Gerald Connolly

Mr. CONNOLLY

Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my dear friend from New York for her leadership. I also thank Mr. Frelinghuysen for his leadership, and I wish him well in the next chapter of his career. While this combination of a CR and a minibus is a half-measure by definition, I certainly urge its adoption in order to avert what would be the third government shutdown just this year. As a representative of northern Virginia, I do not share the President's idea that there is ever such a thing as a good government shutdown. I look forward to working with the committee to complete the rest of the appropriations bills for fiscal year 2019 in order to address pressing issues, especially providing our hardworking Federal employees with a raise. Again, I thank Chairwoman Granger and Ranking Member Visclosky for including in the defense appropriations bill an authorization for the Secretary of Defense in the event of a government shutdown to make military death gratuity payments to families of fallen servicemembers. I have made this a cause of mine for a number of Congresses now. I am so glad this is finally going to be enshrined in law, and I thank the Appropriations Subcommittee and full committee for their cooperation in including this provision. I commend the committee for including this overdue provision, and I know the families of the fallen appreciate it. It was shameful that Congress would ever allow the government to shut down and allow grieving military families who made the ultimate sacrifice to go without this small, but very important, measure of the country's gratitude and recognition of their loved one's ultimate sacrifice. Again, I thank the leadership of the committee, the subcommittee, and their staffs for providing this bipartisan bill. I certainly urge its passage and look forward to supporting it.

Mr. CONNOLLY

Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from Massachusetts for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I just say to my friend from Alabama, he wraps himself in the uniform of our brave men and women who serve this country overseas and here at home as if there is a zero-sum game here. He either chooses them or he chooses to address the threat from Russia, but he can't do both. And I say to my friend: You go to those men and women and explain to them how our President of the United States could sit next to an adversary--a thug, a killer, someone who interfered in our election--and explain to them, out fighting for their country, the Commander in Chief wouldn't do it. You explain to them how that same Commander in Chief actually opined that maybe Crimea should be given up. What are we fighting for? What are our values? This is relevant. We need to defeat the previous question so that we can consider a debate about the role of Russia in interfering with the most sacred thing Americans do: vote. Our bill would sanction any foreign individual or entity found to have unlawfully meddled with a Federal election and would bar entry to this country and freeze U.S.-based assets of anyone involved in such interference. President Trump's performance at the Helsinki Summit with Vladimir Putin underscores the need for this legislation, the very opposite of what my friend from Alabama is asserting. Time and again, the President refuses to acknowledge the unanimous conclusion of all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies that that happened; that Russia was a threat and directly interfered with our 2016 elections. Mr. Trump's own Director of National Intelligence, Dan Coats, recently said: ``The warning lights are blinking red again. Today, the digital infrastructure that serves this country is literally under attack.'' That is not some liberal Democrat. That is a former Republican Senator and the Republican appointee of a Republican President warning us this is a clear and imminent threat. So this is directly relevant. Defeating the previous question will allow us to have that discussion on the floor, because we love our country and we want to have a good answer to the men and women in uniform, my friend from Alabama keeps on invoking; that America hasn't given up. We are not going to roll over and play dead to our adversaries. We are going to candidly, on a bipartisan basis, acknowledge the threat to this country. And we are going to resist it, because we recognize their service and their willingness to put themselves on the line. Are we, is the question. I urge the defeat of the previous question and support for the bill Mr. Engel and I have introduced to try to address this very grave subject.

Mr. CONNOLLY

Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chairman, it is in the spirit of bipartisan, commonsense, and modest safeguards that I sought to offer this amendment that would protect the 2015 Federal coal ash rule. Sadly, late last night, Acting EPA Administrator Wheeler helped cement the toxic legacy of former Administrator Pruitt's reign over the EPA by rolling back Federal coal ash standards, making this amendment moot. I remind my colleagues that the Obama-era Federal coal ash rule was not rushed nor was it onerous. In fact, some think it didn't go far enough. After years of debate, input from community and industry stakeholders, and nearly half a million public comments, the Obama administration finalized stringent but pragmatic Federal coal ash regulations to deal with post-closure requirements, groundwater monitoring, and public reporting. The Pruitt proposal, which was announced only 5 months ago, included very few hearings, very little outreach to the public, and last night was finalized. That is warp speed, even for the Trump administration's swamp-driven EPA antiregulation movement. So, no, the 2015 rule was not rushed; the Pruitt rule most certainly was. I also remind my colleagues of the catastrophic 2008 Kingston, Tennessee, coal ash spill and why the Federal Government got in this business to begin with. The Kingston spill was a devastating event. The breach released 5 million cubic yards of coal ash, covering 300 acres in toxic sludge, damaging and destroying homes and property, resulting in $1.2 billion in cleanup costs, mostly borne by the public. The lasting health consequences of that spill, some of which are still unknown, are even worse. Residents still suffer from respiratory illnesses and other side effects. Arsenic levels where the coal ash runoff was disposed of were measured at 100 times, Mr. Chairman, higher than the amount allowed under the Safe Drinking Water Act. The EPA has already said such exposure significantly increases risk of cancers. Earlier this year, lawyers filed suit in Federal court alleging that more than 180 members of this Superfund cleanup now face severe health effects, and 30 individuals have died from the cleanup of this toxic waste. These coal ash spills continue to occur across the country, Mr. Chairman, including in my home State of Virginia, where a neighboring State, North Carolina, had a coal ash pond that spilled more than 39,000 tons of toxic ash and 24 million gallons of wastewater into the Dan River. Though much of the public and media attention to this spill was focused on North Carolina's regulatory shortcomings, Virginia was exposed to the dangers of the coal ash spill. As a result, Virginia's Department of Environmental Quality secured a $2.5 million settlement against Duke Energy Carolinas, a fraction of the cost of the cleanup. What has happened in Virginia, North Carolina, and Tennessee can happen in any one of our communities that have or are near coal ash impoundment ponds, which is why we must protect the 2015 Federal coal ash rule. Unfortunately, that is not what happened last night. What happened last night will weaken groundwater monitoring and cleanup requirements without considering the widespread evidence of significant groundwater contamination recently revealed by industry's own data. Already, under the 2015 rule's reporting requirements, coal ash waste sites across the country displayed evidence of contaminating groundwater. Under Pruitt's proposal, that data may not even see the light of day. We may not know. We are not going to monitor. Surely, if there is anything we here in Congress can agree on, it is the right of all people to have access to safe drinking water. As a result of the 2015 Federal rules, States are working to close legacy coal ash impoundments and protect water. Under the new finalized agreement that modified that rule last night, that is now in jeopardy. Because of that action, we are going to have to address coal ash in a different way, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, because of that action, I will be forced to withdraw this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time. Mr. Chair, I withdraw my amendment.

Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chair, may I inquire how much time we have remaining.

Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chairman, as the designee of Ranking Member Lowey, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment which would limit the Postal Service's ability to offer products and services on a pilot basis that could help the Postal Service find its way to financial stability. At a time when the Postal Service is bleeding red ink, this bill takes away existing revenue and potential revenue. In fiscal year 2017, the Postal Service reported a loss of $2.7 billion, marking the 11th straight year in the red. And just coincidentally, it got in the red because Congress, in 2006, restricted what the Postal Service could do. Well, it really worked well: 11 years of red ink, putting the Postal Service in insolvency, technically. To address the Postal Service's financial situation, the Postal Service needs financial relief, not further restrictions. H.R. 6076, the Postal Reform Act of 2018, which I introduced with the gentleman from North Carolina, Congressman Mark Meadows, on a bipartisan basis, passed the authorizing committee unanimously, and we are hoping to take it to the floor, and that is where it belongs, in an authorization bill, not as a rider on the appropriations bill. This bill even addresses issues raised by the gentleman from North Carolina's amendment. Under the Postal Reform Act, the Postal Service would have to limit any new nonpostal products and services to only those provided to State, local, and Tribal governments and Federal agencies. The bill would preserve existing nonpostal products and services. However, this amendment is much more restrictive than that. This amendment includes a blanket prohibition that would prevent the Postal Service from implementing any other recommendations from a May 2015 Postal Service Inspector General Report, including improving its existing range of financial services, such as money orders.

Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chair, this amendment, as I said, includes blanket prohibitions that would prevent the Postal Service from implementing the reports and recommendations of the 2015 Postal Service Inspector General Report, including improving its existing range of financial services, such as money orders. I might add, the assertions that have been made that there has been no congressional oversight, that is not true. My committee, the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, has had numerous hearings on the Postal Service, numerous briefings with the Postmaster General and her predecessor and his predecessor. We have marked up numerous bills. We finally got one we could agree on, and it is pending. That is how this should be done--not piecemeal, not in a way that further constrains and circumscribes the Postal Service that can only lead to more red ink. We are trying to save the Postal Service, which is mandated in the Constitution. It has a requirement for universal service that private sector firms do not. And we have allowed some pilot programs to see if they can work. They are not a threat to financial institutions. So we are fixing a problem here that does not really exist, and we are going to do real harm to a Postal Service we have already harmed with the 2006 legislation Congress passed in a lame-duck session in the name of reform, and it backfired. It blew up, and it has done incalculable damage which we are now trying to repair to the Postal Service. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to reject this unwarranted intrusion into the prerogatives of the authorizing committee that is doing its job and has a bipartisan bill that passed our committee unanimously, which is a remarkable statement for the Oversight and Government Reform Committee. We ought not to be legislating on an appropriations bill in this way with respect to the Postal Service. It deserves better, our consumers deserve better, Postal Service customers deserve better, and we can do better. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CONNOLLY

Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Watson Coleman), a distinguished member of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee. It gives me great pleasure to recognize my distinguished colleague.

Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from North Carolina. I appreciate her fervor, and I know she is sincere in her convictions with respect to this legislation and to the underlying issues. As someone who came from local government, coming here to Congress, running one of the biggest local governments in the United States, I certainly am sympathetic to the purposes of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, and I supported many of those provisions. This goes too far. This isn't just an UMRA improvement. This is gutting, wholesale, the regulatory process that provides enormous benefits, and we know that from the OMB itself in terms of the benefits versus the cost of rulemaking to protect the public. Where we can make improvements, great, but gutting it, giving the regulated industries an inside opportunity to shape or block those regulations before the public ever even sees them, expanding, in a great way, the role of the judiciary to second-guess and subvert the role of rulemaking agencies in the executive branch, I think, does raise constitutional issues, as Mr. Cummings said, that sooner or later will have to be addressed. So I think this is a very flawed piece of legislation, despite the good intentions of my friend from North Carolina. I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``no'' on something that is simple, neat, but wrong, as H.L. Mencken once said. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chairman, I thank my good friend for her thoughtful amendment. This amendment would significantly improve an already bad bill by exempting the independent agencies, who should not be brought under the penumbra of this bill at all. It will absolutely cut their independence and make them subject to the rulemaking and the supervision of the OMB in a way that Congress never intended. That is why they are independent agencies. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to adopt this thoughtful amendment, and I thank my good friend from New Jersey for her leadership on this matter.

Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from Maryland for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. It is a thoughtful addition. Certainly, more transparency is a good thing. But, as Mr. Raskin suggests, it doesn't change the underlying fact that this is a flawed bill. It doesn't change the fact that it guts independent agencies. It doesn't change the fact that it broadly expands the role of the judiciary in an executive branch rulemaking process. It doesn't change the fact that it basically gives unilateral authority to the chairman and ranking member here in Congress to block rules, period. And it doesn't change the fact that it gives the private sector an unprecedented role in rulemaking a priority in a way that is absolutely against consumer interests. I know my friend from Maryland understands that, so I thank him for his thoughtful amendment.

Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this is a simple, clear amendment to the Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act. This amendment seeks to establish a performance-based sunset mechanism stipulating that, in the event that the annual rate of real GDP growth remains below 5 percent over the first four quarters occurring after the date of enactment, then the statutory changes made by H.R. 50 are repealed because the bill will have proved to have been ineffective. If the promise of deregulation and gutting the protection of the American people is greater economic growth, then let's test that theory. This amendment sets up a real-world measurement and a sunset mechanism that supporters and opponents can support. It features the flexibility to ensure an appropriate response to the impact of H.R. 50 on America's economic growth over the year following enactment. If the Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act, by lessening the independence of independent regulatory agencies and by strengthening the influence of the private sector to be regulated in the Federal rulemaking process, does, in fact, spur economic growth, we should hold the policy accountable. During the Obama administration--a time when President Obama's critics believed that overregulation was inhibiting the economy from growing and stunting recovery after the Great Recession, quarterly growth contradicted them. Quarterly growth of real GDP was at least 5 percent once and over 4 percent 11 times. In fact, in 2014, when Congress last considered, but did not enact, this bill and the supposed hobnail boot of government was on the neck of our economy, GDP actually grew at an annual rate of 4.6 percent and 5.2 percent in the second and third quarters, respectively, of that year. The provisions of H.R. 50 would make it harder for Federal agencies to safeguard air and water quality, the safety of food and consumer products, and the health and welfare of all Americans, all in the name of spurring economic growth. Therefore, it follows, if it fails to spur that promised economic growth and achieve an average annual growth of 5 percent over the year following the enactment of the law, then the statutory changes made by this bill should be repealed because they failed. Anything less would be a bad deal for the American public. Finally, I would note that, according to the preliminary estimate of the Congressional Budget Office, this amendment would not increase direct spending or reduce revenues, and I strongly urge my colleagues to adopt it. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on H.R. 50, the Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act. We have seen this bill before. It was a bad idea then, it is a bad idea now. Proponents of this bill, as we have just heard, may argue that regulations are burdensome and costly--and sometimes they are--but, in fact, the benefits of agency regulations far outweigh the costs. The most recent draft report of the Trump administration's own Office of Management and Budget on the benefits and costs of regulations found that the estimated annual benefits of rules between 2006 and 2016, which covers nearly all of the regulations during the previous administration, were between $219 billion and $695 billion. Those are the benefits, the value of benefits. By contrast, it said that the cost of those same rules were estimated at between somewhere around $59 billion and $88 billion. The benefits far outweigh the cost to the American public. This bill will impose numerous requirements that will slow down the regulatory process and give regulated industry an unfair advantage over public health organizations, doctors, scientists, and ordinary Americans when new rules are made. The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act was important in helping to strike a balance between the need for Federal regulations and the burden those regulations placed on State and local governments. I know that. I was the head of a very large local government. Congress should endeavor to strike, however, a similar balance with mandates on the private sector, without putting our fingers on the scale for the very industries that need regulations, as this bill does. Under this bill, agencies would be required to consult with impacted entities in the private sector on a proposed rule before the rule is even made available to the public, giving a very unfair advantage to the industries to be regulated. Agencies should consult with industry on proposed rules, of course. Regulated corporations, however, should never been given an explicit and unfair preference over other stakeholders, particularly the American families and consumers these rules are designed to protect. Drug manufacturers, for example, should not get to influence an opioid safety regulation before public health experts. The energy industry should not get to weigh in on a regulation before those citizens whose air and water quality would be affected are heard from. This bill would also significantly expand in almost a sweeping way judicial review under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. UMRA currently prohibits a court from delaying or invalidating a rule based on an agency's compliance with UMRA. This bill would eliminate that restriction. This bill would also allow judges to second-guess agency experts by evaluating the adequacy of agency analyses, including cost-benefit estimates, giving broad new power to the judiciary to get into the rulemaking process and, in some cases, perhaps, to substitute themselves for regulatory agencies. This is something I don't believe we want to see. The bill would also require an agency to conduct a retrospective cost-benefit analysis of any existing rule if requested by the chairman or ranking member of the committee. This provision would require agencies to conduct analyses on potentially thousands of rules, diverting unnecessary time and attention away from fulfilling their missions. That is designed, basically, to preclude new rulemaking from happening at all. H.R. 50 would also repeal the exemption that is currently in UMRA for independent agencies. As a result, the independence of agencies like the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Consumer Product Safety Commission could be compromised because the Office of Management and Budget would now have a role in shaping rules those agencies issue. The bottom line is that regulation can make our air cleaner to breathe, our water safer to drink--by the way, we are reminded of that right now here in Washington, D.C., where we have a water boil advisory--the products we use safer, and provide protections that are critical for a healthy economy. H.R. 50 would impose new roadblocks that would make it harder to provide those protections for the public we serve. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chair, before I recognize Mr. Cummings, the distinguished ranking member of our committee, I do want to say, it is the same old thing: Oh, this is just commonsense. Of course we favor sensible regulation that protects our air and water. Really. The same crowd that says that is witnessing the dismantlement of regulations and, frankly, the defenestration of the regulatory agencies charged with that mission, like the EPA. The late, lamented Administrator of the EPA has set about on a wrecking ball mission at EPA, and I don't hear my Republican friends speaking up, decrying that, and defending those regulations to protect the public. This is a pig in a poke. My colleagues should not support it. Mr. Chair, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. My friend from Texas is right. This will certainly provide a lot more clarity for private enterprise. I am not sure it is the kind of clarity we want, because they are going to get their nose into the business of rulemaking to serve their interests. There are rules that could not have been enacted if H.R. 50 had been law. For example, after the Deepwater Horizon explosion that killed 11 crew members and set off the worst oil spill in American history, the Department of the Interior finalized a rule in 2016 to tighten controls in blowout preventers and calling for rig operators to have third parties certify that the safety devices worked under extreme conditions. That rule would have been precluded because of the provisions of this bill. The sanitary transportation of human and animal food, this rule establishes requirements for parties engaged in the transportation of food, including food for animals, to use sanitary transportation practices. That would have been precluded. The corporate average fuel economy standards to regulate miles-per- gallon number of light-duty vehicles such as sedans, minivans, and any vehicle that weighs less than 10,000 pounds would have been precluded. The long-term care facilities arbitration agreements ban nursing homes and assisted living facilities from forcing patients and their families into private arbitration to resolve disputes. We protected the interests of consumers and their families at a time of need. That rule would have been precluded, too. So that may be the reason why the Coalition for Sensible Safeguards, 150 organizations, have come together to oppose this bill. It is not in the public interest. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay), a distinguished member of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee. It gives me great pride to recognize my dear friend.

Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chairman, may I ask how much time I have left.

Mr. CONNOLLY

Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Speaker, we just heard my friend from Michigan talk about how NATO allies have to live up to their obligations. NATO allies have been living up to their obligations. In fact, article V of NATO has only been invoked once, and it was on behalf of the United States by our NATO allies. The way to get NATO working is not to blow up a NATO summit, and it is not to disparage NATO allies--allies of half a century. Now we see that same wrecking ball strategy in the United Kingdom, our oldest ally on the face of the Earth. This is no way to conduct foreign policy. It is destructive, and it will hurt the United States' interests that have been served long by our allies and by NATO in particular. I hope the President of the United States comes to his senses and understands talking discretely is far better than blowing it up.

Mr. CONNOLLY

Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chairman, I thank my good friend from California for his leadership in this very important amendment, and I am proud to be an original cosponsor with him. This amendment would require an intelligence briefing on the anticipated geopolitical effects of emerging infectious diseases and pandemics. These threats have serious implications for the national security of the country. Just ask Director of National Intelligence, Daniel Coats, who earlier this year warned that the increase in the frequency and diversity of reported disease outbreaks probably will continue, including the potential of a severe global health emergency that could lead to major economic and societal disruptions, strain governmental international resources, and increase calls to the United States for support. An outbreak in a remote village can spread to major cities in all six continents in less than 36 hours. Such an event can lead nations to close borders, disrupting the flow of people, goods, and services, and incurring grave economic, social, political, and security costs. Nearly 70 percent of the world's nations are underprepared to manage and control such outbreaks. These are not just hypotheticals. SARS, for example, spread across four continents, infected 8,100 people, killed more than 700, and cost the global economy $40 billion between February and July of 2003. The Ebola and Zika outbreaks cost the American taxpayers more than $6 billion. Understanding the ability, Mr. Chairman, of affected nations and international organizations to detect and manage infectious diseases and transnational pandemics is a vital step to ensuring an effective response. I urge all of our colleagues to support Mr. Bera's and my amendment. I thank Mr. Bera for his leadership.

Mr. CONNOLLY

Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Speaker, I am concerned that the President of the United States is engaged in a massive campaign of deception that threatens to upend U.S. policy towards Crimea, shake confidence in U.S. global leadership, and override the stated will of the United States Congress. This dangerous precedent set in Crimea cannot be overstated. Putin's forcible and illegal annexation of Crimea, the first forcible seizure of territory in Europe since World War II, undermines Ukrainian sovereignty and threatens the stability of European borders. Acquiescence on the part of the United States threatens the security of sovereign nations. Who is next? Moldova? Georgia? The Baltic States? It is the longstanding policy of the United States not to recognize territorial changes effected by force, as dictated by the Stimson Doctrine established in 1932 by then Republican Secretary of State Henry Stimson. We upheld that doctrine with the issuance of the Welles Declaration in 1940, which stated emphatically that the United States would not recognize the illegal annexation of the Baltic States by then the Soviet Union. That policy remained in effect for 50 long years. For more than 50 years, we stood by the Baltic Republics of Estonia, Lithuania, and Latvia, sometimes in the face of ridicule. Today, they are independent sovereign states and good members of NATO. The collective wisdom of the previous and current administrations, Congress, our European allies, and the American public is that similar principles must be adopted with respect to Crimea. Crimea was Putin's original violation in the Ukraine, and we have limited credibility objecting to Russia's subsequent invasion of the Luhansk and Donetsk if we do not stand firm with respect to Crimea. The Obama administration established a nonrecognition policy toward Russian sovereignty over Crimea and levied sanctions against individuals and entities enabling Russia's occupation. Our allies in Europe stood with us shoulder to shoulder in emphasizing and enforcing those sanctions. Congress codified President Obama's Crimea sanctions and has repeatedly used the power of the purse to prohibit the use of government funds for any action that would recognize the de jure or de facto illegal annexation of Crimea. And in the Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act, Congress reiterated its support for the Stimson Doctrine and its application to the illegal invasions by Russia and occupations of Abkhazia and South Ossetia in Georgia, Crimea, and eastern Ukraine, and the Transnistria region of Moldova. Even the State Department for the current administration has reiterated our nonrecognition policy and enforced Crimea sanctions. But through all of this, one man stands alone atop his bully pulpit with opaque intentions and armed with an arsenal of half-truths and downright lies. That person is the President of the United States, Donald Trump. I do not particularly care that Donald Trump personally admires Vladimir Putin. Everyone needs a role model. However, President Trump's willful ignorance of the crisis in the Ukraine has had him repeat propaganda and support policies that are so foreign that they would make Mr. Putin very happy. It was candidate Trump who said both ``Crimea has been taken'' and Putin is ``not going into Ukraine.'' I will not attempt to untangle the contradictions therein. I trust President Trump has had time to study and understand why his comments betrayed a shockingly tenuous grasp of U.S. foreign policy and our increasingly dangerous geopolitical climate. As Commander in Chief, the President has since had time to learn more about the situation in the Crimea and eastern Ukraine. Unfortunately, he has learned all the wrong lessons and has adopted a confrontational approach to current U.S. policy regarding Crimea. In justifying his position, the President has repeated several myths, some of which were no doubt originated by the Kremlin's own propaganda machine. Myth number one: The people of Crimea have said they preferred Russia--only in a referendum in an occupied Crimea with Russian troops all over the state. No referendum has validity at the end of a barrel of a gun. Myth number two: The demographics of Crimea demand they be part of Russia because most of them speak Russian. I am sure Russian speaking populations in the Baltic Republics revolt at that kind of notion. And the claim also erases history because Crimean Tatars were forcibly removed from Crimea by the dictator Stalin. This is the President's most insidious myth, the third one; recognizing Crimea could help improve relations with Russia.

Mr. CONNOLLY. I don't think so. Russia has a much more extensive agenda.

Mr. CONNOLLY. It is time for the United States to recognize----

Mr. CONNOLLY. * * *.