, so that we can work as a unified government to help the people of Nigeria overcome the destruction left in the wake of Boko Haram. Nor can we afford a draconian cut to our contributions to international organizations. The World Food Program, WFP, is just beginning to scale up its operations in northeastern Nigeria. But it is under enormous strain. In December, the organization was forced to cut the amount of food it is providing to people in the Central African Republic due to insufficient resources. In fact, funding for CAR is so scarce that in 2016 it was able to give aid to less than a third the number of people it aimed to support. A new drought in Ethiopia has left 5.6 million people in urgent need of assistance according to authorities. The U.N. humanitarian coordinator for Somalia, Peter de Clercq, warned earlier this month that, without a massive scale up in assistance, parts of Somalia may face famine. Needs in South Sudan continue to rise, with warnings of famine on the horizon. Slashing funding to WFP would be incredibly unwise, as would deep cuts to UNFPA. Women have suffered enormously in this conflict. UNFPA is on the ground supporting mechanisms to both prevent and respond to gender-based violence and care for pregnant women and newborns. We cannot let the specific needs of women and girls go unmet. Second, the new administration must work with career experts to surge our capacity on the ground. The administration needs to make clear that the current hiring freeze will not affect lifesaving efforts here or abroad, and Embassy Abuja should approve USAID's request to station additional humanitarian experts at post as quickly as possible. We need experienced people working with the Nigerian Government and the international community to coordinate more effective aid delivery. I applaud the U.S. Agency for International Development, USAID, for dispatching a disaster assistance response team, DART, to Nigeria in November to support government of Nigeria-led efforts to reduce food insecurity in the Boko Haram-affected regions of the country's northeast. The country has not faced a humanitarian emergency like this in a generation. National and state emergency management agencies are overtaxed, have little familiarity with providing a large-scale aid response, and are not accustomed to working with the U.N. in this manner. Our aid professionals can help. Let me be clear; Nigeria must continue to do its part. It is imperative that President Buhari set a positive cooperative tone with the international community. However, there is no question that we must continue our robust humanitarian response. Finally, we must get smart about our security assistance. Agreeing to sell planes with more sophisticated targeting systems that will not be on the ground for 2 more years will not fix what is broken with respect to the Nigerian military's response in the north. Right now--today--we and our international partners should redouble our efforts to work with the Nigerians to develop a list of short-term interventions and a long- term plan to address issues related to military professionalism, accountability, improved command and control, more effective communication between and within services, strategic planning, logistics, and auditing. The strategic governance initiative is a step in the right direction, but we must take action that will translate into results in the field as quickly as possible. The situation in Nigeria is urgent. Few Americans are aware of the importance of Nigeria to the United States or the degree of suffering in northeastern Nigeria, but those of us who are policymakers cannot afford to drop the ball on our support of Nigeria's fight against Boko Haram or for those suffering in the Lake Chad basin. I recognize that it seems to some people that we are being called on to do more now internationally than ever. But we can do this. We are the Nation that conceived the Marshall Plan, worked with allies to execute the Berlin Airlift, and more recently, developed and implemented PEPFAR. We are up to the task. And we are not alone. Where America leads, our partners will follow. And I strongly encourage them to do so. Failure to redouble our efforts in these areas could mean that ISIS will gain a foothold in West Africa for a generation. I thank my colleagues.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I would like to express my support for the nomination of Linda McMahon to the position of Administrator of the U.S. Small Business Administration. Linda McMahon is an interesting candidate for this position. As the cofounder and former CEO of the WWE, she built a small regional business into an entertainment behemoth. Along the way she struggled to meet payroll, market the business, learn State and Federal regulatory regimes, manage a traveling workforce, learn new media platforms, and navigate new revenue streams. Each of these accomplishments is impressive. But what makes Linda McMahon unique for this role is the fact that, on her path to success, she made serious enough mistakes that she was forced to declare personal bankruptcy and apply for government assistance. I think having an Administrator who has started her own small business and met and overcame significant challenges along her way is of tremendous value. Having been in the trenches herself, she will really be able to evaluate the efficacy of current small business programs, and she may very well be able to suggest substantive improvements or even new directions. I was also particularly impressed with Mrs. McMahon's performance during her confirmation hearing. When she knew the answer to a question posed by a Senator, she answered it. When she didn't know the answer, she said so. She appeared to have an open mind about issues and struck me as sincerely interested in working on all issues with all of the Senators, regardless of political or geographical affiliations. Linda McMahon has expressed her interest in helping small businesses thrive. She understands how difficult it can be for entrepreneurs to access capital. She knows that small businesses have a hard time competing for Federal contracts. She knows that small business owners sometimes need advice and guidance--and she believes in the value of training and support programs. I support Linda McMahon's nomination because, not only is she interested in having the job of Administrator, she appears to have genuine interest in doing the job. She clearly enjoys using her business skills and experience to mentor entrepreneurs, and I believe that she will apply her tenacity to protecting and hopefully improving Federal support systems for America's entrepreneurs.

Mr. CARDIN

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

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I take this time to explain to my colleagues why I will be opposing Steve Mnuchin's nomination for Secretary of the Treasury. Mr. Mnuchin has an impressive record of accomplishment, and I admire his willingness to serve the public. But because of his advocacy for fiscally irresponsible and unfair fiscal policies, which I believe will add to the deficit of this country, I cannot support his nomination. Let me go back a while, if I may. I was in the Congress when we passed a budget that balanced the Federal budget, where we were actually reducing the Federal debt. It was controversial at the time because we did it by cutting spending first--and we did--but making sure we had adequate revenues in the Treasury to pay our bills because we recognized that we had a moral obligation to pay our bills, that we are wealthy enough of a nation that we don't have to ask our children and grandchildren to pay for our spending today. We took the steps to balance the Federal budget, and we did it by making some tough votes. I was proud to be in the Congress that took those tough votes that balanced the Federal budget. After we balanced the Federal budget, we saw unprecedented economic growth because we took the responsible actions. We should take a lesson from the past and recognize that there is no easy way to get our budget in better balance. It requires a fiscal policy that is fair--that is fair to middle-income families, that is fair to our children and grandchildren, that is fair to those who depend upon the services that are financed through the government sector, including our seniors with Medicare and Social Security. We can do that if we work together. But Mr. Mnuchin's economic plan, the one that he has submitted to Congress, I think, would put us at great risk. The main part of what he is advocating is tax cuts primarily for the wealthy. The top 0.1 percent under the Mnuchin plan will receive in excess of $1 million in tax breaks; the upper 1 percent in excess of $200,000 in tax cuts. Here is the problem: How do we pay for this? How do we offset the cost of these tax cuts? Because I don't think any of us wants to add to the deficit. So we asked Mr. Mnuchin that question during the confirmation process. Let me just read for the Record the questions that I asked him as to how he would offset the cost of the tax cuts. The Trump plan, including those cuts, is estimated by the Tax Policy Center to add $6.2 trillion to the deficit and by the Tax Foundation to add $3.9 trillion to the deficit. I asked Mr. Mnuchin: In your hearing, you discussed the importance of economic growth in offsetting the revenues lost under the President's tax reform plan. . . . For instance, you've said, ``[s]o we think that by cutting corporate taxes, we'll create huge economic growth and we'll have huge personal income, so the revenues will be offset on the other side.'' Is it your view that the tax cuts in the President's plan will be fully offset by economic growth? That is the question I asked. Mr. Mnuchin's answer: ``Our objective is to have any tax cuts offset by economic growth.'' I asked: ``If so, could you please share your team's analysis supporting that position?'' Mr. Mnuchin's answer: ``Our objective is to have any tax cuts offset by economic growth.'' I then asked: ``Will you commit, as we discussed in our meeting, not to put forward a plan that will increase the deficit and put our country in a worse financial position?'' Mr. Mnuchin's answer: ``Our objective is to have any tax cuts offset by economic growth.'' In other words, there is no effort here to offset the cost of this tax cut, other than borrowing money, putting our children and grandchildren at greater risk. I want to repeat again the estimate that we have heard on the President's tax proposal--that it will add anywhere from $6 trillion to almost $4 trillion in deficit. Those estimates are from progressive and conservative groups, and they do consider that there will be some dynamic score keeping here, that there will be some economic growth. That is in those estimates. So even with economic growth, these proposals will greatly enhance the deficit of this country, something that we should not be doing. What does that mean? You increase the debt of this country. America has to borrow more. Interest rates go up. Middle-income families have to pay more on mortgage payments or car loans. Middle income families are the ones who get hurt by this. If we are going to see real economic growth, we have to help the middle class-- the growing middle class--the consumers, those who buy the goods, those who are struggling every day to make ends meet. This plan doesn't help them. What they are going to be saddled with is more debt and higher interest costs, which will be a drag on our economic growth. So for all those reasons, I think what is important to have is an advocate for the President as Secretary of the Treasury, someone who recognizes the balance here. Let me tell you what else deficits do. They are used as justification to continue to cut our discretionary spending accounts, as well as to take a look at entitlement spending. I acknowledge that, as part of the strategy to balance the Federal budget, we must look at our spending, but we have to have the revenues in order to make it balance. If you don't have the revenues, and you are taking another $4 to $6 trillion out of the equation, there is going to be a lot more pressure to make irresponsible cuts on the spending side. I heard Candidate Trump talk about that we are not going to cut Social Security. But can you really have $6 trillion of tax cuts without looking at Social Security? And how about Medicare? These are programs that are vitally important for our seniors. It provides them money to live on so they don't have to live in poverty, so they can pay their medical bills. For a majority of seniors, Social Security is their largest source of income. Are we really thinking about equating that with tax cuts for the wealthiest in this country of over $1 million? I don't think that is fairness. I don't think that is what we should be doing. When you look at the programs that are financed through government, are we going to take away from our students? They already are suffering too high, as far as the cost of attending colleges. Interest rates are already too high in regards to what they do. Are we going to put more pressure to make more cuts in regards to how we help our students? Are we going to cut maintaining our highways? We want to spend more on highways, bridges, transit systems, and water infrastructure, which I think we need to do. How do you do that if you cut $4 to $6 trillion of revenue on the revenue side without adding greatly to the deficit, which is something none of us wants to do? How about something like our national parks? We take pride and want to maintain that, but with the pressure on the budgets that is a result of taking the revenues out of government, we know what is going to happen. We have seen this movie before. We have seen what has happened before. The driving force behind all of this is that the most important thing, the most important part of the economic program, is to have these tax cuts primarily for the wealthy. No, I think the center of our economic policy needs to be fairness-- fairness for middle-income families, fairness so that Americans can afford to raise their families and send their kids to college and can afford to have decent opportunities in this country. That is how we all grow together, and that requires a balanced approach to our Nation's budget--one that, yes, looks at restraining spending but also looks at having a Tax Code that is fair and raises the revenues to pay our bills and not pushing that off to future generations. I think for all those reasons, we need a person who is going to advocate on behalf of middle-income families and on behalf of a growing economy. I think the plan that Mr. Mnuchin is advocating will not accomplish that. For these reasons and others, I cannot support his nomination for Secretary of the Treasury. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, first let me comment and thank my colleague from Maryland, Senator Van Hollen. Senator Van Hollen may be a new Member to the U.S. Senate, but he is not a new Member to the Congress of the United States. I think Senator Van Hollen said this very clearly: This nomination is very much about the type of health care system we want for the people in this country, whether we are going to have affordable, quality health care for all Americans, whether health care is going to be a right or a privilege. I thank Senator Van Hollen for the points he made. I think the people of Maryland are not going to be surprised that I agree with my colleague from Maryland and that I take this time to explain why I will oppose Mr. Price for Secretary of Health and Human Services. Let me begin by talking about something that happened in Maryland during my first year in the U.S. Senate. I was elected in 2006. In 2007, in my very first year, we had a tragic situation that occurred a few miles from where we are right here, in Prince George's County, MD. A youngster, 12 years of age, Deamonte Driver, died from a tooth problem. Let me give you the background on this because this is a very tragic situation. This is in the State of Maryland, one of the wealthiest States in one of the wealthiest nations. Deamonte Driver's mother recognized that Deamonte Driver had pain in his mouth. She tried to get him to a dentist, but they had no insurance and no coverage. She couldn't get anyone to take care of her son. What was needed was an $80 tooth extraction. If he could have seen a dentist, that is exactly what would have happened. He couldn't get in because he had no insurance, and he fell through the cracks of our system. That tooth became abscessed, and it went into his brain. He went through two operations, hundreds of thousands of dollars of cost, and he lost his life. That happened in my first year in the U.S. Senate. I vowed to do everything I could to make sure there were no more tragedies anywhere in America like Deamonte Driver's. Every child should be able to get access to oral health care. It is who we are as a nation. It is part of who we are, and it makes sense from the point of view of an efficient health care system. I introduced legislation to provide pediatric dental care in this country. I worked with my colleague Elijah Cummings in the House of Representatives and with others here, and we were able to make some progress. Ultimately, we were able to get this as part of our national health policy in the Affordable Care Act. It is now part of what is known as essential health services. I start this debate on the floor of the U.S. Senate by saying that Dr. Price, the nominee for Secretary of Health and Human Services, is one of the leaders for the repeal of the Affordable Care Act, which would repeal essential health services, which would eliminate the right for all children in America to have pediatric dental care. So I then look at what Mr. Price would replace it with, and I am confused because I am not exactly sure what he would replace it with. I have looked at what he has done as a Member of the House, I have looked at what he has done as the chairman of the Budget Committee, and I am not confident that we would maintain that type of guaranteed coverage for our children. That is just one concrete example--one person--of why I am concerned about what would happen if we repealed the Affordable Care Act, and we don't know what is coming next. The Affordable Care Act--30 million Americans now have affordable, quality health care as a result of the Affordable Care Act. The repeal of that law would jeopardize those 30 million. In Maryland, the uninsured rate has gone down from over 12 percent to a little over 6 percent. We have cut our uninsured rate by about 50 percent. That is so important for so many different reasons. Yes, it is important for the 400,000 Marylanders who now have third-party coverage who didn't have third-party coverage before. They now can go see a doctor rather than using an emergency room. They don't have to wait if they have a medical condition; they can get care immediately. They can get access to preventive health care that keeps them healthy so they don't enter our health care system in a much more costly way. Before the Affordable Care Act, these 400,000 people got their health care, but they didn't get it in the most cost-effective way. They used emergency rooms, which are very expensive. They didn't pay for their bills. They entered the health care system in a more acute way, using more health care services than they need, and they didn't pay their bills. As a result, we saw that those who had health insurance were paying more than they should because of those who did not have health insurance. That added to the cost, not just of those who didn't have the insurance but to all Maryland insured. Mr. President, I see that the distinguished majority leader is on the floor. I will be glad to yield to him. I believe he has an announcement he wants to make.