Chris Van Hollen

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chief Justice, I send an amendment to the desk to have the Chief Justice rule on motions to subpoena witnesses and documents and to rule on any assertion of privilege, and I ask that it be read.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chief Justice.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chief Justice, on behalf of myself and Senator Klobuchar, I send a question to the desk directed to both parties.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chief Justice, I send a question to the desk to the President's counsel and the House managers.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, at this particular moment in our history, we are witnessing the convergence of three events. The Senate will likely be sworn in tomorrow for the impeachment trial of President Trump. One of the Articles of Impeachment that will be coming over from the House relates to the President's abuse of power-- the charge that he has used the power and prestige of the Office of the Presidency to, among other things, withhold vital U.S. security assistance to Ukraine in order to pressure it to announce an investigation into Burisma, Hunter Biden, and, possibly, Joe Biden in an attempt to get Ukraine to interfere in the upcoming 2020 election on behalf of President Trump. Now, I am not here today to go into issues directly related to that trial. It is vitally important that we get relevant witnesses, that we get relevant documents, and that we have a fair trial and get to the truth. The second event that we learned about just this week that relates to the impeachment trial was that Russian military hackers broke into the Burisma computers in Ukraine and that they used the same phishing techniques that the GRU used--the Russian military intelligence--to break into the Democratic National Committee headquarters' servers during the 2016 Presidential elections. All of the evidence points to another attempt by Vladimir Putin to use his military GRU hackers to interfere in an American election--this time in the 2020 election. I don't know what is going to happen during the election on November 3 of this year. Obviously, each of us has his hopes as to what the result will be, but that is not the purpose of my being here on the floor today. My focus is on what should unite all of us in this body-- that should unite all 100 U.S. Senators--and that is that we should all agree that it is outrageous for any foreign power to interfere in an American election the way Russia interfered in our election in 2016 and that it would be equally outrageous for us, in our knowing that this is Russia's intent in 2020, to sit here and not do anything to protect the integrity of our democracy. Look, we all know what happened in 2016. Just to refresh our memories, it was the unanimous conclusion of all U.S. intelligence agencies that Russia interfered in the 2016 Presidential election. That was the unanimous conclusion of the leaders of intelligence agencies appointed by President Trump. It was also the bipartisan verdict of the Senate Intelligence Committee, which painstakingly documented the fact that elections systems in all 50 of our States were targeted to one degree or another by Russian hackers in the 2016 elections. In fact, we know this from the outcome of the Mueller investigation that led to the indictment of 12 Russian military intelligence individuals, members of the GRU. They were indicted because of their interference in the 2016 elections. We also know that Vladimir Putin and the Russians intend to interfere in our elections again in 2020. We know that because of the revelations this week about the actions the GRU is taking with respect to Burisma-- same fingerprint, same techniques--but we also know that from our own U.S. intelligence agencies, which, in November of last year, all got together to issue a warning that Russia was going to interfere again in 2020. I am holding in my hand a joint statement from the leaders of U.S. intelligence and law enforcement agencies, and what they say is that our adversaries--and they point to Russia--will seek to interfere in the voting process or influence voter perceptions. This document is not about the past. This document is not about 2016. This document is about the here and now and the November 2020 elections. And this is, again, from the heads of our intelligence agencies and law enforcement agencies who have been appointed by President Trump. Now we have overwhelming evidence that Russia interfered in 2016, we have overwhelming evidence and predictions that Russia will interfere again in our elections in 2020, and so we clearly are facing an immediate danger to the integrity of our elections and our democracy. It is like we have a Russian missile in the air right now headed toward our election integrity systems and our electoral process. That is what the intelligence agencies are telling us right now. We learned the hard way in 2016, and now it is happening all over again. So the question for this body is, When you know something is happening, what are you going to do about it? There are two things we should be doing about it. We should be working to strengthen our elections systems here at home, to harden them, to make it more difficult for Russian military intelligence to hack into them. We should be working with social media companies to prevent the Russian Government and their agents from spending money on advertising on social media or using other techniques on social media to influence American voters. We need to be doing all that. We have appropriated some funds to do that. We should be doing more than we have, but the best defense is a good offense. We can and should spend money to strengthen and protect our elections systems, but that is not enough because it is kind of like the arms race. We will work to try to better strengthen and protect those systems, and the hackers who are trying to get in will develop new techniques to try to get around them. It is an endless cycle. That doesn't mean we shouldn't harden them--we should--but that is not enough to protect the integrity of our elections. We have to apply the principle that the best defense is a good offense and make it clear up front to Vladimir Putin and Russia that the costs of interfering in another American election far outweigh the benefits. That is what we need to do because right now it is absolutely cost-free to Vladimir Putin to mess around in our elections. In fact, it is a big benefit to Vladimir Putin and the Russians. That is why they do it. What do they accomplish? Well, first of all, they succeed in dividing Americans against one another. They succeed in undermining public confidence in the outcome of our elections, and that is part of their overall strategy--to try to undermine democracies, whether here in the United States or in Europe or other places around the world. Maybe they also succeed, ultimately, in weighing in and helping their preferred candidate in an election. But the point is, right now, if you are Putin, there is zero cost to getting caught interfering in our elections and lots of perceived benefits by Vladimir Putin. So that is why, more than 2 years ago, Senator Marco Rubio and I introduced the bipartisan DETER Act, and there are many other Senators, both Democrats and Republicans, who were on that bill. The DETER Act is very straightforward. It would enact into law a very straightforward proposition. It says to Russia--and also to other countries, but the main attack seems to be coming from Russia--it says to Putin and Russia: If we catch you again interfering in our elections, there will be immediate and very harsh penalties for you to pay. This will happen virtually automatically. So Vladimir Putin will know up front that if our intelligence agencies catch them again, which they are likely to do, then he will finally pay a price for interfering in our elections and trying to undermine our democratic processes. These are not sanctions against a couple of Putin's pals. These are not sanctions against a couple oligarchs. These would be sanctions against major sectors of the Russian economy--state-owned banks, state-owned parts of their energy industry--so their economy will take a big hit if we catch them attacking our democracy once again. That is absolutely appropriate because what Putin is doing is undermining faith and confidence in our democratic process, and we need to make it clear up front that there is a big price to pay--not because we want those sanctions to go into effect but because we don't. That, of course, is the entire idea behind deterrence. You raise the cost, you raise the price on Putin and Russia to the point it is no longer worth it to interfere in our elections. That is why Senator Rubio and I introduced this legislation 2 years ago. We hoped it would be in place before the 2018 midterm elections, but that date has passed, and still here we are in the U.S. Senate having failed to adopt this bipartisan legislation. I was right here on the floor of the Senate just a few months ago when we were debating the NDAA, the National Defense Authorization Act. I asked for a vote to include the essential provision of the DETER Act in the Defense authorization bill because it makes a lot of sense that in a bill that is supposed to defend the United States, we include a provision to defend the integrity of our democracy and electoral system against Russian attack or any other attack. Apparently every single Senator in this body agreed because it passed unanimously. The Senate went on record unanimously saying we should include provisions like the DETER Act in the NDAA to deter Russian interference in our elections. Then we were in negotiations on the NDAA, and it turned out that in the back rooms, behind closed doors, the Trump administration got Republican Senators to insist on throwing that provision out of the NDAA bill. This was one of the matters that was discussed until the final stages of negotiations on the NDAA, and apparently the majority leader and other Republican Senators, at the behest of the Trump administration, said no--said no to a provision that had been agreed to unanimously by this body to help protect our elections by deterring Russian interference. The question is, Why? Why, when our own intelligence agencies are telling us that Russia is planning to do in 2020 what they did in 2016, would Republican Senate leaders block a provision that lets Putin know ``You will be punished if you do that again. You will be punished if you attack our democracy''? And I haven't gotten a straight answer to that question. Why not? Why not include that provision? Clearly, there are Senators who don't want to build up our defenses and deterrence again Russian interference in our elections. When we failed to get that into the NDAA, I came to the Senate floor, and I asked for unanimous consent to bring up the bipartisan DETER Act. Because every one of the Senators in this body had voted or said through lack of objection that they wanted the DETER Act in the NDAA, I brought up the bill for unanimous consent passing here. Well, the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee came to the floor and objected, and we had a back-and-forth conversation about the DETER Act. Yesterday, I was planning to come to this floor and again ask for unanimous consent to take up the DETER Act, but we heard from the chairman of the Banking Committee that he wanted to find a way to get this done. So I am going to take the chairman of the Banking Committee up on that offer, and I hope we can get it done. But I want to be really clear. If we are not able to work this out in a smart, straightforward way, which is what the bill does right now--as I said, it has strong bipartisan support right now--then I will be back on the Senate floor regularly to ask for unanimous consent, and any other Senator who wants to come down here and object can do that. That is their right. But I am going to keep pushing this issue because the clock is ticking. Every day that passes while we know from our own intelligence agencies that Russia plans to interfere in the 2020 election and we don't do anything about it--we are grossly negligent. I want Senators who are not going to support that to come here in the light of day and let the American public know they are blocking that effort. I hope we don't have to do that. I hope we can work this out. I hope we can pass the bipartisan legislation that has been sitting in the Senate for over 2 years now as we get warning after warning after warning that Vladimir Putin, the GRU, and the Russians intend to interfere in our democratic process again and attack the integrity of our electoral system. Let's get this done. Let's protect our democracy. Let's make it clear in advance to Putin that the price he will pay for trying to interfere in our democracy will be much higher than any benefit he expects to gain. I yield the floor.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, I rise to recognize an outstanding member of my staff who is moving on to pursue other opportunities, my long-time communications director, Bridgett Frey. Bridgett joined my office at the start of 2009, when President Barack Obama was first inaugurated and I was serving in the House of Representatives. Things were so busy then that her interview took place in a hallway in the Capitol. She may have recognized that as a sign of things to come, but I am grateful she took the job anyway. Through the decade that has followed, Bridgett has been a dedicated staffer and trusted adviser. Regardless of the issue of the day--from local issues like Federal grant funding and helping struggling auto dealers, to national issues like healthcare reform and economic policy, to international issues like Russian election interference and North Korean sanctions--she helped ensure that my office communicates clearly and effectively about our work in Congress. She has worked tirelessly to inform the public about the policy changes we have achieved and those we still hope to accomplish. Whenever I took on a new challenge, Bridgett was there to help. She led communications in my personal office, as well as working with Speaker Pelosi's team to help freshman communications directors learn the ropes of Capitol Hill when I was assistant to the Speaker. She then took on a new challenge and dual role when I became ranking member of the House Budget Committee. From budget battles to the not-so-Super Committee, she was always up to the task. She took a leave of absence to help in my 2016 campaign for the Senate and then moved across the Capitol to run the communications operation in my Senate office. She has approached all of it with intelligence, sharp instincts, sound judgment, and a sense of humor. Bridgett has built a reputation for being hard-charging and forthright, and reporters respect her responsiveness and honesty. She has coordinated closely with all aspects of my team, helping to drive both policy work and State outreach efforts, as well as with countless offices in both the House and the Senate. She has always provided me with honest and thoughtful advice and counsel. She has an uncanny instinct for getting to the heart of any issue. As Bridgett seeks new challenges outside our office, I know she will continue to grow in her professional career. It stems from a love of politics that she got from her father and an ethos of hard work from her mother. I deeply appreciate her many years of dedicated service to the people of Maryland and the Congress. Our entire team will miss her, but we all extend our warmest wishes as she takes on new adventures.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize Yvette Lewis for her excellent service as part of my team in support of the people of Maryland. Yvette has been our director of external relations and community outreach in my Senate office since I began my service in the Senate. In that capacity, she has organized forums throughout Maryland to provide support to our veterans, our senior citizens, and others. Her signature program was organizing consumer protection forums across our State so we could alert Marylanders to the wide array of schemes and scams designed to cheat consumers out of their hard-earned money. She has been deeply committed to the principle that the health of our entire State depends on the success of all our communities. I have had the pleasure of knowing Yvette for over a decade and am grateful for all her good works in our State and beyond. She is a longtime resident of Bowie, MD, and has worked for years in public service and civic engagement. She has previously worked as the president of the Voter Empowerment Action Project. Moreover, she has also served on the White House Commission for Presidential Scholars. Additionally, she has an accomplished background in music as an opera singer and music teacher in Baltimore City, Baltimore County, and Montgomery county schools. Yvette is married to Ed Lewis, and they have two children, Shannon and Eric. Various events have led to a sudden vacancy in the position of the chair of the Maryland Democratic Party. Yvette was the consensus choice as the right person for the job at this moment. While we will miss her on Capitol Hill, I am glad that her enormous talents will also be put to good use in her new role.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, today the Senate passed H.R. 1865, one of two appropriations packages needed to fund the Federal Government for fiscal year 2020. Eight appropriations bills are part of this consolidated appropriations bill--eight bills that fund programs which impact every part of our lives--and I am pleased that we have made several strong steps to better serve the American people. For Maryland and the Chesapeake Bay, the bill provides a historic level of funding for EPA's Chesapeake Bay program and continued funding for the dredging needs of the Port of Baltimore. In addition, the bill provides funding for the Army Corps of Engineers to resume oyster restoration work in the bay. These are hard-fought wins, and I appreciate the work of those in the Maryland and Chesapeake Bay delegations to help get this done. After years of Republican opposition, this bill finally funds critical gun violence research at the Centers for Disease Control. Gun violence is an epidemic, and we should be engaging our best minds to find solutions to keep the American people safe. I am also pleased that the bill includes funding for the CDC to research sexual abuse prevention and for the Agency for Healthcare Research Quality to support diagnostic error research--issues I have worked on in the Appropriations Committee. The bill also includes important increases for medical research at the National Institutes of Health and delivers funding to implement the Childhood Cancer STAR Act. H.R. 1865 includes a funding increase for the Infant and Early Childhood Mental Health Program, which helps develop, maintain, or enhance infant and early childhood mental health promotion, intervention, and treatment programs for children at risk of developing, showing early signs of, or having been diagnosed with mental illness. The bill also includes funding to continue the National Adoption Competency Mental Health Training Initiative, which helps child welfare and mental health workers better understand and address the mental health needs of children, youth, and their families moving toward or having achieved permanency through adoption or guardianship. I am also very pleased that the bill continues the Federal funding commitment to WMATA. I, along with Senator Cardin and our colleagues from Virginia have introduced a WMATA reauthorization bill that would authorize an additional 10 years of Federal funding. WMATA is the Nation's transit system, and maintaining our Federal support is essential for the local economy and for the people who live and work here. Given the significant Federal ridership, it is incumbent on us to ensure the Federal Government pay its fair share. The bill fully funds a housing mobility demonstration project that Senator Young and I have worked to develop. I look forward to the results of the program as we look to expand housing vouchers and give families a safe and stable place from which to build their futures. The bill also funds the community development block grant and HOME Partnership Program, two crucial economic development programs that were eliminated in the President's budget. I am pleased that the bill rejected a number of the President's cuts to education and actually boosts funds for afterschool and student support programs. It increases funding for title I and IDEA, two foundational programs that help students in underserved areas and those with disabilities have the resources they need to get a good education. The bill expands access to early education by increasing funds for the child care and development block grant and provides more K-12 wraparound services with boosts to the Full Service Community Schools and Promise Neighborhoods Programs. The bill increases the Pell grant and continues funding for Senators to pay their interns--an initiative I have worked closely on with Senators Murphy, Schatz, Collins, and Murkowski. While the bill is mostly focused on domestic policy, I appreciate the inclusion of language I authored to hold Saudi Arabia to the ``gold standard'' section 123 agreement as a condition for Export-Import Bank financing for U.S. nuclear exports. We should not be transferring sensitive nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia without the establishment of strong nonproliferation guardrails. I am also pleased that the bill retains my provisions to sanction foreign government officials responsible for the detention of American citizens and locally employed staff of U.S. diplomatic missions, urges the Indian Government to reverse course in Kashmir, bans the sale of arms to Turkish President Erdogan's bodyguards, and mandates comprehensive oversight of the administration's travel ban and refugee resettlement policies. In addition, this legislation provides critical humanitarian and development assistance for our partners and allies around the world, despite President Trump's repeated attempts to cut the foreign assistance budget dramatically. Importantly, H.R. 1865 includes a 10-year reauthorization of the Patient- Centered Outcomes Research Institute, PCORI. When PCORI was first created, there was broad agreement about the critical need for comparative effectiveness research, CER. The CER research being done through PCORI is helping to generate more personalized, more reliable research that is directly relevant to individual patients and doctors. There are significant evidence gaps about what medical treatments and services are most clinically effective and for whom. We need more information, and that information must quickly get into the hands of patients and providers so they can make better-informed decisions about their health care. PCORI-funded research is helping to fill that gap, and I am pleased that this bill will allow it to continue for another decade. The bill also includes important policy improvements contained in the PCORI Reauthorization Act, S. 2897, legislation I introduced with Senators Warner, Cassidy, and Capito. H.R. 1865 will ensure that PCORI- funded research is designed to take into account and capture the full range of clinical and patient-centered outcomes, including the potential burdens and economic impacts of various medical treatments, items, and services like out-of-pocket costs and nonmedical costs to patients and families. Additionally, it adds a requirement that the Government Accountability Office report on any barriers that researchers funded by PCORI have encountered in conducting studies or clinical trials, including challenges covering the cost of any medical treatments, services, and items. I am, however, disappointed that this bill eliminates Medicare's contribution to the PCOR Trust Fund. Medicare beneficiaries benefit greatly from PCORI-funded research. This includes a number of projects that have focused on helping older adults and their caregivers make better-informed decisions about their health care options, as well as research on diseases and conditions that disproportionately impact beneficiaries. I am concerned that divesting Medicare dollars sends a signal to PCORI that Congress is not interested in this critical research continuing to be funded. I am pleased that this bill increases the mandatory appropriation to help make up for the loss of Medicare funds, but Congress must maintain this investment over the full length of the authorization. I am pleased that H.R. 1865 includes a number of other bills that I am proud to cosponsor, including the CREATES Act, the Patient Access to Cellular Transplant Act, and the Protecting Beneficiary Access to Complex Rehab Technology Act. While I support much of this bill, I am deeply troubled by some of its provisions. I have serious concerns about parts of the tax extenders provisions of the package. It is unfortunate that following on the heels of a tax cut for wealthy households and big corporations that increased the national debt by nearly $2 trillion, the tax changes in this bill increase deficits by a further $426 billion. While I support some of the changes, we should have paid for them by scaling back wasteful tax breaks for those at the very top. And some of them represent additional giveaways to industry without sufficient benefit for everyday Americans. Moreover, I am extremely disappointed that the tax extenders package did not include tax measures for energy storage, solar energy, offshore wind, and electric vehicles. This represents a lost opportunity to take even small steps to address the climate crisis, and I urge my colleagues to address these clean energy tax measures early next year. I am disappointed that the bill drops House language preventing the Department of Agriculture from physically relocating the Economic Research Service, ERS, and National Institute of Food & Agriculture, NIFA, outside of the National Capital Region. The relocation and reorganization will impact the quality and breadth of the work these agencies support and perform--work that is critical to informing and supporting U.S. agriculture, food security, and rural development. I appreciate that the bill includes no additional funding for the move, and I hope that the Secretary of Agriculture will with us in Congress to repair the damage that this relocation scheme has done. While I do have concerns about aspects of this bill, I believe it supports critical health, education, and infrastructure needs. I appreciate the hard work of Senators Shelby and Leahy and their staffs in crafting the bill and their support for many priorities I have pushed for on behalf of my constituents in Maryland. It is an honor to serve on the Appropriations Committee, and I look forward to continuing our work to responsibly fund the government and its services for the American people in the coming fiscal year.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020. The National Defense Authorization Act conference agreement provides crucial resources to our Armed Forces and our national defense, including a pay increase for our men and women in uniform. I am proud that the Congress was able to come together on a bipartisan basis to pass this legislation to support our servicemembers, strengthen our national security, and invest in critical projects in my home State of Maryland. While I have serious reservations about a number of items included in this legislation and am particularly disappointed by the exclusion of important priorities like the DETER Act to prevent Russian interference in our elections, I believe that, on balance, this NDAA will strengthen our national security. For that reason, I voted in favor of it. With this bill, the Federal Government will now provide 12 weeks of paid parental leave to its workforce. We have been fighting for years to provide paid family and medical leave to workers throughout the country. Now the Federal Government will finally start to lead by example. Paid leave will reduce employee turnover costs for the Federal Government and help agencies continue to recruit and retain top-notch talent into the civil service. I was proud to help secure this, and we need to keep fighting until all workers around the Nation receive paid family and medical leave benefits. The NDAA also repeals the military widow's tax. Currently, military widows and widowers who qualify for the VA's dependency and indemnity compensation are forced to take a dollar-for-dollar offset from the DOD Survivors Benefits Plan benefit, even though their retired spouses elected to pay into the program. No other Federal surviving spouse is required to forfeit his or her Federal annuity because military service caused his or her sponsor's death. This is fundamentally unjust. In September, I met with a constituent and military widow who was subjected to this offset after the loss of her husband. Hearing her story hardened my resolve to ensure that we got this done this year, and I am proud of the Congress for coming together to repeal this offset. Critically, this legislation also includes the Otto Warmbier North Korea Nuclear Sanctions and Enforcement Act, which I introduced with Senator Toomey. This legislation offers foreign banks and firms a stark choice: continue business with North Korea or maintain access to the U.S. financial system. Within 120 days of enactment of the law, this legislation mandates sanctions on the foreign banks and companies that facilitate illicit financial transactions for the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. North Korea continues to perfect its ballistic missile capabilities and produce more fissile material for nuclear weapons. Our aim is to cut off North Korea's remaining access to the international financial system and create the leverage necessary for serious nuclear negotiations to achieve the goal of the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. The NDAA also includes bipartisan legislation that tracks the provision Senator Graham and I included in Senate Foreign Operations appropriations bills over the years to prohibit the transfer of the F- 35 Joint Strike Fighter to Turkey until President Erdogan relinquishes the Russian S-400 air and missile defense system. Turkey has recently started testing the S-400 missile system, and they have said the system will be operational early next year. The administration must not only continue blocking the transfer of the F- 35s, but--as Senator Graham and I indicated in a recent letter to Secretary Pompeo--it has a legal duty to impose economic sanctions on Turkey. The NDAA also includes a version of a bill Senator Cotton and I introduced to prevent the President from removing Chinese telecommunications giant Huawei from the Commerce Department's Entity List without certifying to Congress that it is complying with U.S. laws and the administration has mitigated the threat Huawei poses to our national security. While I was disappointed that our original bill was watered down, the final version is still better than the status quo. This bill also includes a number of measures I introduced to ensure that we give proper recognition to Americans who have bravely served our country in combat. One of them is Col. Charles McGee. Colonel McGee, a distinguished Tuskegee Airman who recently celebrated his 100th birthday, is a living aviation legend and an American hero. From World War II to Korea, Colonel McGee flew more combat missions than any other pilot in the service of his country. The first African American to command a stateside Air Force wing and base, this Marylander's service to our Nation is truly remarkable. That is why I worked with the Air Force and introduced legislation to authorize the honorary promotion of Colonel McGee to brigadier general. And today, on a bipartisan basis, the Congress has authorized this honor. Colonel McGee makes all Marylanders proud and reminds us all of what it means to serve. The conference report also includes the bipartisan World War I Valor Medals Review Act, which I introduced with Senator Blunt. This legislation directs the Department of Defense to review the service records of minority service members who fought during World War I and who may have been passed over for the Medal of Honor because of their race or ethnicity. Many of these individuals have never received proper recognition for their acts of valor. Take, for example, William Butler of Salisbury, MD. In 1916 he was living in Harlem, where he enlisted in the New York National Guard. His regiment landed in France on Jan. 1, 1918. Sargent Butler received the Distinguished Service Cross and the French Croix de Guerre for his bravery in rescuing several members of his regiment from their German captors. Sargent Butler killed 10 Germans, took a German prisoner, freed all the American prisoners, and brought them back to safety. He returned home to a hero's welcome. The Baltimore Afro-American called him ``Maryland's Greatest Hero.'' The New York Tribune called him a ``hero among heroes.'' He and the rest of the Harlem Hellfighters marched through New York City. Upon his return to Maryland, his small community gave him a gold watch as a token of their respect and appreciation. But despite a recommendation for the Medal of Honor, he never received it. In 1947, after losing the ability to work, he took his own life. He was buried at Arlington--with a typo on his tombstone. The living descendants of these veterans deserve to know that their government, despite its past failings, recognizes their heroism. I am very proud of the Congress for coming together to honor those who chose to serve their country, even at a time when their country did not treat them as equal citizens. In doing so we demonstrate that it is never too late to right a historical wrong. I would also like to commend the Valor Medals Review Task Force, jointly established by the United States Foundation for the Commemoration of the World Wars and the George S. Robb Centre for the Study of the Great War, which has worked tirelessly to identify World War I veteran service records for this review. I applaud the NDAA conferees for encouraging the Secretaries of the military departments to consult with the Valor Medals Review Task Force to identify those service records that warrant further review to determine whether such veteran should be recommended for an upgrade to the Medal of Honor for valor. The NDAA also addresses serious concerns with the oversight of privatized military housing. Over the past year, I have engaged with leaders at Fort Meade and Aberdeen Proving Ground as they have addressed woefully inadequate maintenance by private housing contractors. The NDAA includes key provisions of the Ensuring Safe Housing for Our Military Act, of which I am a cosponsor. This includes withholding payment of the basic allowance for housing under certain circumstances, the creation of a Tenant Bill of Rights and the position of Chief Housing Officer, a uniform code of basic standards for privatized military housing, and access for tenants to an online work order system, among other improvements. Lastly, I am pleased that the bill includes language requiring congressional notification and a 120-day waiting period before the President gives notice of his intent to withdraw from the New START and Open Skies treaties. While I am pleased with many of the provisions included in this bill and voted for its passage, I do have significant reservations. First, the unchecked growth in the defense budget is unsustainable, and the continued use of the overseas contingency operations budget to fund elements of the Pentagon's regular base budget activities with war funds is a blatant abuse of the budget process. We have a duty to ensure the readiness of our forces, and I support efforts to rebuild our Armed Forces after years of costly overseas engagements. But massive spending increases without clear strategic direction do not make us safer, and the use of off-budget accounts to boost Pentagon spending is a disservice to our children and grandchildren, who will pay for these spending increases regardless of whether or not they are properly accounted for today. Especially in a post-Budget Control Act environment, where we are not constrained by artificial caps, we need to be thoughtful about our spending choices, recognize that every dollar spent on defense is a dollar not spent on health care, education, workforce training, and other critical areas of need. And we need to use OCO in a responsible manner consistent with its original purpose, and not as an off-budget slush fund. Second, I am extremely disappointed by the Congress's failure to act to prohibit U.S. military support for the Saudi-led war in Yemen. This brutal war has raged for more than 4 years. Thousands have lost their lives in this conflict. Millions are displaced from their homes. The cycle of desperation, destruction, and death continues unabated. Earlier this year, Congress voted to end U.S. support for the war in Yemen--legislation that President Trump vetoed. The refusal of Republicans to address this issue as part of the NDAA is shameful. Third, this legislation supports the President's effort to spend $1.3 trillion dollars on nuclear weapons. It contains no prohibition on fielding low-yield nuclear warheads on submarine-launched ballistic missiles, near-full funding for research and development on INF-range missiles, near-full funding to build new ICBMs and associated warheads, and full funding to retain the B83 megaton gravity bomb, which the Obama administration had intended to retire as part of its modernization efforts. And while it affirms the benefits of legally- binding verifiable limits on Russian strategic nuclear forces, it does not explicitly endorse the extension of New START. This, like so much else in this bill, is a missed opportunity. Senator Young and I have introduced bipartisan legislation urging a 5 year extension of the New START agreement, and the Senate should pass it expeditiously. Fourth, Republicans blocked a provision in the House NDAA that prevented the President from waging a war with Iran without an explicit authorization from the Congress. President Trump's Iran strategy has been blind unilateral escalation with no end goal. That is why his actions have produced exactly the opposite result of what his so-called ``maximum pressure'' campaign intended. President Trump has dismembered the multilateral coalition that forged the Iran deal. He has frayed our alliances in Europe and empowered our adversaries. All the while, the administration has raised the specter of a possible military intervention with Iran. By blocking this provision, Republicans are enabling the President to subvert Congress's constitutional prerogative with respect to decisions of war. Finally, Majority Leader McConnell blocked the inclusion the bipartisan DETER Act, which I introduced with Senator Rubio to deter future Russian interference in U.S. Federal elections. The DETER Act sends a clear message to Russian President Putin or any other foreign adversary: If you attack American elections, you will face severe consequences. Leader McConnell blocked this measure from the NDAA, even though the Senate unanimously passed a resolution in the fall instructing the NDAA conferees to support its inclusion. In addition, Republican leadership removed a related provision in the House-passed NDAA imposing sanctions on Russian sovereign debt in response to interference in U.S. elections. Leader McConnell's decision to block the DETER Act and the House sanctions on Russian sovereign debt effectively green-lights Russian interference in future U.S. elections. It is a gift to Russian President Vladimir Putin and a subversion of the clear desire expressed by both Chambers of Congress to hold Russia accountable for future interference. It reinforces Putin's belief that the costs of attacking our democracy are low and the rewards are great. It is a dereliction of his duty, as a representative of the people, to protect our Nation from foreign adversaries. I will continue fighting for the passage of the DETER Act. The next national election is less than a year away, and we must make clear to Putin that Russia will pay a steep price if they interfere in another election. While I am strongly opposed to some of the provisions in this bill and disappointed by the omission of others, I believe that, on balance, the NDAA will strengthen our national security and advance other important national priorities. For that reason, I voted in support of final passage.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, I start by thanking my friend and colleague from West Virginia, Senator Manchin, for his remarks and for his steadfast support for workers throughout the United States of America and for working to try to bring us together in a bipartisan manner to get things done in the United States. I rise today to give thanks to all who serve our country in uniform and as civilians. Even as partisan division and anger seem to reach new depths every day, Democrats and Republicans have remained united in our support and our high regard for our fellow Americans who honorably serve in the U.S. Armed Forces. Those who serve have earned every measure of gratitude shown to them by friends and neighbors and by all of us here in the Congress. Other public servants deserve our thanks as well, but unfortunately, support for them is not nearly as unanimous or as universal. I will focus the remainder of my remarks on them. While they do not go into combat, they share the same dedication and love of country as those who do. Many of them also go into harm's way--law enforcement officers, diplomats in war-torn lands, smokejumpers fighting forest fires--and all of them swear an oath to our Constitution, just like our troops and just like Members of Congress. I am talking about Federal civil servants. These dedicated public servants, men and women, are not normally public figures, but the Nation saw their strength and their character at the witness table in last month's House impeachment hearings, Americans like Laura Cooper, David Hale, George Kent, Bill Taylor, Jennifer Williams, Marie Yovanovitch, all of whom have served in nonpolitical positions for all or most of their careers. All of them testified before Congress under subpoena. These are just a few of the 2.1 million Americans who make up the Federal civil service and the Foreign Service. They work together here at home and abroad in every field of endeavor and on behalf of all of us. For example, budding entrepreneurs can call on Small Business Administration loan officers for help accessing capital and foreign commercial service officers to help sell their inventions to the world. Farmers know that the Natural Resources Conservation Service employees can help them keep their land productive for the long term. Foreign agricultural service diplomats help American farmers make a living feeding the world. Yet, too many of our colleagues, including many on the other side of the aisle, have defamed public servants and now accuse those who testified in the House of attacking the President. That accusation has it exactly backward. The modern civil service was created after an attack on a President in order to prevent future attacks on Presidents. Yes, President Garfield was assassinated in 1883 by a disgruntled job seeker. In those days, each President handed out most of the Federal jobs, often based on political allegiance more than skill. Imagine if that system still existed today--small business loans going only to campaign aides, law enforcement protecting only certain communities that voted for the President, and farm assistance being denied to those who backed the wrong Presidential candidate. Countries today with corrupt systems like that are among the poorest on Earth. None of this came to pass in America because the President who came after Garfield, Chester A. Arthur, signed a law creating the modern civil service. Today, the President still has the authority to make political appointments to the most senior positions in the executive branch, but the overwhelming majority of positions are career civil servants who are hired based on merit, not political connections. The diplomatic corps was similarly professionalized in the decades that followed. Put simply, that swamp was drained. Now other swamps have arisen, and actions like campaign finance reform are badly needed to address them, but professional civil servants are not the problem. In fact, since the civil service and Foreign Service were created, they have risen to every challenge. They mobilized America's resources to protect the public health and to beat back the Great Depression and wage war on fascism and on poverty. Over the last half century, as the number of Americans they are serving has grown by more than 120 million, the number of civil servants has remained flat. That is doing a lot more with less. If problems arise in the conception or execution of Federal programs, they must always be acknowledged and they must be fixed. Congress works hard to do that, often with the help of whistleblowers who raise the alarm about great fraud, waste, and abuse. But some of my colleagues and our predecessors have made the terrible mistake over the last 40 years of systematically disparaging all ``bureaucrats.'' This causes incalculable harm by turning good people away from public service and demoralizing those who are there. It hurts dedicated public servants to hear ``bureaucrat'' spat out as some kind of insult when the Senator or candidate doing so was probably more upset by the policies they were directed to implement than the civil servants implementing those policies. Of course, the attacks and criticism leveled against Federal employees in the past were a lovefest compared to the hostility demonstrated by this administration and this President--assaulting them with name calling, assaulting bargaining rights, and even moving offices 1,000 miles away to get people to quit. A new report by the Partnership for Public Service finds plummeting morale at the U.S. Department of Agriculture driven by a huge decline in scores at the USDA's Economic Research Service and the National Institute of Food and Agriculture. The Trump administration did not like the reports that those researchers at those agencies were publishing, and they punished them by suddenly moving their jobs halfway across the country and in the process lost hundreds of experienced, knowledgeable Federal employees in the area of agriculture. The vast majority of staff at those agencies lost their jobs when they decided not to move, and many of their jobs now remain unfilled. This has needlessly caused an upheaval that is delaying all sorts of reports on which those in the farming economy rely. This administration's hostile atmosphere has been cited as contributing to a 61-percent increase in civil servants resigning during the first 18 months of this administration, including almost 1,600 leaving the EPA. Nearly half of our most senior Foreign Service officers left the government during President Trump's first 2 years, along with many midcareer diplomats. Applications to the Foreign Service are at a 10-year low during this Presidency--a hollowing out at every level. It will take a generation to recover. But as vicious as the attacks on Federal employees have been during the first 3 years of this administration, in recent months, we faced an even more insidious threat from a President who incites his followers to violence in one breath or tweet and spews venom against individual-- individual--public servants by name in the next. These verbal assaults have led to harassment of government employees, like those who appeared as witnesses in the House. The President's supporters have acted, in many cases, on his incitements. There have been at least 29 criminal attacks or threats prosecuted in our courts where the attacker was echoing the President's rhetoric, according to one analysis. This need to maintain support for our Federal employees is going to be especially important in the next several months when events will unfold that are sure to evoke strong passions across the political spectrum and around the country. First, the election season is heating up, as will, no doubt, the President's criticisms of those with whom he disagrees, and we are going to consider the question in this body of impeachment, as they are doing so today in the House. I know it is hard, but I ask my fellow Americans to set aside for a moment how they feel about the impeachment case. Set that aside, and think about the particular individuals who testified, what they did and what they did not say. Think about Ambassador Taylor and Mr. Kemp, who learned four languages, not to seek personal wealth or personal glory but to advocate for our country. Think about being raised on stories of Nazi and Soviet oppression of your parents, like Marie Yovanovitch. No one could have faulted her for seeking a more comfortable life here. Instead, she ventured back out to some of the most dangerous parts of the world and sometimes at significant personal risk to herself. She went abroad to extend the American people's hand of friendship and to pursue our interests. She went as the direct, chosen representative of three Presidents. These public servants don't have the luxury of choosing the policies they pursue or of just speaking their own minds at any time. Setting aside the personal beliefs they may hold, all the public servants I have spoken to so far served America under both administrations of both parties. Even last month, they did not have the luxury of speaking their minds on subjects of their choice or at a time of their choosing, as we do right here in the U.S. Senate. No, congressional subpoenas and their duty to our constitutional laws compelled them to testify, not to opinions but to facts. The witnesses spoke about their love of country and pride in serving it. They did not speak about political affiliations or show any desire to undermine, let alone overthrow, this or any other President. They honored their oath of office, just as other dedicated civil servants and Foreign Service Officers do every day, striving to accomplish what Congress, the President, and their agency leaders ask of them. Nobody--nobody--who swears the same oath to the Constitution, as we do in this Chamber, should criticize them for honoring their oath. Far from a nefarious deep state, the depth of knowledge, the expertise, and the diligence of public servants show the depth of our agencies of government, the depth of our state. They are the ballast that keeps the ship of state on course. We believe that America's strength springs not only from the undisputed benefits of a free people pursuing their ambitions and dreams but also from sometimes harnessing those talents for important national purposes. We believe that America's greatness has resulted not only from a collection of individuals acting alone but from our capacity to work together for the common good. We should not see government as the enemy but as the imperfect instrument by which we can accomplish together, as a people, what no individual or corporation can accomplish alone. I ask my colleagues to stop, to think about what we have built in this country--a system of government that has helped eradicate many diseases, sent mankind to the Moon, built the infrastructure to connect the continent, and so much more. American ingenuity, harnessed to common purpose through government, powered these achievements. As we look to the future, let's consider what it will take to maintain our momentum and maintain our greatness as a united country. It takes people. It takes skilled people, and it takes, among others working in our free society, a dedicated public service. We will lose those public servants, as we are already seeing, if people keep attacking them. Let's ask ourselves a simple question. What kind of country do we want to be--a country that embraces all who serve, in uniform and out of uniform, or a country that retreats even further into tribalism and political echo chambers? I am proud to stand with our civil servants. In 2017, Senator Sullivan and I cofounded the Foreign Service Caucus to support our diplomats, a bipartisan start toward turning the tide. This week, we have taken additional steps forward with the passage of paid parental leave for Federal employees, and we will pass a well- deserved pay raise shortly. There is so much more we can do. Senators can start right now and take personal responsibility for ushering in a new era of respect for all of our public servants. I ask my colleagues on both sides of the Capitol to stop the insults, stop the verbal assaults, and stop questioning the patriotism of these fine Americans. We can fight over programs; we can fight over budgets; but let's not speak ill of civilians who serve. Let's not hurl the term ``bureaucrat'' as a slur. Let's not call people in certain government agencies ``scum.'' Let's disagree with witnesses without questioning their patriotism. Let's remember that those who join the Federal service do so out of a desire to help their fellow Americans and that they deserve our respect and our thanks. If we want to know what is really going on with the Federal program, we should be talking to our civil servants to get ideas about what is working and what needs to be fixed. They are always willing to offer their opinions for those purposes. If you want to root out waste, fraud, and abuse, let's keep open the lines of communication with Federal employees and whistleblowers. Remember that Federal employees cannot bargain for wages or benefits, so, instead, they bargain for a workplace that works better for the American people. On April 19, we will mark 25 years since the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City--America's deadliest domestic terror attack, where 168 people perished, many of them Federal workers. As we honor all those who were killed that day, we must come together, across the aisle. We must reject the idea of politically motivated violence. And we must do it every day, not just on the anniversary of that tragedy. We can do this. I have confidence we can do it because we have done something like it before. I mentioned at the outset of my remarks our universal respect for our fellow citizens and aspiring citizens who serve in the military. But it wasn't always universally so. During the war in Vietnam, many of us remember how polarized and divided our country was and how in some cases disagreement over the war morphed, for some, into directing anger at our troops. This country learned from that mistake. We turned the tide. We came together. Now we have nearly universal agreement that it is wrong to blame servicemembers for carrying out decisions to go to war that they had no part in making themselves; that you can disagree with the war but still embrace the warrior. For too many of our colleagues, especially as we witness what is happening on the other side of the Capitol, that fallacy is playing out again today; people are blaming and attacking public servants for following the laws they are sworn to uphold, for obeying lawful subpoenas, and for doing their duty to tell the truth. I am an optimist, and I believe today's critics will learn from our past mistakes and correct our approach in the future, just as we learned after the Vietnam war that it was wrong to criticize or focus our anger on our soldiers, even if we disagreed with the war they were deployed to undertake and fight. I hope we will take that same approach with respect to our civil servants; that we will understand and honor their service. I hope we will all then jointly proclaim that alongside the greatest military in the world, we have the greatest civil service and the greatest Foreign Service the world has ever seen. I yield the floor.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, yesterday, I went to the Senate floor to ask unanimous consent on the DETER Act, bipartisan legislation that I authored alongside Senator Rubio that is languishing in the Senate legislative graveyard. The DETER Act is absolutely critical to protect our democracy from foreign interference. It serves a clear, simple, and essential purpose. It says to Russia and any other foreign power that, if they interfere in our elections and undermine the integrity of our democracy, they will face severe consequences in the form of tough sanctions. Foreign interference in our elections remains as critical a threat as ever. That is why, on November 5, seven U.S. Federal agencies jointly stated, ``Russia, China, Iran, and other foreign malicious actors all will seek to interfere in the voting process or influence voter perceptions. Adversaries may try to accomplish their goals through a variety of means, including social media campaigns, directing disinformation operations, or conducting disruptive or destructive cyberattacks on state and local infrastructure.'' The Senate endorsed the inclusion of this bill in this year's National Defense Authorization Act, unanimously passing a resolution in the fall instructing NDAA conferees to include such a provision in the conference report. However, the Republican leadership has stonewalled the inclusion of this bill in the NDAA. Instead, we are voting this week on two Ninth Circuit judicial nominees of dubious qualifications, including one who was rated ``Unqualified'' by the American Bar Association, ABA. Circuit courts play an important role in our country. Circuit court judges review the decisions of district court judges. Instead of nominating experienced jurists, Republicans have chosen to advance two nominees, Messrs. Bumatay and VanDyke, neither of whom have absolutely any experience as judges, at the Sate or Federal level. Mr. VanDyke was harshly described by his peers and colleagues as someone who is ``arrogant and disrespectful to others, both in and outside of this office. He avoids work. He does not have the skills to perform, nor desire to learn how to perform, the work of a lawyer.'' This harsh criticism of a judicial nominee from their peers is extremely rare and factored in heavily into the ABA's ``Unqualified'' rating. Instead of trying to confirm unqualified radical ideologues to the bench, Republicans should be working across the aisle to pass bipartisan legislation to secure our elections and address other national priorities. Failing to do so is a dereliction of our duty.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam President, after a discussion that we will have on the Senate floor, I intend to ask unanimous consent that the Senate pass S. 1060, which is a bipartisan piece of legislation called the DETER Act. What is the DETER Act? The DETER Act is legislation that I introduced with Senator Rubio. It has bipartisan sponsorship, and it is designed to send a very clear and simple message to Russia or any other countries that are thinking about interfering with our elections and undermining our democracy that, if we catch you, you will suffer a severe penalty. It won't be a few sanctions against a few of the oligarchs. It will hit big parts of your economy. It will hit your banking sector. It will hit your energy sector. It will hurt, so you better think before you try to interfere in any future election. Now, Senator Rubio and I introduced this legislation a number of years ago, and in response to concerns that were raised, we made a number of important changes, but despite those changes, we are still here in the U.S. Senate with less than 1 year to go before a national election, and we have not passed this bill to deter foreign interference in our elections. We know what Vladimir Putin's ambitions are. He wants to sow division in our electorate. He wants to make our political process even more polarized. He wants to undermine the public faith in the democratic process. That is not just my conclusion. That is the unanimous verdict of the U.S. Intelligence Committee and the community after the 2016 election, but it is not just them. Our own Senate Intelligence Committee, on a bipartisan basis, issued its findings. It also found that those were Putin's intentions, and it found that, in 2016, Russia interfered in all 50 of the States, to a greater or lesser extent--all 50 of the States. And what Vladimir Putin clearly has learned and taken away from all of this is that he can attack our democracy and attack our elections with impunity because the rewards are high. He creates division. He accomplishes his objectives. And the price is zero. There is currently no cost to Vladimir Putin from interfering in our elections. So what the DETER Act is designed to do is to raise the costs for the coming elections, to make it clear that, if we catch you next time, there will be a penalty to pay. We know that Putin hasn't gotten this message because there is no penalty right now, and that is why, on November 5, just a few weeks ago, we got another unanimous prediction from U.S. intelligence agencies. All of them jointly stated: Russia, China, Iran, and other foreign malicious actors all will seek to interfere in the voting process or influence voter perceptions. Adversaries may try to accomplish their goals through a variety of means, including social media campaigns, directing disinformation operations or conducting disruptive or destructive cyber-attacks on state and local infrastructure. That was just a few weeks ago--unanimously, from the intelligence agencies. Clearly, Vladimir Putin hasn't gotten the message. What the DETER Act is all about is sending that message that he will now know that there will be a penalty to pay upfront. Look, there are only two ways we can protect our elections, and we need to do both. One is to harden our election infrastructure here at home, which is to try to make it harder for somebody to use cyber attacks to get into our election systems and make it harder for them to abuse our social media platforms. This is a case where the best defense is a good offense because we can harden our systems, but you can be sure that the Russian Government cyber security folks will always be looking for a way around it, just like the arms race. So just like the arms race, deterrence is the best way to protect the integrity of our democracy by letting them know upfront that there will be this very tough price to pay. We hoped and thought we could address this issue in the National Defense Authorization Act. What better place is there to defend the integrity of our democracy than in the legislation that is designed to protect our national security? In fact, the U.S. Senate unanimously passed the resolution I have in my hand, S. Res. 330, which says very clearly that we wanted folks at the NDAA conference to require the administration--any administration, future administration--to promptly submit a report on Russian interference or other interference following every Federal election, and that would include a detailed assessment of the foreign governments that were involved in that interference. The Senate, as part of that resolution, also voted to promptly impose sanctions on any foreign government determined to have interfered in a future Federal election, including individuals and entities within that country's territories. Let me emphasize that point. Every Senator here supported that--or at least nobody objected to that. We have been working for over 2 years to get this done, and we keep hearing that the Trump administration doesn't want to do it. Of course, we haven't been told by the Trump administration why they object. Even Secretary Pompeo, in testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said he supported the concept. In fact, every witness in the Senate Banking Committee and Senate Foreign Relations Committee asked about this and supported this legislation. You have to ask the question why: Why is there such opposition? If it is because of President Trump, we need to be doing our job here in the legislature, not the bidding of the White House. I yield to the Democratic leader.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam President, I thank the minority leader. As he indicated, the Russian Foreign Minister, Foreign Minister Lavrov, is in town. There is a report saying that Secretary Pompeo said to the Russians: Don't interfere in our elections. Wagging your finger is not enough to scare off Vladimir Putin. That is why you need the DETER Act. Of course, saying that is a big advance over the President of the United States, who has been denying Russian interference in our elections. It is not enough to scold the Russians. It is not enough to scold Foreign Ministers. It is not enough to scold Vladimir Putin. You have to raise the price for interference, and they need to do it upfront. Madam President, as in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be discharged from further consideration of S. 1060 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration. I further ask that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam President, I want to address some of the comments made by the chairman of the Banking Committee and start by saying that I have appreciated the conversations he and I have had on this legislation over the years. Let me just address some of the comments that were made. One is to say that, currently, the CAATSA scheme is enough to deter future Russian interference in our elections. If that were true, you would not have had every single one of our intelligence agencies just a few weeks ago predict that Russia will interfere in our elections again, along with other foreign malign actors. If the laws on the books could deter that interference, why did they predict just a few weeks ago that they are coming for us in the upcoming elections? Second, this is not a partisan attack on President Trump. This is a bipartisan bill. This bill not only has Senator Rubio as the chief author, coauthor of the legislation, there are a number of other Republican and Democratic Senators on this bill as cosponsors. In fact, they are evenly matched on this legislation. This has nothing to with President Trump. In fact, this determination and this law would not even kick in until after the 2020 elections. I don't know who is going to be President then. This has nothing to do with President Trump. This has to do with protecting our elections. Is it informed by what happened in 2016? You bet it is. We know--again, from all our intelligence committees and community agencies, every one of them headed by somebody nominated by President Trump--that the Russians attacked us in 2016. A few weeks ago they said the same thing will happen in 2020, and that will happen especially if we don't raise the price. The CAATSA legislation, as the Senator knows, was put in place by an overwhelming veto-proof vote in the U.S. Senate. It was required because the Russians interfered, but it was retrospective. So, yes, we punished some of the oligarchs who were close to Vladimir Putin, but that is not enough, clearly, to raise the price to Vladimir Putin from deterring him from doing it again. Again, we just heard that from our own intelligence agencies. If you want to raise the price for future interference, you need to not just hit a few oligarchs, you need to let them know, some of those Russian Government banks are going to get hit; their energy sector is going to get hit. By the way, there is actually more flexibility in this bill than I would like. As the chairman of the committee knows, the original bill Senator Rubio and I introduced did not have waiver authority for the President of the United States. The version that is before us right now contains waiver authority for every single one of the sanctions if the President makes a national determination and says the waiver will not hurt our national security. It has more flexibility than I would like because my view is you need to set up a machine that is almost automatic. If we catch you interfering, there will be a price to pay. Under this bill, if we catch them, yes, there will be sanctions, but the reality is, the President can decide to waive those sanctions. We have come a long way. This is a bipartisan bill. This is about protecting our democracy. It is not about any particular individual or any particular President. It wouldn't even kick in until after the next elections, and those sanctions will only kick in if there is interference. The whole purpose of this bill is to have sanctions that are tough enough so Putin doesn't interfere or another foreign government doesn't interfere and so they don't go off the sanctions. That is the whole purpose. I hope we will vote on this. The clock is ticking. I am going to be on this floor week after week until we come together and pass something that actually has some teeth and will deter that very foreign interference that every intelligence agency predicted will happen as recently as 5 weeks ago. That will happen unless we act. I yield floor.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam President, I hope we will get down to the serious business of legislating. As I indicated in the hearings that have been held in the Senate Banking Committee and Senate Foreign Relations Committee, there was overwhelming support for moving forward with the DETER Act; that is, deter Russian interference in our elections. I will say it again. This authority, this sanction, if there is interference, does not kick in until after the next Presidential election. It is not designed to focus on any particular President. It is designed together on a bipartisan basis--and this is a bipartisan bill--to set up a mechanism in advance to let Vladimir Putin or other malign foreign actors know, if they interfere, there will be a price to pay. Not maybe, not let's just guess about it, there will be a price to pay unless a President decides to waive it, which, as I said, was a concession we made to address people's concerns about some flexibility, but we need to send the upfront message that at least initially these sanctions will take effect, and they will hurt. That is the only way to deter someone like Vladimir Putin and the Russians from interfering in our elections: raise the price and make it clear they will pay it.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, on Friday, December 31, 2019, Julliane Frazier, a lifelong resident of Maryland, will retire from Amtrak after an extraordinary 40 years of service. Julie joined Amtrak in December 1980 when President Jimmy Carter was just leaving the White House and Ronald Reagan was about to be sworn in. In May of the following year, Amtrak celebrated its 10th anniversary. The number of current Amtrak employees with 40 or more years of service is fewer than 20; the number of retirees is not much more. Julie therefore joins a small but elite group of Amtrak employees who have been the founders and builders of America's passenger railroad. Over the years, Julie has seen the growth and maturity of an organization whose existence was born of great uncertainty. For most of her career, she served as the senior executive assistant for the Government Affairs Department, serving and assisting the vice presidents who guided and managed Amtrak's relations with the Federal Government and with Congress. Amtrak's CEOs, who worked in their Union Station offices next door to government affairs, often relied on Julie as well because she was quick to complete assignments and was loyal to her colleagues in pursuit of Amtrak's important mission. While it would appear at first blush that the vice president of government affairs runs the office, it was clear to anyone who spent time there that Julie was really the one in charge. She is the consummate professional. Julie has said that while she will miss the pace of work, she will miss the people she worked with most of all. Having spent 40 years in the organization and having celebrated good times while coping with hard times, Julie formed many close and deep friendships. She will be truly missed by all who worked with her, but her service will be appreciated for years to come. I ask my colleagues to join me in thanking Julliane Frazier for her service and wishing her many happy and healthy years in retirement with her husband Phil and her sons Zack, Max, and Austin.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, right now, as we are gathered here on the Senate floor, the Senate and House conferees are in the process of trying to negotiate a final agreement on the NDAA. That is the National Defense Authorization Act. One of the key issues in the final discussions over the NDAA involves a provision designed to protect the integrity of American elections against outside interference from Russia or any other adversary. It is a provision based on bipartisan legislation that Senator Rubio and I introduced over a year ago to deter Russian interference in a future American election. The legislation is called the DETER Act, the idea being: Let's deter Russia from attacking our democracy. I believe it would be grossly negligent for the conferees to the National Defense Authorization Act to bring back to the House and the Senate a measure that does not include a provision to defend our democracy from Russian interference. The entire Senate must share that sentiment because we unanimously voted on a resolution just a short time ago to include such a provision in the National Defense Authorization Act. I have in my hand a copy of that resolution. It was S. Res. 330. It instructs the managers on the part of the Senate on bill S. 1790--that is the National Defense Authorization Bill--to require certain measures to address Federal election interference by foreign governments. It goes on to instruct the Senate conferees to require the appropriate official of the executive branch, after each Federal election, to promptly submit to Congress a determination as to whether the Government of the Russian Federation, or any other foreign government, has interfered in such election and a detailed assessment of any such interference that identifies, to the maximum extent practicable, the individuals responsible for the interference and to promptly impose sanctions on any foreign government that has been determined to have interfered in a Federal election, including specified individuals and entities within the territory of the government. That is what the U.S. Senate unanimously voted on to instruct our conferees to the National Defense Authorization Act negotiations. What I just read is the guts of the idea in the bipartisan DETER Act that Senator Rubio and I have introduced. Here is what we know. We know that Russia interfered in the 2016 election. How do we know that? It was the unanimous verdict of the entire U.S. intelligence community, including the leaders of intelligence agencies appointed by this President. It was also the bipartisan verdict of the Senate Intelligence Committee--a committee that painstakingly documented the fact that election systems in all 50 States were targeted by Russia in 2016--to different degrees but in all 50 States. In fact, that Senate Intelligence Committee report was the first public--the first public--acknowledgement of how extensive the Russian efforts were to interfere in the 2016 elections. We know the Russians did this in 2016. We know that Vladimir Putin sees interfering in our elections as a way to divide us against one another. We know that Vladimir Putin fears democratic forms of government and wants to undermine public confidence in those democracies. How do you undermine public confidence in those democracies? By attacking the election process so that people doubt the validity of the outcome of an election. When that happens, if the public loses faith in the outcome of our elections, then we have really undermined the legitimacy and confidence in our democratic system. That was 2016. The measure I am talking about doesn't relate to 2016. It relates to the future. Here is what our intelligence community just informed the country about within the last few weeks. I am holding in my hand a statement that was released on November 5, just a few weeks ago. It is from Attorney General William Barr, Secretary of Defense Mark Esper, Acting Secretary of Homeland Security Kevin McAleenan, Acting Director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire, FBI Director Chris Wray, U.S. Cyber Command Commander and NSA Director GEN Paul Nakasone, CISA Director Christopher Krebs. Here is what they said 2 weeks ago. Our adversaries want to undermine our democratic institutions, influence public sentiment and affect government policies. Russia, China, Iran, and other foreign malicious actors all will seek to interfere in the voting process or influence voter perceptions. This document is not about the past; this document is about the future, about our future elections, including the 2020 election, which is now less than a year away. We know in 2016 the Russians attacked our electoral process. We now have all of the leaders of Federal Government intelligence agencies and law enforcement telling us they predict Russia will do it again in 2020. We have a Russian missile headed for our democracy, and the question for all of us is, What are we going to do about it? What are we going to do to protect our democracy and the legitimacy of our electoral system? First of all, we should harden our election system. We should make it more difficult for Russia to break into our voter registration files. Certainly, we should make it more difficult for them to break into voting machines. We should also make sure we build more defenses to prevent the Government of Russia from using social media to mislead and confuse voters. We should do all those things to better defend our election system, but I am of the view--and a lot of folks who have followed Russia and Vladimir Putin for a long time--that the best defense is a good offense. We can harden our systems here, but that doesn't stop Russia and Vladimir Putin from trying to break into our election systems. It doesn't prevent Russia and Putin from trying to use our social media to influence our voters. The only way to prevent them from trying is to let them know in advance that there is a big price to pay if they get caught. Right now it is cost-free for Russia to interfere in our elections. In fact, it is a net benefit because Putin divides us. Putin leads voters and citizens to question the legitimacy of our democracy. He is winning in this current calculus. We need to change his calculus. We need to make it clear that the cost of interfering in our elections far outweighs these benefits that he is gaining. That is what the DETER Act is all about. What the DETER Act does is set up a process whereby, if we catch Russia interfering in our future elections, including the 2020 elections, there will be automatic, swift, and very stiff economic penalties--not penalties on a couple of oligarchs but penalties that will hurt his economy, penalties on his banking sector, and penalties on part of his energy sector. If we adopt this provision, then we are making it very clear in advance to Vladimir Putin that if he interferes, and we catch him, there is a very stiff price to pay. The whole purpose of this act is not to impose sanctions; it is to avoid sanctions by making it clear upfront what the costs will be if Putin interferes in our elections. The whole point is to use the threat of automatic, swift, and tough sanctions to discourage and deter the Russians from interfering in the first place. I haven't heard anybody provide one substantive argument for why we should not do this to protect our democracy. I can think of no more important place to include this provision than the national defense authorization bill because if the national defense authorization bill is not about defending our democracy, I am not sure what it is about. So the question is, Why are we still debating this in the conference committee for the national defense authorization bill? I can't figure out who is opposing it other than the fact that somebody is. I was told it was the Republican Senate leader and the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee who are opposing this provision. If that is the case, they really need to come to the Senate floor and explain this because the Senate unanimously instructed Senate conferees to adopt just such a provision--unanimously. That includes the Senate majority leader and the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee. They didn't object. Yet somehow now we are in the middle of a conference committee on defending our country, which I thought meant also defending our democracy, and we have these folks who don't want their fingerprints on it who are somehow trying to defeat this measure. Here is what I have to say. If this provision is not included in the NDAA, it would be grossly negligent because we know from our own intelligence community 2 weeks ago that the Russians are coming to attack our elections again, and we are going to pass a defense authorization bill where we sit on our hands and do nothing about it? That would be outrageous. This measure needs to be in the NDAA bill. I will tell you, if it is not, I am going to be here on this floor regularly asking for unanimous consent to bring this bill up for a vote. I am going to have the majority leader have to come down here regularly, or whomever he wants to designate, to object to a unanimous consent agreement for a provision to defend our elections. I hope it is included in the Defense authorization bill. That is the place it should be. If it is not, I will be down here every day, and the clock will be ticking down day by day for the 2020 election, our Intelligence Committee will continue to warn us about Russian interference, and I am going to want to hear in public--in public--why some of our colleagues don't want to take action to defend the integrity of our democracy; why they want to allow Putin to have his way cost-free. That is a question I will be asking every day. I hope I don't have to ask it every day. I hope we do what the Senate already instructed our conferees to do, which is to include it in the National Defense Authorization Act. I yield back my time.

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

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, the World Day of Remembrance for Road Traffic Victims commemorates the millions of people killed and injured on the world's roads. It is also a day to thank emergency responders for their role in saving lives; to reflect on the impact of road deaths on families and communities, to draw attention to the need for improved legislation, awareness, infrastructure, and technology to save more families from the tragedy of losing a loved one. Since the United Nations recognized the World Day of Remembrance for Road Traffic Victims, its observance has spread to a growing number of countries on every continent. The day has become an important advocacy tool in global efforts to reduce road casualties, and the theme of this year's World Day of Remembrance is ``Life is not a car part.'' Additionally, the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 3.6 calls on governments and their stakeholders, including NGOs and private citizens, to address the personal medical, and financial burdens associated with road deaths and injuries. More than 1 million people die from road crashes every year, and tens of millions are seriously injured. Road traffic crashes are the No. 1 killer of young people aged 15-29 and the eighth leading cause of death among all people worldwide. Rochelle Sobel, president of the Association for Safe International Road Travel, highlighted the gravity of this issue and the imperative to fix it: Every 27 seconds somewhere in the world a person dies in a road crash. Those of us who have lost loved ones in a crash know only too well the ongoing pain and devastation that this tragedy causes families and communities. Road crashes are preventable. We must all work together so that the hopes and dreams of our loved ones are not shattered in the roads of the world. We all need to do our part to take action to prevent these avoidable tragedies and to save lives.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, I rise to object to the nomination of Chad Wolf to serve as DHS Undersecretary of the Office of Strategy, Policy, and Plans. This nomination is yet another example of the Trump administration's chaotic and inhumane approach to immigration issues. DHS is the third largest Federal agency, and under the Trump administration, it has had four directors in less than 3 years. It has been widely reported that Republicans are rushing to confirm Mr. Wolf so that President Trump can then appoint him Acting DHS Secretary. He will be the fifth DHS Secretary and the third Acting. Rather than go through the normal channels of selecting a nominee and allowing Senators to properly vet and question the nominee, Republicans are going along with Trump's plan to circumvent Federal law. When asked directly by my colleague, Senator Rosen, about his role in formulating the family separation policy, Mr. Wolf denied any direct knowledge of that policy. Leaked emails later revealed that, as Secretary Nielsen's chief of staff, he presented her with a memo with options to deter migrants coming to the border. Separating parents from their children was the second option on that list. The family separation policy is repugnant to our country's values. The timing of this nomination is especially concerning in light of the Supreme Court oral arguments this week on DACA. The Trump administration ended DACA and then rejected compromise legislation, written by a bipartisan group of Senators, that would have given over 700,000 Dreamers who have grown up here stability and, ultimately, a path to citizenship. When those Senators were negotiating an immigration deal, in an unprecedented action, DHS Secretary Nielsen sent a letter lambasting the negotiations and accused them of undermining U.S. security. The Trump administration has weaponized and poorly managed DHS, and I cannot support this nominee.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam President, I start by thanking the Democratic leader for his leadership in raising those important issues before the Senate this afternoon. I bring another issue before the Senate, that being my strong opposition to President Trump's shameful decision to invite Turkish President Erdogan to the White House tomorrow. It is a decision that has alarmed our allies and comforted our adversaries. It is a decision that undermines our values and our national security interests, and it is a decision that sends a terrible message to the world about how to get invited to President Trump's White House. In just the last 5 weeks, Turkish President Erdogan has taken the following actions: No. 1, he has launched an attack on a key ally of ours--in fact, the key ally--in our fight against ISIS terrorists, that being the Syrian Democratic Forces, led by the Syrian Kurds. No. 2, President Erdogan and his forces have killed over 200 in these attacks, displaced over 300,000, and enabled the release of over 100 ISIS prisoners. No. 3, Erdogan is using jihadi proxies that include a lot of al-Qaida elements, and they are committing gross human rights abuses, including what the Trump administration has acknowledged as being war crimes. There are also reports that the Turkish-backed proxy forces are using the chemical agent white phosphorus. No. 4, Erdogan and his forces have violated the so-called safe zone agreement that was reached by Vice President Pence in Ankara a few weeks ago. After President Erdogan entered into that agreement with Vice President Pence, which has been violated, he turned around and decided to cut a separate deal with Putin and Russia, thereby giving Russia even more leverage than it already had in Syria. In addition, Erdogan boasted that he organized a hit squad to assassinate the top commander of our Syrian Kurdish allies, General Mazloum. President Erdogan did that even after President Trump acknowledged that our Syrian Kurdish allies had given us important information that had helped us to kill ISIS leader Baghdadi. In fact, Erdogan has compared the military leader of our Syrian Kurdish allies-- those who bore the brunt of the fight against ISIS--with the ISIS leader whom we just killed, Baghdadi. President Erdogan did all of that in just the last 5 weeks. What did President Trump do? Instead of calling upon the House and the Senate to pass the economic sanctions bill that had been introduced, he rewarded Erdogan for all of those actions with a coveted White House meeting. That is not the way we should be treating somebody who has just spent the last 5 weeks thumbing his nose at the United States, undermining our interests, endangering our allies, strengthening Russia, Assad, and Iran, and increasing threats to our ally Israel. It sends a terrible message to the world: Go ahead and undermine the national security interests of the United States, and the President of the United States will invite you over for dinner. I have teamed up with Senator Graham and others on a bipartisan basis, and I want to thank the Presiding Officer for her support on that sanctions legislation to hold Turkey accountable. Here is what Senator Graham said about President Erdogan just 3 weeks ago: ``If you want to get Erdogan's attention, you have to treat him like the thug he is.'' That is Senator Graham speaking. Yet Erdogan, time and again over the last 5 weeks and before, has essentially spit in the eye of the United States, and now he is coming to Washington for a White House meeting. This is very difficult to explain. I am not sure any of us has the answer as to why President Trump is doing this. The Washington Post had an article on October 17 headlined ``In Turkey's President, Trump seems to have found a soul mate.'' If you read through the article, you can see that President Trump does seem to have an affinity for President Erdogan of Turkey, and clearly President Erdogan likes to get on the phone with President Trump because whenever he does, President Erdogan seems to get his way. Now he will come for a face-to-face meeting, and I am sure President Erdogan expects to get his way again. Why would he think that? Well, because the last time they talked, President Erdogan clearly took away from the conversation that it was just fine with President Trump if Turkey attacked our Syrian Kurdish allies. President Erdogan clearly believed he had the green light. In fact, after they hung up from that phone call, President Erdogan sent his forces and used proxy forces to attack our Syrian Kurdish allies, and President Trump tweeted that we were withdrawing some of our Special Forces from the area--Special Forces that had helped deter Turkish aggression against our Syrian Kurdish allies. It is very rare for retired senior military leaders in the United States to criticize a sitting Commander in Chief, but the betrayal of our Syrian Kurdish allies and the terrible message that sent around the world about the unreliability of the United States compelled many of those former leaders to warn about the consequences. I think it is important for the Senate to hear some comments from people who are respected for what they have done for our country. ADM William McRaven, former commander of the U.S. Special Operations Command, who worked with our Syrian Kurdish allies in the fight against ISIS, said: ``He's''--referring to President Trump--``obviously left our allies the Kurds on the battlefield. . . . We feel like we've betrayed them. He's undermined our NATO allies . . . the international community has lost faith in America.'' That is from Admiral McRaven. GEN Joseph Votel, former commander of U.S. Central Command and also somebody who has personal experience working alongside our Syrian Kurdish allies in the fight against ISIS, said: ``This policy abandonment threatens to undo five years' worth of fighting against ISIS and will severely damage American credibility and reliability in any future fights where we need strong allies.'' General Petraeus, former commander of U.S. Central Command and former commander of NATO's mission in Afghanistan and in Iraq, said: ``Well, I think we have abandoned our Syrian Kurdish partners. They took over 10,000 losses as the defeat of the Islamic State was carried out.'' Secretary James Mattis, Secretary of Defense under President Trump and former commander of U.S. Central Command, said: ``In this case, if we don't keep the pressure on, then ISIS will resurge.'' Secretary Mattis made it clear that by abandoning our Syrian Kurdish allies, we gave more oxygen to ISIS. In fact, we learned over the weekend that ISIS was claiming responsibility for the murder of an Armenian Catholic priest and his son. Their funeral services are today. Another former high-level U.S. military commander who has spoken is ADM James Stavridis. He is the former commander of U.S. European Command and NATO Supreme Allied Commander in Europe. Here is what he had to say: ``This is heart-rending for anybody who has shed blood, who has deployed forward. . . . I'm getting so many inputs from all around the military . . . they know how this hurts at a very personal level. . . . It's not only the betrayal of the Kurds, it is the way it is going to allow those embers on the floor of the forest fire that we thought were out to kind of re-flash.'' He is saying, in other words, giving more oxygen to the ISIS embers that we were working toward extinguishing. Gen. John Allen, former commander of NATO International Security Assistance Force and U.S. Forces--Afghanistan, was even blunter: ``There is blood on Trump's hands for abandoning our Kurdish allies.'' Those are from former top U.S. military leaders, patriots who fought with our Syrian Kurdish allies in the fight against ISIS. There is also a statement from Brett McGurk. So who is Brett McGurk? Brett McGurk was the Presidential Envoy for the Global Coalition to Counter ISIS. He had that position under the previous President and for President Trump for a time. Here is what Brett McGurk had to say: ``I've worked for three presidents and participated in a number of foreign leader calls. I cannot recall a President that seems to believe--and then parrots--whatever a foreign leader tells him on the phone. Such information is often false, intended to influence more than inform.'' Yet what we saw was that when President Trump hung up on that phone call with President Erdogan, he essentially green-lighted that operation. That is why President Erdogan likes to get President Trump on the phone directly or talk to him directly, which he is going to get a chance to do tomorrow. Probably the most damning of all the comments I have heard--and this was not unique, but it was unique in the way it was characterized--came from the mother of a cadet at the Naval Academy. What was interesting is that she has been a loyal supporter of President Trump. She supported him, she voted for him, and she stuck with him, but after the betrayal of our Syrian Kurdish allies, she said that she no longer could trust him and that she worried that her son at the Naval Academy would essentially be left to the whims of a Commander in Chief whom she could no longer trust. That was all before President Trump invited President Erdogan to the White House. What we should be doing is passing tough economic sanctions. What we should be doing is holding Turkey and President Erdogan accountable for undermining our security and helping to give new oxygen to ISIS. That is why the House of Representatives passed a bipartisan sanctions bill by a whopping veto-proof vote of 403 to 16. That is why Senator Graham and I have introduced bipartisan sanctions legislation in the U.S. Senate, which has more than 14 bipartisan cosponsors and growing. I do want to thank the Presiding Officer for her efforts to hold President Erdogan accountable with this legislation. There is also other legislation introduced by Senator Menendez and Senator Risch. Here is what I know: The most important thing is that this body, the Senate, should act right now. We have the House bill sitting at the desk. We have the bill introduced by Senator Graham and me sitting at the desk. Right now we should just pass those sanctions bills and send a message to President Erdogan that while he may be going to the White House tomorrow, he does not have support in the Congress. I have talked about Erdogan's actions for the last 5 weeks. I would like to take us back 5 years from the period we are in right now. In the fall of that year, mid-September 2014, ISIS terrorist forces were encircling the Syrian Kurdish town of Kobani. Kobani is a town on the Syrian side of the Turkey-Syria border. ISIS was laying siege to that town. They had already taken a lot of the surrounding villages, and they were closing in on this last Syrian Kurdish stronghold. The Syrian Kurds were totally outnumbered by ISIS, and the Syrian Kurds asked the United States for help. It took us a little longer than it should have--took us weeks, not days--but we agreed to help supply our Syrian Kurdish allies with weapons and equipment in the fight against ISIS. We asked Turkey if they would help us supply weapons to the Syrian Kurds because Kobani is right there on the Syria-Turkey border. Turkey refused. President Erdogan said no. So the United States, at greater risk to our own forces, had to airdrop weapons and supplies into Iraq from U.S. aircraft, and with that help, our Syrian Kurdish forces were able to stop ISIS from taking over Kobani and began to push them out and, again with our help, primarily from the air, pushed them out. In that fight over the last 5 years, the Syrian Kurds have lost over 11,000 men and women, soldiers and others. That is what they have lost in the fight with us against ISIS. Turkey, on the other hand, not only did not lift a finger in that fight, but for the past 5 years and even more the years before, they turned a blind eye to ISIS fighters transiting through Turkey, so ISIS was growing stronger as a result of their negligence. I want to close by responding to those who say: Well, you know what, Turkey is a NATO ally, and so we should invite President Erdogan over to the White House. I see on the floor my friend and colleague, Senator Durbin from Illinois, and he, along with myself and others, has made this point repeatedly. We would like Turkey to be a strong NATO ally. Over the years of NATO alliance, they have in the past been a good partner, but under President Erdogan's leadership, they have taken Turkey in a very different direction. The issue is not whether the United States wants Turkey to be a member of NATO; the question is, Does Turkey really want to stay in the alliance? Because everything they have done shows they are violating the values and principles of our alliance. President Erdogan decided to purchase the Russian-made S-400 anti- aircraft system against our strong objection. This is a system that would have put our F-35 pilots at risk and undermined NATO security. President Erdogan said he didn't care. He went ahead with the S-400 purchase, and those S-400s are sitting in Turkey right now. He was willing to work with Russia, Iran, Assad to undermine our interests in the area. We have talked today about how he attacked our Syrian Kurdish allies. He has repeatedly threatened the European Parliament, European Union, with releasing refugees if they do not cooperate with him and don't turn a blind eye to the fact that he has locked up more journalists than any other country on earth, including Iran, Egypt, North Korea, and Saudi Arabia. So, Madam President, the fact that the President of the United States has invited Erdogan to the White House, after everything Erdogan has done to undermine our values and security, is a shame on the United States. It will undermine our national security interests. It has already alarmed our allies and heartened our adversaries. It is important that all of us--all of us in this House and Senate-- on a bipartisan basis, speak out--as we have been doing--against the shameful chapter in our American foreign policy and national security. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, I want to start by thanking our colleague, the Senator from Minnesota, Ms. Smith, for her steadfast support for this group of Federal contract employees who were left behind, and I plan to address my remarks to that subject in one moment. Before I do that, I just want to call on every Senator to stand up against the vicious character assassination that is taking place against patriotic Americans testifying under oath in the House. Today we are hearing, in the House, the testimony of Lieutenant Colonel Vindman. Here is an individual who served as an officer in the U.S. Army, an infantry officer overseas, including in South Korea and Germany and a deployment to Iraq for combat operations, where he was wounded in an IED attack and awarded a Purple Heart. Just a little while ago, the House heard sworn testimony from Ambassador William Taylor, who is currently our Acting Ambassador to Ukraine. He also served in the U.S. Army. He served in Vietnam; he served in Germany. Later, in a different capacity, he served in Baghdad as the director of the Iraq Reconstruction Management Office. He served in Kabul, Afghanistan, coordinating international assistance. He was selected by Secretary Pompeo to be our Acting Ambassador in Ukraine. So we can disagree on a whole lot of things. We can also reach different conclusions based on the facts. But I hope every Member, including, importantly, our Republican Senate colleagues, will stand up against the character assassination being launched at these witnesses who are giving testimony under oath and under penalty of perjury. It is absolutely disgraceful--this kind of character assassination, impugning people's motives. These are patriotic Americans. At the very least, we should agree on that. Amendment No. 1044 Mr. President, I also believe we should agree on this important initiative that has been brought before this body by Senator Smith to do justice and be fair to contract workers who perform a lot of thankless and often unnoticed tasks for the Federal Government but who are essential to its workings. These are cafeteria workers. These are janitors. These are folks who work in Federal offices not just in Washington, DC, but all over the country. When we had that unnecessary and shameful 35-day government shutdown, we not only locked out a lot of Federal workers from doing their jobs, not only did the Small Business Administration freeze approvals of small business loans, which were important to many businesses around the country, not only did the Department of Agriculture shutter the farm service centers in rural communities, not only did thousands of homeowners face long delays in loan processing approvals from the FHA, but these Federal contract workers who, in many cases, are living paycheck to paycheck, went without pay for 35 days, and they never recouped that pay. We did the right thing in this body for Federal Government employees. We recognized that the government was shut down through no fault of their own. There was nothing Federal workers did to cause the government shutdown. They wanted to be at work doing their jobs for the American people, and we recognized that. We recognized that they should not be penalized for something they had nothing to do with. We should do the same thing now for Federal contract workers. That is exactly what this measure will do. These contract workers typically make between $450 to $650 a week. These are not people living high on the hog. These are people getting by day to day. One of them is Ms. Lila Johnson. She is from Hagerstown, MD. She worked as a cleaning services contractor for the Department of Agriculture for over 20 years. She is the primary breadwinner for her family and is helping raise two grandchildren. During the shutdown, she struggled with her rent, her car payments, and her life insurance payments on top of keeping food on the table. She lost $1,600. That may not sound like a lot to some Senators, but I can tell you it is a lot of money for someone living paycheck to paycheck, trying to meet the bills, and who is the family's primary breadwinner. What this bill is about is making sure Lila Johnson, and others like her, are not penalized for something they had nothing to do with, harmed by something that was totally beyond their control. I thank Senator Smith. I thank our colleague Senator Brown and my colleague from Maryland Senator Cardin. I also want to remember, as my colleague from Minnesota did, Elijah Cummings, who passed away recently--a great Marylander. I knew Elijah for over 20 years. He committed himself to many causes important to social justice, both for Marylanders and for every American, and this was one of them. This is one of the things that he just recognized was fundamentally unfair--people who were scraping to get by paycheck to paycheck being punished for something they had nothing to do with-- wanting to show up for work, wanting to show up for work every day but being shut out and then denied their paycheck. Let's remedy this wrong, and let's make sure we adopt this measure. Thank you. I thank the Senator from Minnesota. I yield the floor.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 549 and that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; further, that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my unanimous consent request.