Chris Van Hollen

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Florida, and I thank him not only for his leadership on the specific issue that was in the Defense authorization bill regarding ZTE but also for his leadership on the broader issue of protecting the United States against the grand theft of our technology by China and the risks that China poses to our national security in many areas. I want to review what happened with respect to ZTE, which is a Chinese telecommunications company. No. 1, for many years, they have been about the business of stealing technology from American companies. If you look at lawsuits and patent lawsuits filed over the last decade, you will see it has been grand larceny. We have a Chinese telecommunications company that has been ripping off U.S. companies in order to gain a market advantage, and they have been doing that in coordination and cooperation with the Government of China. They are stealing our technology. What are they using it for? Well, they are a big telecommunications company. We heard testimony from the Director of the FBI, and we heard testimony from the heads of U.S. intelligence agencies that they pose an espionage threat to the United States. All of them have said that it would be a great danger to our national security and the privacy of millions of Americans to let them anywhere near our telecommunications networks. First, they steal our technology. Second, they plan to use a lot of what they stole from us to spy on us. Then they went about violating U.S. sanctions on North Korea and on Iran, not just once, twice--and then they were caught again. Each time, they were warned, but they continued to flagrantly violate our sanctions. That is why the Secretary of Commerce, Wilbur Ross, finally got fed up with everything they were doing, and he imposed sanctions on ZTE, including what is called the denial order saying that U.S. companies should not be transferring technology to ZTE, which was then using that technology to get market advantages and to potentially spy on the United States. That was the right thing to do. Secretary Ross made a decision based on the law and based on our national security interests. A few days later, this is the tweet that went out from the President. On May 13, President Trump tweeted: President Xi of China, and I, are working together to give massive Chinese phone company, ZTE, a way to get back into business, fast. Too many jobs in China lost. Commerce Department has been instructed to get it done! That was the tweet. With that tweet, which caught the Secretary of Commerce and so many others by surprise, the President reversed the key sanctions provision that the United States had imposed on ZTE for violating our sanctions and for other bad behavior. This Senate, on a bipartisan basis, said: Wait a minute. Secretary Ross was right. ZTE violated our sanctions. They pose an espionage threat, and, by the way, they have stolen a whole lot of U.S. technology over the years. He was right. That is why, on a bipartisan basis, we passed a provision that was included in the NDAA to reimpose those sanctions that Secretary Ross and the Commerce Department had put on in the first place to protect our national security. Yet, as the weeks went by in the conference committee, despite the best efforts of our ranking member and many others, this got dropped. This got dropped because the White House wanted it dropped based on that earlier tweet. It got dropped because ZTE had spent $1.3 million in lobbying fees over the last couple of months. That is a lot of money. It was the highest amount of dollars spent in that period of time for any lobbying issue before this Congress, but it is a pittance for ZTE to pay to get its way and work with the administration to get the provision that had passed the Senate on a bipartisan basis dropped. I cannot tell you how difficult this is at this point in time. We have a bill before us that in all other respects is a really good bill--and a really good bill for our national security. I want to commend the chairman and ranking member and others who have been involved in that. But in the middle of a bill that is supposed to help protect our national security, we now have a big hole because, by taking out the amendment we had to penalize ZTE, the final result creates unnecessary exposure. It is sad to be here today. I am glad to join with my friend and colleague, the Senator from Florida, who has been a leader on this, and I think we both very much regret the fact that the Senate is in this position now and that the country is in the position now. I thank the Senator for his leadership and yield back to him the remainder of the time.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I ask Senator Brown, do you agree that, once this bill is enacted into law, existing CFIUS authority is broadened to review certain ``other investments'' involving elections infrastructure by a foreign person?

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, I wish to enter into a colloquy with Senators Crapo and Brown. The integrity of our elections is a vital national security interest. It is imperative that our elections infrastructure--the technology and services needed to conduct our elections--remains free from foreign influence. We know that our elections are under foreign threat from cyber attacks and disinformation efforts through social media. Our democratic process can also be manipulated through foreign investments in elections infrastructure. In fact, just this month, the Federal Bureau of Investigation notified Maryland officials that Russian oligarch Vladimir Potanin maintained a substantial investment in a firm used by the Maryland State Board of Elections to register voters and deliver online ballots. This June, the Senate voted overwhelmingly in favor of the Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act, legislation to enhance our national security by strengthening the review process of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, CFIUS. Specifically, the new law would allow CFIUS to review transactions beyond just those that could result in foreign control of a U.S. business, to include ``other investments'' by a foreign person in a U.S. business involved in U.S. critical infrastructure. Critical infrastructure, as defined by the Department of Homeland Security, DHS, includes election infrastructure, such as voter registration databases and associated systems, systems used to manage elections, voting systems, storage facilities for election and voting systems, and polling places, to include early voting locations. I ask Senator Crapo, do you agree that critical infrastructure, as defined by DHS, includes certain elections infrastructure?

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Florida, Mr. Nelson, for introducing this legislation and also my other colleagues who have been on the Senate floor today. This is emergency legislation, which is why there was a request for unanimous consent to move forward today. It is very disturbing that consent was not provided because we know that as a result of the Trump administration's actions, starting tomorrow, people all over the country--in fact, all over the world--are going to be able to download on their computers instructions and a whole manual on how to manufacture plastic guns with 3D printing. This is something that has been before previous administrations. The Obama administration fought hard against this ability for people to be able to send those instructions to make 3D guns at the speed of light around the world. In fact, this administration early on opposed allowing this to happen. Somehow, when this whole lawsuit was resolved the other day, the folks who want to send these instructions around the world were allowed to do so. In fact, Alan Gottlieb, who is with the Second Amendment Foundation that was part of this case, said: We asked for the Moon and we figured the government would reject it, but they didn't want to go to trial. The government fought us all the way and then all of the sudden folded their tent. Secretary Pompeo and the Trump administration folded their tent. As a consequence, Americans will be placed at much higher risk starting tomorrow. We have already seen over 1,000 people sign up to begin to receive the instructions to make AR-15s using 3D printing. Why is this going to pose a big danger? No. 1, it is a total end-run around criminal background checks for the purchase of a handgun or any kind of weapon. We should be closing the loopholes in the existing background check system, closing things like the gun show loophole. Instead, this allows for a total runaround. If you can just download instructions and use a 3D printer to make a gun at home, you obviously aren't going to go through any kind of criminal background check. No. 2, we have spent a lot of time and effort giving the ATF the authority to track guns used in crimes. I would have thought all of us want to make sure we can track people down who are using guns to commit crimes and catch them. If you print a gun at home using a 3D printer, there is no traceable number, there is no serial number. We are not going to be able to easily track down the people who are using these guns to commit crimes. No. 3, with plastic 3D printing, the technology we have at airports to detect metal will become ineffective. Folks around the world, if you are a terrorist wanting to do harm, now you are going to get instructions over the internet. You are going to be able to download it as easy as you can download an iTune. With a 3D printer in your basement or around the corner in some space, you are going to be able to manufacture guns; No. 1, evading metal detectors at airports, putting the entire flying public at risk; No. 2, it is a public end-run around the criminal background check system, which is already flawed; and, No. 3, it will not allow us to trace guns used in crimes. I thought there was a consensus in this body that we should get after people who use guns to commit crimes, whether crimes in the United States or crimes around the world. Yet what this body is doing by not allowing a vote today on the Nelson bill is saying it is OK for people to be using this technology in their basements to make guns that can evade all these systems and commit crimes and make it impossible to trace who did it. This is a really bad day for the U.S. Senate. This is a moment where people should be acting in emergency fashion to stop this danger and risk to the American public. Instead, people are folding up their tent and allowing this to happen, starting tomorrow. It is a shameful moment. I yield the floor.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, the plan had been for me to join with the Senator from Florida, now the Presiding Officer, to address our concerns in two areas. One has to do with the Chinese telecommunications company ZTE and the threat that it poses to the national security of the United States. The second is to discuss the urgent need for this Senate to take action to protect the integrity of our democracy by passing the bipartisan DETER Act, which Senator Rubio and I have introduced. Since the Senator from Florida is now presiding in the Chair, I will do my best to cover this for both of us, and I know that he will have an opportunity at some other point to cover these important issues as well. First, as for ZTE, it is a Chinese telecommunications company. It is a telecommunications company that has been exhibit A in the mix of Chinese companies that have stolen U.S. technology. In fact, when Secretary Pompeo was before the Senate a while ago, talking about the relationships between the Chinese Government and Chinese companies and talking about how they were stealing U.S. intellectual property secrets for their own purposes, ZTE would be on the top of that list. It is one of the most notorious thieves of intellectual property anywhere in the world. In the United States alone, they have been sued for patent infringement 126 times in the last 5 years. That is an astonishing figure, particularly as only a small subset of firms have the resources to even bring litigation before a Federal court. ZTE has reportedly been sued for patent infringement at least 100 times in other countries around the world. This is a company that has developed by stealing high technology from U.S. companies and other institutions around the world. Second, ZTE poses an espionage threat to the United States-- translated: spying on Americans. This past February, FBI Director Wray testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee saying: We are deeply concerned about the risks of allowing any company or entity that is beholden to foreign governments that don't share our values to gain positions of power inside our telecommunications networks. That provides the capacity to exert pressure or control over our telecommunications infrastructure. It provides the capacity to maliciously modify or steal information, and it provides the capacity to conduct undetected espionage. That answer was in response to questions from the Senator from Florida, who is now presiding. ZTE has stolen American technology. According to our national security officials--not just the Director of the FBI but also the head of NSA, or the National Security Agency; and the DNI, or the Director of National Intelligence; and the head of the CIA--ZTA poses an espionage threat. Now, on top of that--on top of that--ZTE was caught violating the U.S. sanctions against North Korea and Iran, and it is not just that they got caught, but when they got caught, they tried to cover it up. They were warned not just once but twice, and, again, despite that, they engaged in what Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross called a ``multiyear conspiracy to violate U.S. sanctions against North Korea and Iran in an elaborate scheme of coverup.'' That is why, just a few months back--I think it was in June--Secretary Ross imposed very stiff sanctions on ZTE, including what is called the denial order, to stop them from getting advanced technology components from U.S. companies that ZTE could then use in their phones and their telecommunications systems and then use that to conduct espionage against the United States. Secretary Ross did the exact right thing. Unfortunately, his decision to impose that denial order was reversed by the President of the United States. When the President reversed that order, Senators here, on a bipartisan basis--the Senator from Florida, Mr. Rubio; the Senator from Arkansas, Mr. Cotton; and others, including Senator Warner--thought it was important to protect the national security of the United States by reimposing those important sanctions that the Secretary of Commerce had put in. How did we do that? We added a provision to the National Defense Authorization Act that passed overwhelmingly in this body. That provision was first inserted in the Senate Banking Committee. It was then included in what is called the CFIUS bill, and then it was passed by this body. We urged the conferees in the Senate and the House on the Defense bill to keep that provision in there and not let ZTE off the hook. During that short period of time while it was in conference, a couple months, ZTE spent over $1.3 million to hire Washington lobbyists to help them pull that provision out of the Defense authorization bill. The sad and really shameful story here is that ZTE and their lobbyists succeeded. They succeeded in lifting that penalty on ZTE. We have just sent the worst of all signals to China--whether it is ZTE or Huawei or others--that we are not really serious when we say that if we catch you violating our sanctions, we will punish you, or that we are not serious in defending our country from espionage, or that we are not serious about defending our country from the theft of our intellectual property. That is a terrible and very weak message to send. I am going to keep fighting along with our colleagues, on a bipartisan basis, to keep the pressure on these issues, on ZTE and Huawei, because if we do not get serious about confronting these threats, they will continue to come back to bite us. I am very disappointed that the conferees did not include that provision, and it does raise serious questions about a bill that provides for our national defense: Why would it have a big loophole in it that creates an opportunity for China to harm our national security? Now, there is another way that our adversaries can harm our national security, and that is to interfere in our elections to try to undermine our democracy. We know from the heads of all the intelligence agencies that this is exactly what happened in 2016. Our focus in this body should be on making sure that no country interferes in our elections again. We all know that suspect No. 1 has been Russia. Russia was the country that interfered in 2016, and we know that Russia is planning to interfere in the 2018 midterm elections and beyond. How do we know that? Well, first of all, the Director of National Intelligence, Dan Coats, a former Member of this body, has said that all of the lights are flashing red--a big warning that Russia plans to interfere in our midterm elections, which are 98 days away. We also learned just today that Facebook uncovered an ongoing effort by foreign social media entities to disrupt our 2018 elections. This is an ongoing process right now. This was the headline today in the Washington Post: ``Facebook says it has uncovered a coordinated disinformation operation ahead of the 2018 midterm elections.'' They document what they are doing to try to prevent that disinformation campaign. We have the testimony of Dan Coats, the Director of National Intelligence, and other intelligence agency heads. We have Facebook. We also know that the Russians--and, specifically, the same operation, GRU, that interfered in the 2016 elections--have already attempted to interfere in three elections for 2018. We know one that has been made public, the Senator from Missouri, Mrs. McCaskill, where the Russians attempted to get into their system ahead of the 2018 elections. We know all of this is happening, and it would be surrendering our obligation as Members of the Senate, both Republicans and Democrats, for us not to take action to defend the integrity of our elections. The clock is ticking--98 days to go to the elections. We know from our intelligence agencies, we know from the evidence that surfaced today from Facebook, and we know from the fact that they have already interfered or attempted to interfere in three elections for 2018 that this Russian effort is coming. So for goodness' sake, don't we have an obligation to do everything we can to stop it? That is exactly why Senator Rubio, who is presiding now, and I joined together to introduce the DETER Act. It is a very straight forward, simple idea. You need to send a signal in advance to Vladimir Putin that if Russia gets caught again, if it gets caught this time interfering in the 2018 elections, there will be automatic and harsh penalties imposed on Russia and it will hurt Russia's economy. It will hit them where it hurts. That is what the DETER Act does. Everything we have heard about Russian conduct and behavior is that it is important to try to send these signals early if you want to influence their behavior. So what we need to do is to establish a very credible threat that if they interfere and they get caught again, they will face the penalty. So what the DETER Act does is it says that the Director of National Intelligence, on behalf of the intelligence community, will make an assessment about whether or not Russia interfered in the 2018 election. This assessment would take place shortly after the 2018 elections, and if their finding is yes, then very harsh penalties take place. Now, we can talk about the details in the coming days and make sure that we get this exactly right, but where there should be no debate-- there should be no debate--is about the need to do something along the lines of the DETER Act and to do it urgently. As I said, the clock is ticking. We know how the Senate operates. There is not really that much time between now and the elections, given all the other things that we have to do, but I hope the Senate would prioritize defending our democracy. I hope the Senate would prioritize making sure that we have an election that the people of this country can have confidence in and that we would prioritize making sure that we protect the integrity of our democratic system. What Putin wants to do is to undermine the confidence in the democratic system. He wants to do that in the United States of America. He wants to do that to our allies around the world, and we can't let that happen. So this is not a moment where the Senate should just have hearings or just talk about it. This is a moment for action, and I join the Presiding Officer--and I am sorry he wasn't able to join me here because of his duty in the Chair--but I want to join him not as Republicans or Democrats but as Americans who want to defend our democracy. Let's get this job done now. Let's protect the integrity of our democratic process. I yield the floor.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, I wish to recognize an outstanding educator from the State of Maryland. John Ceschini has been an extraordinary leader in the area of arts education. His work has, in short, transformed this field and the lives of countless students. For the last 4 years, Mr. Ceschini was the arts integration officer for Prince George's County schools. During that time, he played an integral role in the expansion of the arts integration program, which is now the largest in the country. Previously, Mr. Ceschini was the executive director of education in the Maryland Schools Alliance. In 2011, he received the National Arts Education Association's Distinguished Service Award, and in 2010, he received the Innovator of the Year Award from the ``Daily Record'' for his efforts to support and expand the arts integration initiative across Maryland. Mr. Ceschini served as principal of two elementary schools that developed nationally recognized arts integration programs under his leadership. One of those schools, Kensington Parkwood Elementary School in Kensington, MD, was the 2007 recipient of the Creative Ticket National Schools of Distinction Award. In 2006, the school received the New and Emerging Art School Award from the International Network of Schools for the Advancement of Arts Education. Before that, Mr. Ceschini served as principal of Rockledge Elementary School in Bowie, a Maryland Blue Ribbon school that received national recognition for its arts program. In fact, Harvard University included Rockledge in its ``Why Arts Survive'' research and named the program as one of eight promising arts schools in the Nation. Mr. Ceschini was one of four educators across the Nation who received the BRAVO Network National Arts Education award for his commitment to arts education. His other awards included the Washington Post Outstanding Educational Leader Award, the Prince George's Arts Council ABE Award for outstanding elementary arts program, the Prince George's Chamber of Commerce Outstanding Administrator Award, and the Bowie Outstanding Citizen Award. Mr. Ceschini has been an advocate for arts education across the world and has demonstrated how the arts can play an essential role in any school curriculum. There can be no doubt that he is one of our country's most effective leaders in arts education. Now, as he begins his well-earned retirement, I call upon my colleagues to join me in congratulating and expressing our appreciation to John Ceschini on his outstanding service.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Thank you, Mr. President. I want to join my colleague from Virginia, Senator Kaine, and others who have come to this floor to talk about the important work that is done every day on behalf of the country by our Federal civil servants. As my colleagues have said, these are people who do the work for the American people in Maryland, Virginia, and States in every part of this country. They are the nurses and doctors taking care of our veterans at veterans hospitals. They are the folks in our intelligence community who are the eyes and ears for our country, detecting foreign threats so that we can respond to them in time. They are the people at the Social Security offices, whether in Virginia or the Social Security Administration in Maryland or others around the country, who are making sure that people who put in a full day's work and had a long career can get the Social Security support they earned. They are the people at places like the National Institutes of Health who are working every day to discover cures and treatments for diseases that impact every American family. Unfortunately, rather than treating these Federal civil servants with the dignity and respect they deserve, the administration is taking multiple steps to harm the ability of these men and women to do their job for the American people. It is especially ironic in an administration where we have seen people appointed to heads of Cabinet agencies who have been documented to have wasted lots of taxpayer dollars and abused the public trust--an administration that puts those people in the highest offices at the same time they are undermining the work of Federal employees who go to work every day. I am pleased to join my colleagues today to stand up for these Federal employees. I wish we didn't have to be here, but we have to be here because the Trump administration issued a series of Executive orders just a few months ago that go after Federal civil servants, just as we have seen this administration attack workers' rights in the private sector across the country. The first Executive order that was issued short-circuits the collective bargaining process. It imposes a new, rigid process under which Federal agencies are allowed to impose workplace policies without good-faith negotiations. Good-faith negotiations are required now, and this would undermine that requirement. The second order imposes arbitrary limits on the time that Federal employees in a union can carry out their duties to represent their fellow workers. No single case is the same, and Federal employee unions are required not only to represent the people who sign up as members of the unions but all Federal workers. So to arbitrarily dictate the amount of time necessary to protect the rights of a Federal employee is simply wrong and will undermine the justice within the system. The third Executive order, which is especially egregious, as my colleague from Virginia just said, is the one that eliminates the opportunity for due process before someone is fired. That opens the door to cronyism in our system--to favoritism and cronyism. That is why 45 Senators sent a letter to the President a little while back calling upon him to rescind these orders and take other actions. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that that letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, Federal law requires that agencies bargain in good faith with their workers. That makes for a better workplace, and that makes for better results for the American people. The President cannot just repeal that law by Executive order. I hope the courts will strike down these Executive orders as being an abuse of process and violating the law. With that, Mr. President, we got some good news on that front today. Even before the President's Executive orders were in place, Secretary DeVos over at the Department of Education had already launched her attack on workers' rights. That attack she launched was reviewed by the Federal Labor Relations Authority, and, as reported today in the New York Times--the headline states: ``Education Dept. Illegally Curbed Workers' Union Protections, Mediators Suggest.'' What we have seen is that this pattern the Trump administration has tried to unilaterally put in place is getting some pushback from the Labor Relations Authority. As reported in the article--it says that ``the decisions could have broad implications because the Education Department's actions mirror Trump administration efforts throughout the Federal Government.'' They mention the Social Security Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs, and others. I hope the courts will follow the lead of the mediators that found President Trump's Executive orders to be illegal because, as has been reported and as the Senator from Virginia just mentioned with respect to Social Security in his State, we are also seeing efforts at the Social Security Administration in Baltimore to undermine the rights of Federal employees. The leadership at SSA in Baltimore has already slashed official time for union members to represent fellow employees. They plan to evict the unions from their office space at the Social Security Administration headquarters as early as next week. The result will be that Social Security Administration workers will not have their voices heard on issues important to their workplace. The Social Security Administration had previously agreed to provide a certain amount of official time and office space to its workers. Now they are ripping apart those agreements. Today, Senator Cardin and I sent letters to President Trump's nominees for the Social Security Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner to ask for their assurances that Federal workers will be treated more fairly under their watch if the Senate confirms those nominations. We have called upon the Social Security Administration's current leadership to honor the existing collective bargaining agreements and negotiate in good faith with the unions if they need to revise those agreements. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the letters Senator Cardin and I sent to the nominees.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. In closing, as our colleagues have said, it is very important that we work together to protect the integrity of the Federal civil service. We have had a system over time where folks have been judged on their merits, not judged on their political favoritism or whether they were really good at saying exactly what their boss might want them to say. We want a civil service that values independent thinking and also values merit. By taking these actions, unfortunately, the Trump administration is undermining those efforts. I hope the courts and I hope this body will join us in pushing back on these efforts by the Trump administration to undermine the integrity of our workforce and stand up for the hard-working Federal employees who are doing the work of this country every day. I thank the Presiding Officer.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, I wish to start by thanking my colleague from Connecticut for his words today and for his leadership in protecting the integrity of our democracy and the rule of law. When it comes to issues of national security and foreign policy, we have had many vigorous debates in this country over the decades and many important debates here on the floor of this Senate. There have been deep disagreements over specific foreign policy choices that we make as a country. But there has consistently been broad bipartisan support for the view that the United States and strong U.S. leadership benefit not only our interests but the interests of folks around the world. That has been American leadership grounded in key values and principles, including the promotion of democracy, universal human rights, the rule of law, a free press, and the idea that America is an exceptional nation based not on tribalism but a beacon of hope for all people, as symbolized by the Statue of Liberty. This isn't to say that over the decades we have always been virtuous or always consistent in the application of these principles. We all know we have made many mistakes and detours along the way, but until now, until this moment in our history, the principles and values I outlined have been the guideposts and cornerstones for American Presidents--Republicans and Democrats alike--since the end of World War II. With those guideposts, we have built some very important international architecture: our alliances, international institutions, and international agreements. But today, sadly, we have a President who has gone absolutely rogue on the time-tested bipartisan tenets of American foreign policy, whether it is the way he attacks or berates our allies or when he consistently goes out of his way to praise dictators like Vladimir Putin or Kim Jong Un or other autocrats around the world. I am not going to take the time today to chronicle the mountain of evidence leading up to the events of last week that show already President Trump's radical retreat from the kind of global leadership that America has exercised since the end of World War II. We all know that those views are shared by many of our Republican Senate colleagues. Senator McCain has been very strong on that, as have other Republican Senators. Others have said quietly what Senator McCain has said publicly. This is a moment where everybody has to come together as patriots, not partisans. Including Senator McCain, we have a lot of Republican foreign policy experts and independent groups, like Freedom House, that have raised the alarm bells about this administration's far-reaching attacks on fundamental institutions of democratic society, like freedom of the press. One thing we all know is this: We know the words and actions of an American President have real-world consequences. Those of President Trump leave our friends unsure if they can depend on us and create openings and opportunities for our adversaries. They weaken our credibility and squander our moral authority on the world stage. Of course, the events of last week and yesterday are the ultimate expression of this President's retreat from that bipartisan tradition of American foreign policy--first, going to a NATO meeting and berating some of our closest allies. All of us understand that each of our NATO allies needs to fully contribute to NATO. In fact, these countries have already made that commitment, but President Trump threw them under the bus and diminished the importance of the NATO alliance. Then, of course, he went directly from there to his meeting with President Putin, but before that meeting, the President let us know what his state of mind was. The President tweeted out: ``Our relationship with Russia has NEVER been worse thanks to many years of U.S. foolishness . . .''--not Russia's invasion or occupation of Crimea, not Russian aggression in the Ukraine, not Russian activities around the world that undermine peace and stability, and not Russia's attack on our democracy in the 2016 elections. In fact, shortly before he went to meet with Putin, he again invoked a Stalinist expression, where he said: ``Much of our news media is indeed the enemy of the people.'' That is something I am sure warmed the heart of Vladimir Putin, who doesn't like any criticism, like our President doesn't like any criticism. Then he went in to this meeting and came out in that joint press conference. What did he do? Standing side by side with Vladimir Putin, he told the world that he sided with Putin over the leaders of the American intelligence community on the question of whether or not Russia interfered in the American elections in 2016. He said: President Putin assures me that they did not interfere. He says it very strongly. Then, he sided with President Putin over his own director of the CIA, who has testified before Congress about Russian interference in 2016, over Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats, over Secretary of State Pompeo, and over the very people President Trump said all of us should trust in these important positions of responsibility. Yet, on a world stage, he bowed to President Putin and said he trusted President Putin's word over that of U.S. intelligence. I understand that today he is trying to walk this back. He actually tweeted: While I had a great meeting with NATO . . . I had an even better meeting with Vladimir Putin of Russia. Sadly, it is not being reported that way--the Fake News is going Crazy! The challenge President Trump has this time is that we all watched that press conference. The world saw it. So really, the question now for us here in the Senate--Republicans and Democrats alike--is this: What are we going to do? What are we going to do now that the President of the United States has taken this position, undermining the credibility of his own country? We were worried before the President went to the NATO meeting, and we passed a resolution here--that was a good thing--affirming our support for NATO. Last year, over the objections of the Trump administration, we passed legislation imposing sanctions on Russia. Now we have to come together, as Senates have before--Republicans and Democrats--to send a very strong signal that the United States stands together in support of the bipartisan principles we have stood for before. We now know the President will not defend the integrity of our democratic process. We need to do it, and my colleagues have outlined many steps we should take. One step we should take is directly related to future elections, because what we know from the testimony of the head of the CIA, the head of the DNI, and the Secretary of State is that they all expect Russia--unless something changes--to interfere in our 2018 and future elections. The 2018 elections are 16 weeks away. We now know the President of the United States is not going to defend the integrity of the democratic process. So we have to do it. One of the many things we should do is to support legislation I have introduced together with Senator Rubio, bipartisan legislation. It is very clear. It says to Vladimir Putin: If you interfere in another U.S. election and we catch you, Russia will automatically face very stiff sanctions to your energy sector and your banking sector, and there will be a huge price to pay. It is called the DETER Act. The whole idea is to make sure that Vladimir Putin knows that the cost of interfering in our elections far outweigh any benefit he may think he gets. So I hope we will stand together as Republicans and Democrats to do what the President of the United States will not do, and that is to protect the integrity of our elections. Let's learn from the past. Let's work together for the future.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

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

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, I rise to honor the victims and the survivors of the terrible shooting at the Capital Gazette newspaper which occurred on June 28. I thank my friend and colleague Senator Cardin for his remarks earlier today on this floor and thank the Senate for taking up a resolution in memory of the victims. Our State of Maryland and the country were horrified by the tragic attacks on one of our great Maryland institutions--the Capital Gazette newspaper, the local newspaper of our State capital in Annapolis, which has been operating since 1727. It was, and is, your quintessential smalltown newspaper, which serves Annapolis and Anne Arundel County but is also a newspaper read throughout the State of Maryland. In that awful shooting, we lost five members of the Capital Gazette: Gerald Fischman, Rob Hiaasen, John McNamara, Rebecca Smith, and Wendi Winters. Gerald Fischman was an editorial page editor whose thoughtful columns and sly wit shed light on critical community issues. He was well known for his insatiable curiosity and his love of family, and his talent for writing extended to poems he composed for his wife Erica. Rob Hiaasen was a big man with a big presence who applied his considerable skills as a journalist to mentor others, both fellow reporters and students at the University of Maryland College of Journalism. He gave of his time, and he gave of his talent. John McNamara was a sports writer and sports fan--a big fan of the University of Maryland Terps. He covered everything from the Orioles to the local Little League. He was always generous with his time and known to many who follow sports around the country. Sales Assistant Rebecca Smith was strong and smart and a fixture at her fiance Dewayne's softball tournaments. She was also known to be unfailingly kind and always took the time to make people feel at home at the Gazette. Wendi Winters had a great sense of humor and an incredible ability to pull stories out of just about anyone. Her colleagues say she charged at the shooter, displaying the bravery and determination she had so many times before in her life and saving the lives of others at the newspaper in the process. Community newspapers like the Capital Gazette are more than just sources of news; they represent the lifeblood of our communities around the country and our Nation. They report on everything, big issues and small issues, because no issue is too small if it affects people in a particular community. I think all of us know these are the reporters who stay out late at local council meetings, they are the folks at the PTA meetings, they are the folks busy collecting news important to people in a local community. This newspaper has been at this for hundreds of years. Even after that awful shooting, the next day the Capital Gazette put out a newspaper, as they have every day since then, with the help of fellow journalists at the Baltimore Sun and elsewhere. They put out a newspaper that talked about the terrible shooting they experienced at the Capital Gazette and remembered the victims and thanked the first responders. I also salute the first responders, an incredible and brave response from local, State, and Federal agencies. At the local level, they were on the scene within 60 to 90 seconds. Had that not happened, we would have had even more than the terrible loss we saw that awful day. It also should cause all of us to think again about measures we can take in our communities, in our States, and at the Federal level to stop the violence. One of the victims, Gerald Fischman, who had been an editorial writer there, had written earlier in the aftermath of the terrible shooting at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, and here is what Gerald Fischman wrote at that time: Of all the words this week, hopelessness may be the most dangerous. We must believe there is a solution, a way to prevent another mass shooting. We must believe that we can find it if only we try a little harder. I ask every Member of the Senate, every Member of this Congress, every elected official, and every citizen, let's work harder to find a way to end the violence. There are things we can do to reduce the chances and the awful losses we are seeing around our country, both in mass shootings and daily violence. As we remember these victims, I ask that we dedicate ourselves to the mission of ending the violence. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, I rise to support Mark Jeremy Bennett's nomination to serve as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Mr. Bennett's nomination is how judicial nominations should work. His name was not on a rightwing wish list created by outside groups. Instead, the White House worked closely with both of Hawaii's Democratic Senators to find a consensus nominee that would get broad bipartisan support. Senators are constitutionally directed to provide the executive branch with advice and consent. I encourage the White House to continue to consult with Members of both parties on all future nominees.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, I rise to recognize an excellent member of my staff, Melissa Bonine, who is moving on to a new challenge. For the past year, Melissa has coordinated daily operations in my office, helping to create order out of the chaos of my schedules. Having worked for Congressman Rick Boucher, Senator Jim Webb, and Secretary Castro at the Department of Housing and Urban Development, Melissa has many friends on Capitol Hill, and she was an immediate asset to my office. With a cool head under pressure and excellent diplomatic skills, Melissa has kept the trains running on time and put out the occasional fire. She has worked with the rest of my staff to manage priorities and coordinate each day efficiently while assisting in long-term planning. Our entire team will miss her counsel and sense of humor. I am sure she will make a tremendous impact on her next project, an exciting new advocacy group where she will continue to fight for progressive values. I hope her new job will also give her some more time with her husband, David, daughter, Penny, and cats, Rex and Willie Nelson, and I look forward to hearing about the extraordinary work she does next.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, I want to start by thanking my colleague, the Senator from Arkansas, for his longtime leadership on a range of important national security issues, including his attention and focus on the threat posed by Huawei and ZTE, which, as he explained, are two Chinese telecommunications companies that pose a risk not just to our security but also to the privacy of American citizens. This is a threat that is here and now, and it is not one we have not been aware of for a long time. I think it is important to look back because this didn't sneak up on us overnight. If you go back to the year 2012, the House Intelligence Committee sounded the alarm on Huawei and ZTE in a bipartisan report that stated that ``China has the means, opportunity, and motive to use telecommunications companies for malicious purposes'' and that ``based on available and classified and unclassified information, Huawei and ZTE cannot be trusted to be free of foreign state influence and thus pose a security threat to the United States and to our systems.'' That was a House Intelligence Committee report in the year 2012. Since then, the evidence has grown even stronger. We know that the Government of China exercises significant control over its telecommunications firms and that ZTE and Huawei have close and very longstanding ties to the government. We also know that China is one of the world's most active perpetrators of economic espionage and cyber attacks in the United States. In 2015, the FBI issued a report on Huawei making it clear that the Government of China relies on signals intelligence to spy on American citizens. American intelligence officials have long warned that Beijing could harness this technology to steal data, eavesdrop on conversations, or carry out cyber attacks. We had testimony recently--in February--from the leaders of the top U.S. intelligence agencies. Senator Cotton referenced the testimony of the FBI Director and others, and I want to expand on the testimony of FBI Director Chris Wray, who said: We're deeply concerned about the risks of allowing any company or entity that is beholden to foreign governments that don't share our values to gain positions of power inside our telecommunications networks. That provides the capacity to exert pressure or control over our telecommunications infrastructure. It provides the capacity to maliciously modify or steal information. And it provides the capacity to conduct undetected espionage. That is why part of this amendment contains the very important provision that the Senator from Arkansas mentioned that would prohibit U.S. taxpayer dollars from being spent to purchase any equipment from Huawei or ZTE. The Pentagon recently prohibited the sale of these devices on U.S. military bases. The FCC has also proposed steps to discourage American companies from using products from Huawei and ZTE. It stands to reason--and it is totally consistent with that sentiment-- that we make it clear that U.S. Federal Government agencies should not be purchasing this equipment that threatens our national security. One of those companies--ZTE in specific--not only represents the kind of threat that we have been discussing but also has been a repeated and flagrant violator of U.S. law. They were caught a number of years ago for cheating, and instead of coming clean, they tried to cover it up, cheated again, and they were caught again. Here is what the Department of Commerce said in its report about ZTE just this past April. It said that they engaged in ``a multi-year conspiracy to violate the U.S. trade embargo against Iran to obtain contracts to supply, build, operate and maintain telecommunications networks inside Iran using U.S. original equipment'' and that ZTE was ``illegally shipping telecommunications equipment to North Korea in violation of the Export Administration Regulations.'' The Commerce Department went on to explain that ZTE--finally, after getting caught multiple times--``admitted to engaging in an elaborate scheme to hide the unlicensed transactions from the U.S. Government by deleting, destroying, removing, or sanitizing materials and information.'' In fact, it turns out that they were violating our sanctions regime against not only Iran and North Korea but also Sudan, Syria, and Cuba. In fact, they had elaborate flowcharts at ZTE showing exactly how they were going to do this. Then, when we confronted them and they said they were going to come clean, instead they rewarded their top executives with bonuses. That is why, when the Secretary of Commerce issued the sanctions and imposed the blocking order on the sale of U.S. telecommunications components to ZTE in April, he explained that the message ZTE sent from the top was essentially to evade and then lie about what they were doing with respect to U.S. sanctions. Well, it is very important that we send a message, and we need to send a message consistent with what the Secretary of Commerce did last April. It is very important, as the Senator from Arkansas said, that we let countries know we mean what we say. They are a flagrant violator of those sanctions laws, and we can't let them off the hook with a slap on the wrist because if we do that, it will undermine our credibility with respect to our sanctions on North Korea, which are very important in focusing the attention of North Korea on the goal of denuclearizing the Korean Peninsula. It will send the wrong message to countries around the world that if we catch you and you cheat again and we catch you, you can just cut a deal that ends up being a slap on the wrist. That is why I am very pleased to join with the Senator from Arkansas in offering this bipartisan amendment. In addition to the two of us, there are a number of other Senators--a bipartisan group--supporting this legislation. I am glad it has been incorporated in the legislation. With that, I want to turn it back over to the Senator from Arkansas and ask him whether he has any further thoughts on this very important issue before us today.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, if I may, I just want to emphasize that final point made by the Senator from Arkansas, which is that it is going to be very important that we keep this provision in the Defense authorization bill as it winds its way through the process. I am confident that there is a bipartisan commitment to doing exactly that because we cannot back away at this point. Backing away would send a very bad signal to ZTE and Huawei and other violators of our sanctions or any of our other adversaries who are considering violating U.S. law and U.S. sanctions.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, Senator Cotton from Arkansas and I were just on the floor these past 15 minutes explaining why this bipartisan provision is in the managers' amendment to the bill. It is because of the threats posed by Huawei and ZTE. With respect to ZTE specifically, it is because of its multiple flagrant violations of U.S. law. Removing that provision would send a very bad signal, not just to ZTE, not just to China but to anybody else around the world watching that they can violate U.S. sanctions law with impunity. We shouldn't be doing that. I object.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, I rise to celebrate the dedication of Silver Creek Middle School, SCMS, in Kensington, MD as it completes its inaugural year. SCMS opened on September 5, 2017, for 550 students in sixth and seventh grade. Students from Chevy Chase Elementary, North Chevy Chase Elementary, and Rock Creek Forest Elementary now attend SCMS. In recognition of the combination of students from three different elementary schools, SCMS dedicated its inaugural year to community building and has worked hard to create a strong sense of unity and common purpose. Before the 2017-18 school year began, SCMS organized three community summer socials at parents' residences. More than 200 parents participated in these events and helped cultivate a supportive network before their students had even arrived at school. In addition, SCMS students and parents have organized two cleanups of nearby Silver Creek, for which the school is named. Students, teachers, and parents collaborated in these efforts to protect our environment. In addition to community building, SCMS focuses on a global and holistic education. SCMS is an International Baccalaureate, IB, school with a Middle Years Programme. This program allows students to engage across cultures and subject areas to develop their self-understanding and a sense of their relationships to others and our society. I am proud that Silver Creek Middle School is committed to a quality education and a collaborative educational environment for all of its students. I commend the dedicated faculty and staff at SCMS for all they do to help each of their students achieve his or her full potential. The Silver Creek Middle School community has my best wishes for a productive learning experience for many years to come.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam President, today I would like to recognize a selfless young man of great character and tremendous determination, Keith Nolan of Frederick, MD. Keith's passion for service and for this country has driven him to doggedly seek an opportunity to join the less than 1 percent of Americans with a disability who have served in our military. In his commitment to defend our Nation, as well as our values, he has pursued this issue with many levels of the Defense Department. Moreover, he has reached out to the Armed Services Committees in both Chambers of Congress and even approached the White House to seek opportunities for disabled Americans to serve in the ranks of the military. Keith is deaf and recognizes that he is quickly reaching the age limit to enlist. However, he is still committed to seeking change that could enable others, with similar disabilities, to contribute to the defense of our nation. Keith Nolan is an inspiration to me and to those he has touched. I thank him for the example he sets and am hopeful that someday emerging military occupations might present opportunities for disabled Americans to serve their country proudly and with honor.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, as a member of the Senate Budget Committee, I am disappointed that Republican leaders have not even begun the process of debating a budget for the upcoming year in our committee. The United States needs a budget that addresses our national debt, which is increasing significantly faster due to a Republican tax plan that delivers huge windfalls to millionaires, billionaires, and multinational corporations. Unfortunately, the budget proposal we considered today would take health coverage from tens of millions of Americans because its massive spending cuts would almost certainly mean huge reductions in Medicare and Medicaid. This budget would also make it harder for struggling families to afford food, housing, and childcare, and it would slash vital economic investments in infrastructure, education, and scientific research. At the same time, this budget does not achieve even one penny of deficit reduction from reducing the tax cuts that Republicans just provided to those at the top. I will not support a budget that is balanced on the backs of working families and the middle class. We need a budget that invests in our future, supports a basic standard of living for all Americans, and safeguards our health and safety. This budget proposal fails to do so, which is why I voted against the motion to proceed to its consideration.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, as we observe National Police Week, I rise today to recognize Sean Matthew Suiter and Sander Benjamin Cohen, two Maryland law enforcement officers who lost their lives in the line of duty in 2017. It is important that we give thanks to all the men and women who put themselves at risk every day to protect our communities. Sean Suiter was an 18-year veteran who was shot in west Baltimore while investigating a triple homicide. Relatives describe him as an anchor in his family, devoted to his wife and three children who ``. . . was focused on trying to [. . .] raise them to be strong and good citizens.'' Sander Cohen, who served as deputy chief in the Maryland Office of the State Fire Marshal was killed in December while assisting a disabled motorist. His friends and family describe him as funny with an infectious smile and as ``an example of the good in people.'' As a member of the Appropriations Committee, I will continue to support programs that provide our law enforcement officers with the funding and training they need to protect themselves and our communities. Police officers bear a unique burden. While we can never fully repay them for their sacrifices, we should all take the time to thank police officers who put their lives on the line every day to protect our safety. We must honor their sacrifice and support the families of those we have lost in the line of duty.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Thank you. Mr. President, as the Senate considers the nomination of Mike Pompeo to be Secretary of State, we have to ask ourselves many questions. Among them are these: Will Mr. Pompeo offer the kind of independent judgment that is necessary to help restrain President Trump's worst impulses, or will he be somebody who becomes a ``yes'' man to the President of the United States? Will Mr. Pompeo continue in his past attitude, which reflects a ``shoot first, ask questions later'' approach to foreign policy? And can somebody like Mr. Pompeo, who has made very divisive, polarizing, and, in fact, hateful remarks here in the United States be able to reflect American values abroad? I regret to conclude that I do not think Mr. Pompeo can pass these tests, and I will oppose his nomination for Secretary of State. We all know that our country is facing formidable challenges. Armed conflicts are raging in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia, creating refugee crises across borders. Russia's campaign to undermine Western democracies continues at pace and has sharpened divisions in our society. It has bolstered populous movements at home and abroad, and we have seen terrorist networks continue to expand their reach into information space. Changes in our climate have resulted in drought, natural disaster, and famine, and as the President of France reminded a joint session of Congress today, there is no planet B. Of the many crises we are confronting, at least one of them is entirely of President Trump's own making, and that is the potential unraveling of the Iran nuclear agreement. Let me say that I agree with all of those who believe that we should never allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon. That is exactly why it is so important to keep that agreement in place. In just a few weeks, President Trump will make a decision. He will decide whether to waive the nuclear-related sanctions on Iran in order to keep the Iran agreement intact or whether to blow up that agreement. As the President of France reminded us today, that agreement was forged with our European allies, Russia and China, and yet it has cut off Iran's pathways to nuclear bombs, it has imposed very tough constraints on their nuclear program, and it has subjected Iran to the most comprehensive inspection and monitoring regime ever negotiated--an inspection regime that would disappear if we backed out of that agreement, leaving us blind to exactly what the Iranians were doing with respect to their nuclear program. Our State Department, our Defense Department, and our intelligence community have all assessed time and again that Iran is in compliance with the nuclear agreement. Secretary of Defense Mattis testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee just last fall that the Iran deal was in the national security interest of the United States. Despite that consensus even among the President's current team, the President is talking about recklessly shredding the agreement. As President Macron of France warned us today, such a move would be very reckless and it would be reckless to replace what we have today without having something to substitute for it. Mr. Pompeo has weighed in on this issue over the years. It is not only that he has been a fierce opponent of the Iran deal, but he has proposed military strikes against Iran. In 2014, he said that it would take ``under 2,000 sorties to destroy the Iranian nuclear capacity. This is not an insurmountable task for the coalition forces.'' That is a dangerous illusion--the notion that there would be absolutely no response to an American attack on Iran's nuclear facilities. Iran, of course, is right next door to Iraq, where the United States spent an ill-fated number of years, at a great loss of lives both to Americans and Iraqis and at great cost to the public. To just talk offhand about bombing Iran as the solution is not the kind of sentiment or mindset that we want in the Secretary of State for the United States of America. The idea that he somehow had a conversion to diplomacy is difficult to believe, given the testimony that he has provided and the statements that he has made. We also know that we are at an inflection point when it comes to the situation in North Korea. In a span of just a few months, President Trump has veered from taunting Kim Jong Un over Twitter to recently calling him ``very honorable.'' We are all rooting for diplomacy to succeed in North Korea, but we all know that the opening rounds are, in fact, the easiest legs, and that reaching a credible and lasting accord with North Korea will take significant time, hard bargaining, and the support of our partners and allies in the region. When it comes to Russia, President Trump's affection for President Putin continues unabated. Two weeks ago, he rejected the sanctions on Russian companies found to be assisting Syria's chemical weapons program, contradicting his own U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. Then, he earlier congratulated Putin on winning the election--an election that we all know was a sham election and that the outcome was never in doubt. It was marred by ballot stuffing and forced voting, and it was hardly what you would call a fair and free election. When it comes to Russia, despite appeals from Republicans and Democrats in this body and in other parts of the country, the President has decided not to take action to address the threat of Russian cyber attacks in our upcoming elections. In fact, Admiral Rogers, the former head of the U.S. Cyber Command, testified just in February that President Trump had not directed him to confront Russian cyber operations at their source. So while Mr. Pompeo has said that Russia will meddle again in our midterm elections, he has been much quieter and softer since his nomination was presented by the President with respect to President Trump's soft approach to Russia and Putin. It is also a fact that our next Secretary of State will be responsible for managing tens of thousands of Foreign Service officers, civil servants, and locally employed staff of the State Department at our embassies and consulates overseas. We all know that at the State Department today, we are witnessing historically low morale. In his budget, President Trump has tried to gut the State Department of its personnel and resources, issuing two budgets in a row that cut the State Department's budget by over 30 percent. You cannot conduct the diplomacy of the greatest country on Earth with two hands tied behind your back. Yet I heard nothing from Mr. Pompeo about challenging the President with respect to the deep cuts to the State Department and the resources that he will have available to him to conduct American diplomacy. There is also the very long history of really awful remarks that Mike Pompeo has made toward various minority groups here in the United States, including Muslims and the LGBT community. You have to wonder how somebody who has made these comments is going to be able to oversee a State Department that has patriotic Americans who are Muslim Americans, who are LGBT, and who come from other minority groups. How do you lead an agency when you have made those kinds of comments about people in your workforce? And how do you represent American values overseas when you have disregarded those important values here at home? Mr. Pompeo has said that Muslims ``abhor Christians.'' He has said that all Muslim leaders were ``potentially complicit'' in acts of terrorism. He has made other statements and has not condemned statements made by groups that were supporting him. We have heard today from the President of France, Mr. Macron, a speech that uplifted the best of American values and French values. It was a speech that could have been given by earlier American Presidents, Republican or Democrat. He called upon America, France, the NATO allies, and other freedom-loving democracies and countries that respect the rule of law to seize the mantle of leadership. He said: We can actively contribute together to building the 21st- century world order for our people, for all people. The United States and Europe have a historical role in this respect, because it is the only way to defend what we believe in, to promote our universal values, to express strongly that human rights, the rights of minorities, and shared liberty are the true answer to the disorders of the world. He warned against using anger and fear to divide us. He said: We are living in a time of anger and fear because of the global threats, but these feelings did not build anything. You can play with fear and anger for a time, but they do not construct anything. What we have heard from President Trump is exactly the stirring of anger and division that the President of France warned about in his talk today to the Congress. It is those fears that President Trump has sought to exploit rather than to rise above and to lead. As I look at the record of Mr. Pompeo and as I listen to the statements he has made, including many repulsive statements about different groups within the United States, I have to conclude that he does not reflect the great tradition in American foreign policy of standing up for those universal values that the President of France talked about today. It is a sad moment in our history when it requires a President from France to remind us of those universal values. France has been a leader in the world, but the United States has been the chief organizer of the post-World War II era. And our friends in France, in England, in Germany, and other allies not just in Europe but around the world have stood with us. Yet, in this administration, we see a full retreat from that kind of American leadership around the world. I regret to conclude that, looking at Mr. Pompeo's record and statements, he is part of the retreat and not part of the leadership that we need in the 21st century. So I ask my colleagues to oppose this nomination. We can do better. We need to remind every Member of this body that the United States has always stood up for those values that are in our Declaration of Independence and in our Constitution, and we need to uphold those values in the conduct of our foreign policy. Thank you, Mr. President.

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, April is National Autism Awareness Month. Although much of our focus is on the challenges that children with autism face, today I wish to recognize April 21 as Autism After 21 Day, representing the age when Federal services for children end and adulthood begins. In declaring this day, we draw attention to the fact that there are millions of Americans with exceptional gifts who need our help in overcoming the unique challenges that they face. In Maryland, approximately 1 in 55 8-year-old children have autism, and I am committed to ensuring that these kids are empowered to live independent and fulfilling lives. As someone who has personally employed individuals with Autism Spectrum Disorder, ASD, I can attest to the outstanding talents that this population brings to the workforce. I am so proud of the organizations in my State that are working tirelessly to address these needs. To celebrate their work and advocate for adults all over this Nation with ASD, I call on the Senate to recognize Autism After 21 Day and acknowledge the millions of people who are navigating an uncertain adulthood to reach their full potential. We all must work together to ensure that this journey is not lonely and isolated. Rather, these individuals must be recognized as an important part of our communities. Twenty-eight years after the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act, ADA, adults with ASD deserve access to the goals set by the ADA: equality of opportunity, full participation, independent living, and economic self-sufficiency. Thank you.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, I want to start by thanking my colleague from Massachusetts for the clarity and passion he brings to this debate. I, too, am here to strongly oppose the nomination of Andrew Wheeler to be the Deputy Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. Before I talk about Mr. Wheeler, I want to join my colleague from Massachusetts to talk a little bit about Scott Pruitt and the current management over the EPA. Because the people of our country rely on a strong, effective, and healthy EPA to keep our air and water clean and to make sure people are not living among toxic substances, we need strong leadership there. In the State of Maryland, the EPA is also important to protect a great national and natural treasure, the Chesapeake Bay. The bay States include many of the States in this area. We have made great progress over the years through the EPA's Chesapeake Bay Program. It was recognized many years ago that when you have a bay such as the Chesapeake, where multiple States feed into it, so that when you see pollution in Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware, or Virginia, it ends up in the bay, you need a national response, and you need an agency like the EPA to bring people together. That is why the EPA's Chesapeake Bay Program was created. Yet we now have a Director of the EPA, Scott Pruitt, who doesn't recognize the vital and unique role the EPA plays in protecting the Chesapeake Bay. We know that because, if you look at the budget Scott Pruitt and President Trump submitted to the Congress, they zeroed out funding-- zeroed out funding--a big goose egg for the EPA Chesapeake Bay funding. That is what they did in year 1. Then, when Senator Cardin and I and others said: This is a really important national effort; in fact, it has had bipartisan support in the Congress, it has bipartisan support among the Governors of all the Chesapeake Bay States, then they said: OK. We are going to provide just 10 percent of the moneys that had been provided for that program. This is a $73 million-a-year program. It actually needs more to achieve its full effectiveness, but Administrator Pruitt and President Trump provided only $7.3 million in their budget, which would devastate the bay program. Fortunately, on a bipartisan basis, this Senate and the House of Representatives have continued full funding for the Chesapeake Bay Program for the past 2 years. I thank my colleagues for recognizing the vital importance of that program, not just to the bay States but really to protecting a national treasure. I guess it shouldn't be surprising that Scott Pruitt's first budget zeroed out funding for Chesapeake Bay protection because, back when he was the attorney general of Oklahoma, he filed an amicus brief in a case that would have neutered the ability of the EPA to actually enforce the pollution protection standards for the Chesapeake Bay. We can set forth all sorts of standards, we can set forth all sorts of restrictions in terms of pollution that can fall into the bay, but if you don't have the ability to enforce it, it means nothing. It means people can pollute with impunity. Even before he took the current job, Scott Pruitt telegraphed to all of us that he didn't care about enforcing pollution standards for the Chesapeake Bay. We have also seen other recent actions where it is clear he has a disregard for adequate protections for clean air and water. The Senator from Massachusetts was just talking about a recent proposal to roll back the auto emission standards, auto emission standards that are essential to addressing the challenge of climate change, that are also vital to making sure we have energy independence--standards, by the way, that would save consumers a whole lot of money that would otherwise be going to the oil companies and the gas companies. In fact, those new emission standards would save the average American family $300 per year. Apparently, Mr. Pruitt and President Trump want to see those $300 come out of the pockets of American consumers and go right to the bank accounts of big oil companies. It is maybe not surprising, given the very close relationship between Administrator Pruitt and the Koch brothers, who worked very hard and worked over time on his confirmation to be EPA Administrator. With Administrator Pruitt, they are getting the policies they want--policies that are not good for the health of the American people but very good for the bottom line of the Koch brothers and some of the biggest oil companies in the country. The Chesapeake Bay and the rolling back of the auto emission standards are just two examples of a record that fails the American public when it comes to the environment under this current EPA. I also want to talk about the work environment today at the Environmental Protection Agency because my State of Maryland is the home to many terrific public servants--Federal employees, including many dedicated employees of the EPA. You can listen to them, but you can read about accounts in many of the publications we have seen about the incredibly low morale at the EPA. Leadership starts at the top, and Scott Pruitt has taken an agency with strong morale and led it down the tubes. I guess it is not surprising, since he has been seeking to cut the EPA team, the professionals there, by roughly 20 percent. I should say, he is talking about cutting those folks who are working every day on behalf of the American people at the same time he is increasing the number of political appointees at the EPA--people who really do nothing more than the politics of the Administrator. So he is increasing the number of high-paid political appointees while proposing to cut, by 20 percent, the EPA workforce that looks out for the American people. Under his directorship, already 700 employees have left the Agency either because they found it a hostile place to work or were actually forced out. So I do find it ironic that the Agency that is supposed to protect the country from toxic pollution has created a toxic environment under its own roof. Beyond my concerns about how he actually manages his staff, concerns about undermining protections for the Chesapeake Bay and other environmental efforts, we have seen a total disregard for basic public ethics from the current Administrator. His conduct is not appropriate for a public official and has violated the public trust time and again. It seems every day now, when you open a newspaper or look online, you can find another example of the current Administrator abusing the public trust. We have to ask ourselves whether Andrew Wheeler is going to be someone at the EPA who addresses those serious problems we have with the current Administrator. How will he help stabilize the situation? Will he be any kind of counterbalance on these important issues? The clear answer, from the record, is no. In fact, the clear answer is that Mr. Wheeler would just reinforce Mr. Pruitt's worst instincts. One might say he is a carbon copy of Mr. Pruitt. And when we look at his history--Mr. Wheeler's history--we find a very cozy relationship between the nominee, Mr. Wheeler, Mr. Pruitt, the current Administrator, and an army of lobbyists for the coal industry. In fact, Mr. Wheeler, as we have noted, has been a lobbyist for that industry. When we look at his relationships, we find that he was advising Murray Energy. Murray Energy was at that time a top donor to Scott Pruitt's super PAC. This was before Mr. Pruitt became the Administrator of the EPA. He had a super PAC. Murray Energy, for whom Mr. Wheeler lobbied, was one of the top donors to that Pruitt super PAC. The relationship between Pruitt and Wheeler and Bob Murray gets even cozier when we see that Bob Murray was a co-plaintiff in 8 of the 14 lawsuits that Pruitt brought against the EPA before Pruitt became the Administrator. So I want to get this right. We have Mr. Wheeler, who is the lobbyist for Mr. Murray, and Mr. Murray joined with Pruitt in filing 8 of 14 lawsuits against the EPA. So we can see that we have a very cozy relationship there and one that will only reinforce, not counterbalance, Mr. Pruitt's worst instincts at the EPA. Among those challenges is the question of climate change. Just yesterday, in the Environment and Public Works Committee, we had a hearing. We had a hearing on using Federal incentives to have more carbon sequestration, to try to take carbon out of the environment, and carbon recapturing technology. What was interesting was that every single one of the witnesses-- those called by the majority and those called by the minority--every one of them, when asked whether climate change represented a serious threat, answered yes. All of them acknowledged that human activity was contributing to that climate change--every one of the witnesses, right down the table. It is also interesting that that legislation, which has bipartisan support, uses taxpayer dollars and, combined with the tax measures we passed recently, creates tax incentives for carbon capture. So we are agreeing on a bipartisan basis to use public funds for the purpose of reducing carbon pollution. The only reason to do that would be that we agree carbon pollution represents a threat. I will tell my colleagues who believes carbon pollution represents a threat: the U.S. military. I represent the Naval Academy. A little while back, I went out there and talked to the head of the Naval Academy, who talked about the fact that even today, sea level rise is creating threats, and we can actually see the results of sea level rise with the flash flooding down in Annapolis, MD, which is home to the Naval Academy. That is just one small example. Yet, if we look at Mr. Wheeler's record and statements, we find just another person with their head in the sand, and that is not the kind of person we should have as the No. 2 at our national Environmental Protection Agency. I was looking to see if the No. 2 appointment might provide some kind of counterbalance to Mr. Pruitt. Unfortunately, everything we find shows not only that they had this prior, very cozy relationship-- lobbyist, Attorney General, and a lot of coal industry companies--but on all of the issues that are important to protecting the health of the American people, we have a Deputy nominee who is actually going to take us in the wrong direction. So I urge all of my colleagues to oppose the nomination of Andrew Wheeler. I yield the remainder of my postcloture time to Mr. Carper. I see that Mr. Leahy is on the floor.