A resolution expressing the sense of the Senate recognizing 3 years of Russian military aggression in Ukraine.

Mr. President, I wish to address the resolution the Senate is now considering.

In 2015, 85 U.S. Senators voted for the law fixing No Child Left Behind, which reversed the trend to a national school board and restored decisions to classroom teachers, local school boards, and States. The Wall Street Journal said it was the ``largest devolution of federal control to the states in a quarter of a century.''

The Department of Education regulation this resolution seeks to overturn does exactly the reverse. It begins to restore the national school board, and it takes away responsibilities from classroom teachers, local school boards, and States. It does this in direct violation of the law that 85 Senators voted for just 15 months ago. So the question before us, today, is not only whether we believe in a national school board or local school boards. More important, perhaps, the question is: who writes the law? Does the U.S. Congress write the law, or does the U.S. Department of Education write the law? Article I of the U.S. Constitution says that the Congress, elected by the people, writes the law.

The purpose of this resolution is to overturn a regulation of the Department of Education that in 7 cases directly violates the Every Student Succeeds Act, passed just 15 months ago, and in 16 other cases exceeds the authority allowed by that law.

This regulation would say to States: Ignore the law 85 Senators passed 15 months ago. Ignore the law that President Obama called a Christmas miracle. Ignore the law that Governors, teachers, school boards, and superintendents all supported, and even ignore why they supported it. Instead, listen to the unelected bureaucrats at the U.S. Department of Education.

This regulation issued by the Department of Education specifically does things or requires States to do things that Congress said, in our law fixing No Child Left Behind, that the Department of Education cannot do. Therefore, it violates the law.

In this law, Congress said to the Department: You cannot tell States exactly what to do about fixing low-performing schools; that is a State decision. But this regulation does that anyway.

Congress said to the Department: You cannot tell States exactly how to rate the public schools in your State. But this regulation does that anyway.

This is not a minor matter.

The remarkable consensus that developed in the 2015 bill in support of fixing No Child Left Behind was to reverse the trend toward a national school board and restore to States, classroom teachers, and school boards decisions about what to do about their children in 100,000 public schools. Teachers, Governors, and school board members were fed up with Washington telling them so much about what to do about the children in their schools. So this regulation, which contravenes the law specifically, goes to the heart of the bill fixing No Child Left Behind.

It is very unusual in Federal law to specifically prohibit a department from regulating on an issue, but that is exactly what Congress did in 2015. Here are seven specific examples of how the regulation which we seek to overturn violates prohibitions that Congress explicitly wrote into the law:

No. 1, the regulation prescribes the long-term goals and measurements of progress that States establish for student subgroups.

The law says, for example, that the Secretary may not tell a State that goals set for students of one race must improve their progress 20 percent better than the progress of a group of students of another race. Yet the regulation says that States must establish goals and measurements for lower performing subgroups who ``require greater rates of improvement,'' which would necessarily mean that students of one race would have to do better than students of another race.

No. 2, the regulation requires federally prescribed actions to be taken in schools that do not annually test at least 95 percent of students.

The law says that States must annually test not less than 95 percent of all students and each subgroup of students, but States determine how to hold schools accountable for ensuring that 95 percent of students participate on annual tests. The law says that the Secretary of Education may not prescribe ``the way in which the State factors'' the 95 percent testing requirement into their accountability system. Yet the regulation we seek to overturn prescribes four different specific ways that States must take action in schools that miss the 95 percent requirement.

No. 3, the regulation prescribes that schools with consistently underperforming subgroups of students be identified with a lower summative determination.

The law says that States are required to identify schools for targeted support when a subgroup of students is ``consistently underperforming'' in a manner ``as determined by the state.'' So under the law, the Secretary can't tell States how to identify the lowest performing schools or what a school's rating should be. Yet the regulation we are seeking to overturn says that States are required to ``demonstrate that a school with a consistently underperforming subgroup . . . receive a lower summative determination. . . . than it would have otherwise received.'' The Department of Education is meddling into the methodology of school ratings again, despite the fact that Congress said it could not.

No. 4, the regulation prescribes the timeline for identifying schools with consistently underperforming subgroups.

The law says that States are required to identify schools for targeted support when a subgroup of students is ``consistently underperforming'' in a manner ``as determined by the state.''

We had lengthy discussions about this. These issues in education are filled with conflict and filled with different opinions. I said many times during the debate that working on an education bill in the Senate is kind of like being in a football stadium on game day at Penn State or the University of Tennessee: Everybody in the stands has played football, and they know what play to call, and they usually do. So everybody had a point. We had to work these things out and we wrote down carefully the agreement we had. We wrote down that the Secretary of Education may not impose new requirements or criteria on State accountability systems, such as a timeline for the identification of lowest performing schools. Yet the regulation prescribes an exact timeline of 2 years.

No. 5, the regulation requires States to resubmit their plans to the Secretary every 4 years.

The law says that each State plan ``shall . . . be periodically reviewed and revised as necessary by the State educational agency.'' Yet the regulation says States must review and revise their State plans ``at least once every four years'' and ``submit its revisions to the Secretary for review and approval.''

No. 6, the regulation dictates exactly how school districts with significant numbers of low-performing schools must measure resources for students.

The law says States must ``periodically review resource allocation to support school improvement'' in districts that are serving a significant number of low-performing schools. The law says the Secretary cannot tell States what to review. Yet the regulation says that in addressing resource inequities, States must review differences in the following: rates of ineffective, out-of-field, or inexperienced teachers; access to advanced coursework; access to full-day kindergarten and preschool programs; access to specialized instructional support personnel; and per-pupil expenditures of Federal, State, and local funds.

But the law said the Secretary could not tell States what to review.

No. 7, the regulation tells States how to count students in subgroups.

The law says each State decides the minimum number of students who should be included in the State's count of subgroups. So, a State might decide that for students to be included in the State's subgroup data, there needs to be at least 35 students, for example, of a subgroup in a school. The law says the Secretary may not impose new requirements or criteria on State accountability systems. Yet the regulation we are seeking to overturn says States must pick a number below 30 or States will have to explain themselves to the Secretary. That is in violation of a specific prohibition passed by this body with 85 votes and signed by the President of the United States.

Those are seven ways the regulation specifically violates prohibitions in the law that were intended to keep the Secretary from doing what the Secretary then turned around and did.

Here are 16 more ways the regulation exceeds the authority of the U.S. Department of Education. To some, this may seem minor. To some, it may seem dull. It is not dull to me. I don't think it is dull to most Senators. Article I of the Constitution isn't dull. We are elected to write the laws, and anytime we turn over to somebody else--whether it is the court, whether it is the executive branch--that constitutional prerogative, we violate our oath, in my opinion.

No. 1, the regulation limits how States measure school quality or student success. The law says States must include at least one measure of school quality or student success that has to be ``valid, reliable, comparable, and statewide.''

The Secretary cannot tell States what measures to use in their State accountability system. Yet the regulation tells States they can only choose indicators that meet the criteria the Department came up with.

No. 2, the regulation limits how States measure school quality or student success for indicators used specifically in high school.

The law says States must include at least one measure of school quality or student success, specific to high schools, and it has to be ``valid, reliable, comparable, and statewide.'' The Secretary cannot tell States what measures to use in their State accountability system. Yet the regulation tells States they can only choose indicators that meet criteria the Department came up with.

No. 3, the regulation tells schools marked as low-performing that they will always be low-performing unless they improve on indicators the U.S. Department of Education has identified.

The law says something different. The law says that tests and graduation rates have to count more in the State accountability systems than indicators of school quality or student success. The Secretary of Education may not prescribe ``the weight of any measure or indicator used to identify or meaningfully differentiate schools.''

The regulation says that a low-performing school must continue to be identified as low-performing unless it improves on tests and graduation rates, even if the school is making significant progress on other measures of school quality or student success, such as, for example, absenteeism or family engagement, something chosen by the State.

No. 4, the regulation requires school districts where schools aren't testing 95 percent of students to develop and implement a Federal improvement plan.

The law says States must annually test not less than 95 percent of all students and each subgroup of students. The law leaves it to States to determine what to do in school districts with schools that are failing to meet the participation requirement. Yet the regulation tells States how to address school districts where schools aren't testing 95 percent of students. It invents out of whole cloth the idea of a Federal improvement plan, and then it mandates it.

No. 5, similarly, the regulation requires schools that aren't testing 95 percent of students to develop and implement a Federal improvement plan.

The law says that States must annually test not less than 95 percent of all students and each subgroup of students. The law leaves it to States to determine what to do in schools that are failing to meet the participation requirement. Yet the regulation tells States how to address schools that aren't testing 95 percent of students.

Again, it invents out of whole cloth the idea of a Federal improvement plan with four federally prescribed elements, and then it mandates it.

No. 6, the regulation tells States how to measure high school graduation rates.

The law says each State will establish long-term goals for ``all students and each subgroup of students in the State,'' including the goal of high school graduation rates using either the ``four-year adjusted cohort graduation rate'' or ``at the State's discretion, the extended-year adjusted cohort graduation rate.'' Yet the regulation says States can only use the four-year adjusted cohort graduation rate to identify low-performing schools in their accountability systems.

You can see that throughout these examples there appears to be a deliberate attempt by the Department of Education not to interpret the law but to ignore the law or, specifically, to contravene the law, to thumb the nose of regulation writers at the Congress and the President who passed and signed the law.

No. 7, the regulation requires each State to come up with a definition for an ``ineffective teacher.'' The law says each State will describe how low-income and minority children enrolled in schools are not served at disproportionate rates by ineffective teachers. Yet the regulations says States have to define ``ineffective teachers.'' It is going to make it nearly impossible for States not to implement an entire teacher evaluation system.

No. 8, in the same way, the regulation requires each State to come up with a definition of an ``out-of-field teacher.''

That is what the regulation does, but the law just says States will describe how low-income and minority children enrolled in schools are not served at disproportionate rates by ``out-of-field teachers.'' The regulation says you have to define that.

No. 9, the regulation requires each State to come up with a definition for an ``inexperienced teacher.''

The law simply says a State will describe how low-income and minority children are not served at disproportionate rates by ``inexperienced teachers.'' Yet the regulation goes on to require a definition.

No. 10, the regulation tells States to report on the number and percentage of all students and subgroups of students who are not included in the State's accountability system.

The law says each State will report a clear and concise description of the State's accountability system, including the minimum number of students that the State determines are necessary to be included in each of the subgroups of students. Yet the regulation requires States to provide new information outside of the scope of what is required by the law.

No. 11, the regulation tells States how to rate schools and that the State accountability system has to produce a single rating for each school.

That was not envisioned by the law. The law says that States must create a system of evaluating all public schools in the State. It says, further, that the Secretary of Education may not prescribe the specific methodology used by States to evaluate schools. Yet the regulation tells States that the results must lead to a ``single summative determination'' for each school.

A State might choose to do that or a State might choose not to do that. That was the decision of the Congress, but the Department decided differently.

No. 12, the regulation adds a requirement that the State's accountability system has to include at least three levels of performance.

The law says that States have the flexibility to establish a system of meaningful differentiation of schools without any parameters or federally prescribed methodology. That couldn't be clearer--without any parameters or federally described methodology. Yet the regulation prescribes a requirement that States use at least three distinct levels of performance for schools.

No. 13, the regulation prescribes when schools may exit from identification as the lowest-performing.

The law says States must establish statewide criteria for schools to exit from being identified as in need of improvement. The law says that the Secretary of Education may not prescribe what the exit criteria are. That is a decision left up to States, but the regulation narrows the States' ability to develop their own criteria for schools to no longer be identified as the lowest performing.

No. 14, the regulation prescribes how States intervene in school districts with schools that are labeled as the lowest-performing. The law says that if a low-performing school does not meet a State's criteria for no longer being identified as lowest-performing, then the State must take a ``more rigorous State-determined action.'' The Secretary of Education cannot prescribe, under the law, any specific strategies to improve schools. Yet the regulation requires the State to tell school districts to take interventions the Department has prescribed.

No. 15, the regulation prescribes how school districts intervene in schools that are labeled as low-performing.

The law says if a low-performing school does not meet statewide criteria for no longer being identified as lowest-performing, the State must take a ``more rigorous State-determined action.'' The Secretary cannot prescribe any specific strategies to improve schools. Yet the regulation requires a school to take federally prescribed actions.

We have already tried Federal one-size-fits-all actions under the School Improvement Grant program in No Child Left Behind. We rejected that. We don't think Washington should be in the business of telling schools how to fix themselves.

Finally, No. 16, the regulation limits how States award school improvement funding to school districts and schools.

The law says States must establish the method they will use to award school improvement funding to school districts. The regulation dictates to States how much they have to award to low-performing schools receiving school improvement funds.

Here is what this resolution overturning the regulation would do. The resolution would ensure that the law fixing No Child Left Behind is implemented as Congress wrote it. The regulation violates the law and its clear prohibitions on the Secretary by prescribing new requirements through regulation or as a condition of a State plan approval.

In the law we passed, Congress reached an agreement about requiring States to identify a certain number and types of schools that need to be improved, but we left it to the States to determine how to go about fixing those schools and how long they had to fix the schools. The regulation prescribes how States and school districts intervene in and improve schools that do not improve.

Secondly, this resolution restores State flexibility. The regulation is in direct conflict with the intent of the law to allow States and school districts

to have greater flexibility to implement the law, as Congress intended.

Congress reached an agreement that there are some essential elements of a State accountability plan that need to be included in a State plan. The other half of the agreement was that we left to the States the decisions about how to include these factors into their accountability systems. This is about article I of the Constitution.

Congress wrote the law with specific rules in mind. The Secretary of Education and his or her bureaucracy do not get to treat Congress as a minor impediment to the education system of their choosing. If they want to write the laws of the land, they should run for Congress and get themselves elected, draft a bill or an amendment--not wait for Congress to finish our work and try to undo it through a simple regulation.

This resolution, overturning the regulation, would preserve local decision-making. As I mentioned, the Wall Street Journal editorialized, when we passed the law, that it was ``the largest devolution of Federal control to States in a quarter-century.''

The regulation tried to restore Washington, DC, decision-making with mandates that States comply with specific requirements instead of letting States determine how to best proceed.

This resolution scuttles new and burdensome reporting requirements. The regulation created new reporting requirements on States and school districts that will drive up compliance costs and divert resources away from students and classrooms.

Let me conclude by dealing with some of the arguments and misinformation that I have been hearing about the resolution. No. 1, I want to make clear that this resolution overturning the regulation strengthens accountability in our public schools the way Congress determined to do it in the law fixing No Child Left Behind.

We transferred most of that responsibility for accountability from Washington, DC, to States and local school boards. We did not want a national school board.

The law also includes Federal guardrails to ensure a quality, public education for all students, including, for example, requiring States to identify and provide support to low-performing schools--at least the lowest performing bottom 5 percent of each State's schools--and requiring academic and English language proficiency indicators to be included in each State's accountability system. The law's Federal guardrails will shape how States design their accountability systems because a State plan would not be following the law if the State fails to include accountability provisions in their plan.

The repeal of this regulation does not let States--the ones who are supposed to be addressing accountability--off the hook by any means. Repealing this regulation simply ensures that individual States and their Governors, legislators, chief State school officers, local school boards, superintendents, principals, parents, and classroom teachers are responsible for these decisions.

This resolution, overturning the regulation, will allow States to implement the new law on the existing timeline to submit their plans and have the Department review and approve State plans.

U.S. Education Secretary DeVos has said that she favors the current timeline, the one established by former Secretary King. She said this at her confirmation hearing before our committee. She confirmed that again after taking office.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Secretary DeVos's letter of February 10 to the Chief State School Officers outlining the timeline be printed in the Record.

So there is no confusion, let me clearly state what that timeline is. No. 1, States should continue to submit State accountability plans by the April or September 2017 deadlines. No. 2, States should continue to implement a State accountability system in the 2017-2018 school year. No. 3, States should continue to identify the lowest performing schools in need of comprehensive support and improvement by the beginning of the 2018-2019 school year.

To write these plans, States need simply to consult the law. The Every Student Succeeds Act requires States to submit a plan for peer review and approval by Secretary DeVos and the Education Department. The Department is committed to working with States by providing technical assistance, issuing non-regulatory guidance and other support materials.

If questions arise, there are a variety of ways to answer the questions. The Department will continue to provide States with clarification on how to comply with the law through the use of non- regulatory guidance, ``Dear Colleague'' letters, frequently asked questions documents, webinars, phone calls, and in-person conferences. In other words, if there are any questions about how to comply with the new law, there are plenty of ways for Chief State School Officers and others to ask the U.S. Department of Education to provide the answers.

It is important to emphasize that this resolution does not in any way give the Education Secretary a path to creating a new Federal voucher program. Some of my friends on the other side of this debate have been resorting to scare tactics and alleging Secretary DeVos will use this opportunity to regulate into existence a mandate that State and local school districts adopt a school voucher program. The Secretary of Education does not have that power, and this Secretary of Education has said she does not want it. Secretary DeVos has repeatedly affirmed her opposition to federally mandating school choice, saying that she does ``not and will not advocate for any Federal mandates requiring vouchers. States should determine the mechanism of choice, if any.''

A school choice program cannot be unilaterally created by the U.S. Department of Education. Only Congress could create a voucher program. I tried to do that on the floor of this Senate during the debate about fixing No Child Left Behind. I offered an amendment called Scholarships for Kids that would have allowed States to use existing Federal dollars to follow the children of low-income families to schools of their parents' choice. Senator Scott of South Carolina offered a similar amendment, but only 45 Senators voted for our proposals. If you pay attention around here, you know that the most important things usually take 60 votes to gain approval.

Also, the 2015 law that we passed actually includes provisions that would prohibit the Secretary from mandating, directing, or controlling a State, school district or school's allocation of State or local resources, and it bars the Department of Education from requiring States and districts to spend any funds or incur any costs not paid for under the law--for example, vouchers. Now I agree that previous Secretaries of Education have imposed their own personal, policy preferences on States and school districts. I opposed such mandates and worked against them. Congress writes the law, not the Secretary and not the bureaucracy.

Instead of using this scare tactic to rile up teachers and parents around the country, misleading them and confusing them about what the Secretary of Education might do, I would take that argument and turn it around. If Congress takes a stand here and now and says that this regulation exceeds the authority granted by Congress--the authority delegated to the Secretary of Education--because the Secretary imposed conditions on States not allowed by the law, then that means any current or future Secretary of Education would be similarly prevented from imposing their own conditions on States.

So there could be no legal method of forcing States to adopt a voucher program, unless Congress passes a new law. There could be no legal method of reinterpreting the Every Student Succeeds Act to impose the next good education idea--however well-intended--unless Congress acts first.

The suggestion has been made that this new law requires regulations. This regulation is not required by the law. The law does not specifically call for accountability regulations. The law allows for accountability regulations, but ``only to the extent that such regulations are necessary to ensure that there is compliance.'' So there is no requirement for this regulation. It is allowed, but it is not required.

Congress wrote prohibitions on the Secretary so that States would not be faced with a bunch of new mandates that ``add new requirements that are inconsistent with or outside the scope'' or ``add new criteria that are inconsistent with or outside the scope'' or are ``in excess of statutory authority granted to the Secretary.'' That is what Congress did. In the law, we laid out requirements for State plans. States can simply follow the law. A regulation isn't necessary.

Future Secretaries will still be able to write regulations on this subject. Under the Congressional Review Act, which is the procedure under which we are operating, if Congress overturns a regulation--as I hope it will in this case--the Department of Education is prevented from making final a new regulation that is ``substantially the same'' as the overturned regulation, unless Congress passes a new law to create an opportunity for that new regulation. But no court has defined what ``substantially the same'' means. But the commonsense interpretation of that is very simple: The Department simply can't turn right around and do the same thing Congress has just overturned. It could do something else by regulation, but it could not do precisely that.

So this is a question of whether we are going to restore the national school board that 85 Senators voted to reverse 15 months ago. And this is also a question of whether you believe that the U.S. Congress writes the law or the U.S. Department of Education writes the law. I believe that under article I of our Constitution, the U.S. Congress writes the law, and when signed by the President, then that is the law. The regulations must stay within it, and that is especially true when Congress has written explicit prohibitions about what a Secretary may do and may not do.

The remarkable consensus around the bill fixing No Child Left Behind was to reverse the trend to a national school board and restore to States, to classroom teachers, and to parents the decisions about what to do about their children in public schools. Teachers, Governors, school boards, and parents were all are fed up with Washington telling them so much about what to do with their children in 100,000 public schools.

So this regulation, which contravenes the law specifically, goes to the heart of the bill fixing No Child Left Behind, which received 85 votes here in the Senate. And this resolution to overturn that regulation upholds the law that received ``aye'' votes from those 85 Senators. I encourage my colleagues to support this resolution and to vote aye one more time.

I believe that overturning the regulation preserves the consensus and the compromise that we achieved when we enacted the law fixing No Child Left Behind.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, along with the Presiding Officer, I have the distinct honor of serving on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and am the ranking Democrat on that committee. There are many areas of challenge for our national security. We could talk about what we think is the greatest threat to the national security of the United States. Unfortunately, there are a lot of candidates.

One could certainly be China. China has been very provocative in the China Sea, raising concern about maintaining maritime security, which is so critically important to world commerce. Clearly China could be a candidate.

North Korea could be a candidate. We know that in North Korea, they have a nuclear capacity. We know their government will gas and poison people who disagree with them, including family. It is a repressive regime, and they are developing the capacity not only to have a nuclear weapon but the capacity to be able to deliver that nuclear weapon beyond just the region in which they are located. So we could pick North Korea.

We certainly could mention the threat of ISIS, which is a growing threat of terrorism that challenges not only the Middle East but our own country.

We could mention the security threat of Iran. Iran was one of the greatest sponsors of terrorism of any country in the world, which is causing major problems for the Sunni Gulf States, in Syria, and in the Middle East. Clearly Iran is a candidate for major interest in our national security.

But the country I would pick as the greatest threat to America's national security would be Russia. Russia has been very aggressive in trying to dominate beyond its own geographical borders. It has incurred into other countries and has attacked the United States of America.

I want to take us back to 1975 when the Helsinki Final Act was passed, through the leadership of the United States and the USSR.

I have had the opportunity through several Congresses to be either the chair or the cochair or the ranking member of the U.S. Helsinki Commission. I have spent a lot of time on the Helsinki work.

What was remarkable about that document that was entered into in 1975 was that it recognized that security is beyond just military in that for a country to be secure, it must pay attention to its borders, yes, and its military, but it also must have economic security and must respect human rights.

What was also very unique in the Helsinki Final Act was the commitment that these standards we agreed to would not only be of internal interest to the member country but that any country to the Helsinki Final Act could challenge the actions of any other country. We have not only the right but the responsibility to call out countries that fail to adhere to the basic principles that were agreed to in 1975. The Helsinki Final Act now applies to about 56 countries--all of the countries of Europe, Canada, the United States, and all of the republics of the former Soviet Union.

Let me review with my colleagues the guiding principles that were agreed to in 1975 under the Helsinki Final Act, signed by Russia, so that they are bound by these principles. As I read through these 10 principles, let me talk about how Russia has violated every single one of the basic 10 principles they agreed to in Helsinki.

No. 1, sovereign equality and respect for the rights inherent in sovereignty.

No. 2, refraining from the threat or use of force.

No. 3, the inviolability of borders.

No. 4, the territorial integrity of states.

In each of these cases, Russia has violated these basic principles. They invaded Ukraine and took over Crimea, annexing it against the will of a sovereign country. They are interfering in the eastern part of Ukraine as we speak, violating the territorial integrity of Ukraine. Russia's troops are in Georgia, violating the sovereignty of that country. Russia's presence in Moldova is not respecting the territorial integrity of a member state. Russia has violated the basic principles of sovereignty that were brought out in the Helsinki Final Act.

Let me read some of the other principles.

No. 5, the peaceful settlement of disputes.

Russia shoots first. They took their troops into Ukraine. They took their troops into Georgia. They have not used peaceful methods.

The sixth principle is the non-intervention in internal affairs.

Russia attacked the United States of America in our free election system. That is not subject to any dispute today. They attacked America. They interfered with our internal affairs. They tried to influence our election. That is an attack against America and a violation of their basic commitments.

Let me read through the remaining.

No. 7, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms.

Ask the people who have disagreed with the Russian Government and who have tried to form a party whether there is respect for human rights and fundamental freedom in Russia today. Ask independent journalists who are arrested and killed for trying to carry out their profession. Russia today is intimidating civil societies and NGOs, and anyone who disagrees with Mr. Putin is subject to arrest, torture, and perhaps death. We know that in the case of Mr. Magnitsky, which is a cause that has been taken up by this body with the passage of Magnitsky laws.

Another principle is equal rights and the self-determination of people. That is not present in Russia today.

No. 9, cooperation among states.

Let me conclude with the 10th principle: fulfillment in good faith of international legal obligations.

Russia entered into an agreement with regard to Ukraine's sovereignty, only to invade Ukraine a few years later. Ukraine gave up its nuclear stockpile, believing that Russia would

live up to its commitments. Russia has violated the Minsk agreements that were entered into to resolve the problems between Ukraine and Russia. Russia has not lived up to its international agreements.

Let me sort of summarize why I think Russia is the No. 1 candidate for concern with regard to our national security. They have violated the sovereignty of many countries of the world. They have violated the sovereignty of Ukraine and continue to do so. They have violated the sovereignty of Georgia and Moldova. They have attacked the United States of America through cyber. It may not have been a MiG, but it was a mouse, and its intended purpose was to bring down our democratic election system and to favor one candidate. That cannot go unanswered.

Today, Russia is engaged in Syria and supports the Assad regime, which attacks humanitarian convoys, uses the civilian population as an instrument of war, gases its own people--violating basic international human rights and committing war crimes. That is what President Putin is doing in Russia today.

Russia's human rights records are deplorable. Kara-Murza has been poisoned not once but twice. He is an opposition leader. He is now in the United States and is recovering from the second poisoning episode. The Russian authorities tried to kill him. Why? Because he dared to oppose the Putin regime.

We need to speak out. We need to know more about that. It does not end there. Russia is violating the INF, the International Nuclear Force agreement, which is a major concern to all of us.

Russia's bottom line is that they are trying to dismantle the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, which has been the bulwark of security since the end of World War II, the relationship between Europe and the United States, providing a blanket of protection not just for our physical security, but providing international leadership in dealing with the development of democratic countries around the world. That is what Russia is trying to do today, is to dismantle that protection.

What should we do? We have identified Russia as our No. 1 concern, and I think most Members of the Senate would agree with that assessment. I have talked to many, particularly on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. What should we do? What is the role of Congress?

We know we are waiting for President Trump to give us his foreign policy as it relates to Russia, and that is an important thing for us to know--how the President intends to deal with a country that has done so many things against our national security interests.

We have a role. We are the first branch of government that is mentioned in the Constitution, article I. We have responsibilities to act. We need to take steps, and I have encouraged my colleagues.

There have been a lot of accusations made around here about Russia's contacts with Americans and that Russia is stealing information through cyber and planting that information through WikiLeaks in order to influence elections. There is the potential contact with General Flynn, what happened with the Russian Ambassador, and what happened as far as domestic wiretaps. There have been a lot of comments made around here, but we do not have the facts.

First and foremost, we need an independent commission that is similar to what the Congress constituted after the attack on 9/11 so that we get independent, nonpartisan experts, without restriction to jurisdiction or turf, who can determine exactly what Russia's game plan is and what steps we can take to protect ourselves in moving forward and what action we should take against Russia. That is the first thing we should do. Congress should also pass a resolution. I have introduced one that would set up that type of an independent commission to look at what Russia has done.

There is a second issue, though, that I want to bring to our attention, and I know the Presiding Officer is very familiar with it. It is the Countering Russian Hostilities Act, which is a bill I filed. I am very proud that this bill was not created by one Member, it was created by a group of us working together and recognizing that Congress needed to speak with a strong voice.

I am proud that, in addition to my sponsorship, Senator McCain helped draft this bill. Senator Menendez is a key leader on this bill. Senator Graham is one of the architects of the bill. We have Senator Shaheen, Senator Rubio, Senator Klobuchar, Senator Sasse, Senator Durbin, Senator Portman, Senator Murphy, Senator Gardner, Senator Blumenthal, Senator Sullivan, Senator Daines, Senator Donnelly, Senator Young, Senator Whitehouse, Senator Coons, and Senator Cornyn.

You might notice that I alternated between Democrats and Republicans because this is not a partisan effort. We all recognize the seriousness of what Russia has done to the United States. We all recognize that Congress needs to respond. When you are attacked, you don't stand by; if you do, you will get attacked again and the next time could be even more devastating. So we have to take action to protect ourselves.

So what the Counteracting Russian Hostilities Act does, first and foremost, is it codifies the sanctions currently imposed against Russia for its cyber attack on the U.S. election. Secondly, it extends those sanctions for what we call secondary sanctions--businesses doing business with those that are sanctioned--so we can enforce the sanctions.

The Presiding Officer recognized that when we were working on the North Korea sanctions law, we needed to strengthen that, and I congratulate the Presiding Officer on the work he did regarding North Korea, and I was pleased to join him. I am pleased he is joining with this group to see how we can strengthen our sanctions and pressure on Russia to know that they can't get away with this type of an attack against America, but then we go even further.

We recognize that Ukraine today--we have sanctions against Russia, but we can strengthen those sanctions. We can apply those sanctions to the energy sector. We can apply those sanctions to prevent American companies from financing the Russian economy through the moneys they need for sovereign debt or privatization. So we extend the program of sanctions to include those types of activities.

We take up two other major issues that I just want to share with my colleagues because these are contributions made by the Members who joined together to file this bill. We recognize that the rules of engagement have changed. Russia is using tactics today that we never thought would be used. They attack our country, get private information, give it to WikiLeaks, use it as part of a strategy to get news out there that could influence our elections. Then they develop fake news, use that fake news through social media to make it look like real news in an effort to try to affect our free election system in the United States. This is pretty frightening. We have to meet them. We have to protect ourselves.

So this legislation provides for a democracy initiative similar to what we have done on our security initiative with Europe. We have stationed NATO troops on the border countries of NATO with Russia to let them know we will not tolerate the invasion of a NATO country. We have done that. That is our security initiative. We have to have a democracy initiative to protect the democratic institutions of Western Europe because Russia will use the democratic institutions to try to undermine the democratic institutions--the free press, the opportunities of free speech, the opportunities to try to influence through their money the election process. They have done that. They tried to do it in Montenegro during the parliamentary elections to affect Montenegro's accession into NATO.

We have to protect the democratic institutions. This legislation would authorize that protection.

Then it sets up a resource so we can fight this propaganda, so we can find ways to counter Russia's use of propaganda in order to carry out their nefarious activities.

This is a comprehensive bill. I urge all of our colleagues to take a look at it. We are looking for input. We are looking to make sure this does exactly what we need it to do--to speak as one

voice in Congress to make it clear to Russia that it is not business as usual; that we intend to take action and be strong and let them know they cannot do this type of activity; that America will protect its national security.

There is another bill, let me just mention, that Senator Graham is the principal sponsor of that I have cosponsored and others have sponsored also. It is the Russia Sanctions Review Act. I mention that one because we had a great debate here in the last Congress on the Iran nuclear agreement, and part of the reasons we had a great debate is because the Senate Foreign Relations Committee was able to pass a review act and get broad consensus on it, get it signed by the President, which gave us a role. More importantly, it gave the American people a role in getting transparency on a very important agreement-- the Iran nuclear agreement. So we had time for public hearings. We had time for national debate. We had time for questions.

Because that law passed, I am convinced the agreement was stronger. The administration knew there were millions of eyes looking at what they were doing; they just couldn't do it in the dark of night. It helped us, I think, carry out our responsibility as the legislative branch of government.

So Senator Graham and I and others believe we should have a similar process, if there is going to be a fundamental change in the relationship between the United States and Russia; that the President should consult and work with Congress and give us an opportunity for transparency and for the American people to be heard. That is exactly what this bill does. It is a bill that I think is for good legislating, for good governance, and I would encourage my colleagues to take a look at this, and hopefully we will be able to get this done.

I will just say in conclusion that we have no issue with the Russian people. They are good people. We want to have a good relationship with the Russian people. It is Mr. Putin and his government that are directing this country to do things in interference with the sovereignty of other countries--in violating human rights, in supporting violations of human rights, in war crimes, and they should be held accountable for that and for what they are doing in Syria, and, of course, very personally, attacking our own country. That is what we are aimed at.

Mr. Khodorkovsky was in my office yesterday. I think my colleagues might recall that he was a leader in Russia--a great business leader. He made a lot of money. He decided Russia needed reforms to protect the rights of all people, that human rights were not strong enough, the right of expression was not strong enough, so he took up that cause as a successful businessperson. As a result, he was arrested, served 10 years in prison, and they tried to keep him out of politics because he did not represent Mr. Putin's politics.

Well, he has been very active. He no longer lives in Russia for fear of his own life. He has been here championing the cause for good governance within Russia and the importance for the international community to be engaged in that. As he left my office yesterday, he said: Please continue to speak out. He said: Please continue to speak out.

The United States must lead when a country driven by Mr. Putin does what it does. It is our responsibility to speak out about this outrageous conduct--threatening the integrity of so many countries and violating the human rights of so many people.

We can make a difference. The Congress can make a difference. It is for all of those reasons that we need to act.

I urge my colleagues to take a look at the legislation I have talked about on the floor and which so many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle have joined. Let's get together and let's speak with a united voice and let Russia know we are going to protect the national security of the United States of America, and we are going to protect the rights of our friends.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank Senator Durbin, Senator Menendez, and Senator Coons for joining on the floor today to talk about the threat that Russia poses.

Senator Durbin is absolutely correct, and I thank him for his leadership on this. The only way the American people will have a full accounting of what Russia's intentions were and what they did in attacking our country is to have an independent commission.

We had such a commission after the attack on 9/11. Democrats and Republicans came together. There was no controversy about that. We wanted to find out what and how we were attacked, how they got through our intelligence network, how they put together the horrific attack on our country, and then we wanted to know how we could get recommendations to protect us moving forward.

I am going to tell you, that commission served a very important national security function because we learned a lot. We learned that we were stovepiping too much information. We weren't sharing it. The way the agencies were set up, it was more over turf than it was over mission. Congress acted on the recommendations, and we are safer today as a result of it.

We don't know what Russia's intentions are all about. We suspect that they are trying to undermine our democratic system of government. We suspect that Russia is interested in regaining its reputation of the former Soviet Union. They are looking for a greater geographical footprint. We see

that in their military operations, not just on their border countries such as Ukraine or what they are doing in Georgia or Moldova, but we see that also in the Middle East where they have a military presence today, and they want to have a footprint there.

We believe they want to become a greater Russia. We know they don't like democratic systems of government. Their government stays in power through making sure that there is no effective opposition. They have quelled any opportunity for a Democratic opposition and for the free press.

We know those--but what are their ultimate aspirations? What do they intend to do with the transatlantic partnership? We talked about that. We are safer today because of the transatlantic relations. NATO has made our Nation safer. The strength of the EU has made our Nation stronger.

We know Russia is trying to interfere with that. They interfered with the Montenegro election in an effort to prevent Montenegro from agreeing to join NATO. We know they are trying to pull other nations out of Europe. We know that.

What we need to have, though, is a full accounting as to what happened in the attack on our country and how we can prepare ourselves to defend ourselves. By the way, it might also give us a blueprint for what we need to do to show Russia we will not tolerate that type of activity.

Senator Durbin is absolutely right. We have responsibilities in Congress. The committee I serve on, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee--our relationship with Russia, we have to have hearings. Senator Menendez was right in calling upon our committee to have additional hearings. What is Russia doing? How does it affect not only our relationship with Russia, but how do we deal with Europe? How do we deal with the authorization for use of military force? If we were attacked, can you use cyber as an attack vehicle? Does that require congressional authorization?

We have to be prepared in our committees. The Intelligence Committee has a responsibility to find out exactly what happened and whether we need to change our intelligence network because Russia was able to invade our country. They were able to get private information and then send it to WikiLeaks to use politically against us. They may compromise some of our classified information. We don't know. We need to find that out.

The Intelligence Committee has a function to play. The Judiciary Committee has a function to play. I know the subcommittee is doing some work under Senators Whitehouse and Graham. The Armed Services Committee certainly has a role to play.

There is only one way the American people will get a clear view of how serious this matter is and that we are taking every conceivable possible step to make sure we protect the national security of the United States and our Democratic institutions, which are part of our national security, and that is to have an independent commission.

There are no turf problems there. They can look at everything. They can have a transparent process, and the American people can get an eye as to what is happening. They can make the recommendations we need.

I thank Senator Durbin for underscoring that point. It is something I think we will ultimately get to. I was hoping we could get to it sooner rather than later because I think the American people would have a great deal more confidence.

I thank Senator Coons for putting this in historic perspective. He is absolutely right; we go back a long time as to what Russia's intentions are all about. I thought that was extremely helpful to fill in all of the aspects of what we are trying to do.

Senator Menendez's point was very critical; our reasons for being here and our reasons for wanting to take action are to protect our country, the American people. We are not talking about any one person or any one election. This is not challenging the results of this past election. This is all about making sure that we protect the integrity of our free election system and, particularly moving forward, knowing that Russia may very well be engaged, as we speak, in trying to interfere with the elections in the Netherlands and Germany and France. We need to have a better game plan on how to deal with this.

As Senator Menendez said--I think it is a very important point; I want to underscore this: You can't trust Russia. Let's be clear about that. Ask the Ukrainians. They signed the Budapest Declaration. The United States was part of that. They very clearly gave up their nuclear capacity, and in exchange they got the security from Russia on their jurisdiction, on their territory, on their sovereignty. Look how long that lasted before Russia invaded Ukraine, annexed part of Ukraine, and they continue to supply resources to disrupt the eastern part of Ukraine so Ukraine will have a very difficult time in its integration into Europe. That is what Russia is doing today in contravention to their written commitments with Ukraine.

Then I might tell my colleagues: Look at the Minsk agreement set up to try to end this hot war, and Russia has violated all the aspects of the Minsk agreement. You can't trust Russia's agreements.

As Senator Menendez pointed out--he is right--look at the INF. Look at the treaty obligations. Russia is violating their treaty obligations, which directly affect the security of Europe. These are pretty serious things. We counter this by unity.

That is why I am so proud that we have Democrats and Republicans working together. This is not one party. Both parties recognize the danger of Russia. Both parties recognize that we have to protect ourselves. I would just urge my colleagues to follow this vigorous strategy, where we can show the American people that unity and that resolve and that we will not allow Russia to attack our country, that we are going to prepare to make sure that we defend our democratic system of government and that we will be united in standing up to those types of activities that are against our national security interests.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I want to talk about an upcoming CRA that will be on the floor potentially this week that would cancel out an important regulation that is designed to build upon this country's history of making sure there is a marriage between civil rights and education to make sure that children in this country, regardless of their race, regardless of their learning ability, regardless of their religion, regardless of their income, get an equal chance at education.

Frankly, the whole reason the Federal Government is involved in the question of education is due to civil rights. This used to be a purely local concern, and the Federal Government stepped into the question of local education because Black kids throughout the South were not getting an equal education. They were living in segregated schools and getting an education that was of far lesser quality. So the Federal Government has always been involved in education because it is a matter of civil rights.

I want to talk about this issue through the prism of one individual. I am going to call him James, but this is a true story--a story, frankly, that could be told millions of times over across the country.

James went to school in an urban district in Connecticut. He was a 10th grader. At the beginning of James's 10th grade year, he had a habit of walking out of class. In the middle of class, he would just get up and walk out after 10 or 15 or 20 minutes, and he would wander the halls of this big, urban high school until inevitably he was met by a security officer or a teacher or an administrator. They would bring him down to the office, and they would call his grandmother, as he lived with her. He would get suspended for a couple of days, and then he would come back.

It played out so often--this cycle of James walking out of class, being brought down to the principal's office, being suspended--that somewhere around the end of October, during his sophomore year, he had been out of school more days than he had been in school.

One day, though, James goes through this cycle again. He is in the hallway, and he runs into an assistant principal. He is sort of sick and tired of this story playing out over and over again. He raises his voice. He has some words. James has never hurt anybody in his life, no history of violence, but the assistant principal decides to call the police. The police come and they arrest James for disorderly conduct, essentially for having words with an assistant principal. Now James, at 16 years old, has a criminal record. At the time, he was treated as an adult in Connecticut, so he has an adult criminal record.

It turns out that James was walking out of class every day because he couldn't read, and he was mortified. He was embarrassed because he had been socially promoted through the years. He had a learning disability that was going untreated, and he was in the 10th grade with the ability to only read at an elementary school level. No wonder he was walking out of class every day. He literally couldn't follow along. It was embarrassing. He didn't want to be called on by the teacher so he left. Nobody ever figured that out until he got arrested and finally got a legal aid lawyer, who happened to be my wife, who identified his disability and the fact that it was being unaddressed.

The fact is, a big part of this story is tied up in the fact that James was Black, and he was a big kid. So the police got calls maybe because he appeared to be threatening in a way that he simply was not. I can say that because the data backs up the fact that Black kids and disabled kids are treated very differently in schools today. Wherever you are, whether in Connecticut, in North Carolina, or in California, Black kids--especially Black boys--are suspended and expelled at a rate that is twice that of their White peers for the exact same behavior. Take mouthing off to a teacher. When that happens, Black kids, Black students, are twice as likely to be suspended for mouthing off to a teacher than a White student.

James's story is not unique. It is not unique because it happens in every State across the country, and it is not just in suspension and expulsion rates, it is also in achievement rates as well. We know the statistics. The graduation rate for African-American students is 16 percent lower than their White peers. I can go down the line and tell you about the different story when it comes to achievement and treatment of African-American students as compared to White students.

Racism isn't gone in this country. It might not be overt. Sometimes it might not even be conscious, but it is still there. Discrimination against kids who are different, whether they be poor or disabled, didn't vanish. It is still all over.

John Lewis is a civil rights icon. We celebrate him every day, Republicans and Democrats, in the U.S. Congress. He got mercilessly beaten over the head simply because he wanted to vote. John Lewis is still alive, but you know what, so are the people who beat him. We are only a generation removed from an era of open, unapologetic racism in this country. To think that we don't need civil rights protections for kids any longer is to deny reality. Racism doesn't look the same as it used to. Discrimination against kids who are different isn't as overt as it used to be, but the data is the data. It is still there.

No Child Left Behind got a lot wrong, but one of the things it got right was that it shed a light on this disparate treatment, these disparate outcomes between Black students, Hispanic students, disabled students, and their peers, because it forced States--and this was a Republican and Democratic accomplishment at the time--it forced States to disaggregate results. So you had to look at how were disabled students doing, how were Black students doing, and if they weren't measuring up and if they weren't getting closer to the performance of their nondisabled or White peers, then you had to do something to turn those students around, turn their performance around.

Now, the part that No Child Left Behind got wrong is big and significant. Part of it is that it required every single one of those kids to hit the 100-percent proficiency mark, when progress is important to measure as well. It also told States exactly what to do to turn around the experiences of those kids. It is not the same in Connecticut as it is in North Carolina, and it is not the same in an urban district as it is in a suburban district. So when we got together on this floor and passed, in a bipartisan way, the new Elementary and Secondary Education Act, we did something really important. We preserved those requirements to disaggregate results for Black kids and for Hispanic kids and for kids with disabilities, but then we left it up to States to decide what proficiency is, and we left it up to States as to how they would turn around the experience for these kids if they weren't meeting those State-set goals. We gave an enormous amount of discretion and flexibility to States, but we preserved the basic expectation that our education policy was still going to be civil rights policy: Pay attention to how those vulnerable populations with a history of discrimination levied against them performed and require States to pay attention to the interventions.

That was a bipartisan achievement, and when we did it, we knew the regulation was going to be needed because, as with many education statutes, they are very vague. Republicans and Democrats understood that there was going to have to be a regulation to provide some clarity to States on how you build these locally driven accountability systems.

So the regulation we are talking about here today was not one of these that came out of left field. It was not one of these regulations that was political in nature; no, it flows from a bipartisan act that preserved accountability requirements for kids.

It is important for a variety of reasons. One, it is important because there are some really vague terms in the statute that do need clarification. For instance, one of the things we voted for, Republicans and Democrats, is we voted to say you have to show that you are providing improvement for African-American students, let's say, and if they are not showing continuous improvement, then you have to have a turnaround plan. By the way, that turnaround plan is totally yours to decide; no sanctions from the Federal Government if it is not X turnaround plan or Y turnaround plan. That is the old law. The new law says it is yours to decide.

``Continuous improvement'' is a super vague term. It is one of those obvious terms that has to have some regulatory guardrails put around it because what if the State said ``continuous improvement'' is improvement over 20 years. Well, kids come in and out of schools in 2 or 3 or 4 years and a 20-year period of looking at a particular subgroup's performance is meaningless to kids.

So the regulation says continuous improvement means 2 years; look at how a kid does over 2 years. And then it says, if 2 years doesn't work for you, you can make it longer but just tell us why. That is an important protection, and it still preserves enormous flexibility for States.

States want this regulation because it also gives them other types of flexibilities. An example is, when you are looking at performance, the statute suggests that you can have students who are meeting goal or students who are not meeting goal. The regulation recognizes that is, frankly, a really arbitrary way to look at performance. So the statute says: Yes, that is what the regulation says. The statute says: Meeting goal and not meeting goal, but you can get extra credit for students who are close to meeting goal, who have shown growth. You can get credit for students who are way above goal, your high-achieving students. You don't have to measure your schools just based on how many students meet goal. That is flexibility States want, that they likely don't have without the regulation.

Another example, for English language learners, proficiency goals should vary based on where you started. If you start here with no English skills, then your proficiency target should be different than if you started with a pretty advanced understanding of the language. The statute just says you have to have a proficiency goal. It is unclear whether you can have different ones for different levels of learners. The regulation makes it clear: Give States that flexibility.

So that is why States didn't ask for this CRA. This is different than these other CRAs. States didn't ask for this CRA. All of the educational groups we listened to--teachers, superintendents, principals--they weighed in on this regulation. They didn't love every piece of it, but they were ready to implement it. None of these groups were coming up to the Congress asking for this regulation to be withdrawn. Would they have liked it to be fixed or tailored? Sure. But here is what they understood, and here is why I am really concerned.

Secretary DeVos could fix the things she doesn't like or Senator Alexander doesn't like through the regular notice and comment period. I think there is 80 percent of this regulation that everybody agrees on, that just dots the i's and crosses the t's on a bipartisan commitment to accountability, and maybe there is 20 percent or 10 percent that Senator Alexander and some other Members think goes a little bit too far, but when you pass a CRA, you don't allow for a regulation to be passed in the future that is substantially similar to the entirety of the regulation. The courts aren't going to look, or, frankly, even know, what parts of the regulation you didn't like and the 80 percent of the regulation you wanted to preserve.

The Department of Education can't pass anything that is similar to this

ever again. So one of the things the regulation says is that you get a 1-year delay because it is just too quick to come up with accountability systems for this coming school year. That is gone. When this CRA passes, every school district in the Nation has to develop an accountability system for this calendar year because without the regulation, you don't have that flexibility.

So what makes me, frankly, so disturbed about this CRA is that it could happen another way, which would preserve the pieces of the civil rights protections that all of us agree on, which is the majority of the regulation. To my mind, it violated the spirit of our agreement when we passed this law. Here was a really amazing achievement; that we were able to rewrite the No Child Left Behind law--essentially repeal it and replace it with something better--that Democrats and Republicans could agree upon. In my mind, that agreement was predicated upon the Department being able to enforce maybe the most important part of the law for big constituency groups in this country--the accountability section, the civil rights protections.

By passing this CRA, we are essentially making it impossible for any regulation ever again to be passed to implement the accountability sections and the civil rights protections in this law. Why? Because you can't pass anything that is substantially similar--substantially similar to the parts you like, substantially similar to the parts you don't like. This isn't like these other CRAs where Republicans didn't like any part of it, where Republicans didn't see any need for the regulation to go forward. This is different. We agree on 80 percent of this one, but the 80 percent is likely gone by passing this.

I guess part of what disturbs me here is that we worked, locked arm in arm, in passing this law. I really do believe that by passing this CRA, Republican leadership--HELP leadership--is violating the agreement we had to make sure this law went into force and effect in the way we all intended.

It happened in the context of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee that isn't working this year like it used to work. I have such great respect for the chairman and the ranking member of that committee. They pulled off some big bipartisan wins during the time of their tenure, including the Workforce Investment Act, the rewrite of the No Child Left Behind Act, and some other smaller wins that people didn't necessarily think as much about, and leading up to the end of last year, the passage of a major new commitment to reforming mental illness and mental health in this country.

That spirit of bipartisanship, which was present in the HELP Committee in a way that it wasn't present in other committees, is disappearing before our eyes. We were mad that we only got 5 minutes to question Betsy DeVos because it felt like the committee was hiding her from public view. Democrats were asking for more time to ask more questions, and we didn't get it. That rarely happens in that committee, where the minority party is just asking to be heard and is shut down.

We begged for the CRA not to come before this body because there was another way to get it done that didn't violate the spirit of our agreement around the rewrite of the No Child Left Behind law, but we were denied in that request. Now we are voting on a CRA that is potentially going to be devastating not just for kids out there who need protection but also for States that want this flexibility.

Finally, we are on a schedule, according to the majority leader, that is going to bring a healthcare bill that will rewrite the rules for one-sixth of the American economy to the floor of the Senate without any debate in the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, without a single hearing on the bill, without a markup, and without any ability for amendment.

I listened for 6 years to my Republican friends tell me that the healthcare bill, or the Affordable Care Act, was rammed through Congress and that the biggest problem was the fact that it was done outside of the public view for expediency's sake. Now, I was there in the House of Representatives, and let me express the unbelievable irony of those complaints now that there will be no process for the committees to consider the replacement to the Affordable Care Act.

The House and the Senate had hundreds--hundreds--of meetings and hearings. The HELP Committee alone--I don't have the numbers in front of me--considered hundreds of amendments and adopted over 100 Republican amendments in the markup process. The Senate's session was the second longest in the history of the Senate, in for more than 20 days debating that bill. The reason there was so much tempest out in the American public over the Affordable Care Act was because it was open for debate for so long.

The Finance Committee had a full process. The HELP Committee had a full process. The Ways and Means Committee had a full process. The Energy and Commerce Committee had a full process.

None of that is happening here. This bill is being jammed through, as we speak, the Ways and Means and the Energy and Commerce Committees. This bill is going to be jammed onto the floor, perhaps without any committee process, in the Senate. The target is from introduction Monday to passage in the House in 3 weeks and perhaps just a few more weeks before it passes the Senate. So spare me the complaints about the Affordable Care Act being rushed into place when this process is going to make that look laborious in comparison.

What pains me is not just this CRA, which is unnecessary, but it doesn't have to happen this way. What pains me is a committee process that when I got here had a reputation for being truly bipartisan, for being one of the more functional, if not the most functional, committee processes. That is being blown up most significantly by the rush job-- the rush job on the repeal and replacement of the Affordable Care Act, which nobody in the American public is going to have enough time to look at it and see it.

I ask my colleagues one more time to reconsider their votes on this CRA. We are at our best when we come together around the idea that every kid in this country should have a chance at a quality education, no matter what color their skin is, no matter what their learning ability is. I know my colleagues have a couple problems with this regulation. I get it. But by passing this CRA, the regulation is gone and never coming back, and the States that want the flexibility, that are begging for the flexibility, won't get it. It will just be an unworkable section of the bill. A section that was supposed to be bipartisan now fundamentally won't work because we can't get a regulation passed that is at all substantially similar to the good parts or to the bad parts.

This body is at its best when we stand together--Republicans and Democrats--and say that no matter what you look like, no matter how well you learn, no matter how much money you have, you get a quality education. We did that when we voted together on ESSA, and we are going back on that bipartisan commitment by passing a CRA that is unnecessary. As to the bad stuff you don't like, it can be gone in a matter of months by a regular process of notice and comment in the Department of Education.

This is part of a disturbing new trend line in this committee toward partisanship and away from a history of commitment to our kids-- Republican and Democrat.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, we have now had a little more than 24 hours to get a peek at the Republican plan to get rid of the Affordable Care Act. Now we know why they kept it in hiding for as long as they did--because it is a total mess and it will wreak havoc on the healthcare system in the United States of America and severely harm millions of Americans. After 7 years in waiting, is this really the best they can do? The first thing people need to know about the Republican plan to replace the Affordable Care Act--let's be clear. This is no replacement. This is a fake replacement. The first thing they need to know about it is, it will strip away affordable healthcare for millions of Americans in order to give the wealthiest households a huge tax cut.

How big is that tax cut? First of all, it goes to households who make over $250,000 a year. Here is the thing. The richer you are, the more money you make over $250,000 a year, the bigger the tax cut you are going to get under the Republican healthcare plan, under TrumpCare. In fact, if you are a millionaire, you are going to get a tax cut, on average, of about $50,000--to be precise, a $49,370 average tax cut for millionaires. If you are in the top one-tenth percent of American households, you are going to get, on average, a $200,000 tax cut under the Republican plan to get rid of the Affordable Care Act.

That is great news if your name is Donald Trump or you are one of the billionaires or millionaires in his Cabinet. It is great news if you have loads of money. I want to be clear. I have nothing against millionaires. The more millionaires, the better in terms of growth in the economy, but certainly at this point in time, they don't need a tax cut, and they certainly shouldn't have a tax cut when the impact of that is to harm tens of millions of Americans and hurt their healthcare.

I guess we are beginning to learn exactly what President Trump meant when he said that his healthcare was going to be ``much better.'' Yes, if you are one of those folks in the top one-tenth percent of American income earners, if you are in the wealthiest strata of this country, you are going to get a big tax break. So I guess it is much better for you from that perspective.

You know whom else this is going to be better for? It is going to be better for insurance companies and their CEOs. It is really hard to believe, but if you look at the House bill--and now I know why it was under lock and key for so long. If you look at it, you are going to find that their plan gives insurance companies a new tax break when they pay their CEOs multimillion-dollar bonuses. In fact, the bigger the bonus the healthcare company pays to the CEO, the bigger tax break the corporation gets, the more American taxpayers will be subsidizing those bonuses for those insurance CEOs.

So you know what, you are a CEO of an insurance company, you raise the premiums, the company makes more money, and you get a bigger bonus. Taxpayers foot the bill in terms of larger taxpayer subsidies to those CEOs. All in all, when you add up all the tax breaks for these CEOs and the insurance companies and the wealthiest Americans, it is a tax break windfall of $600 billion. That is the number by the experts in the Joint Committee on Taxation here in the Congress. These are the nonpartisan experts who look at legislation and determine what the fiscal impact will be. What they say is that the TrumpCare bill will provide tax breaks in the amount of $600 billion over the next 10 years. I guess that is what President Trump must have been referring to the other day when he tweeted about his ``wonderful new healthcare bill.'' It will be wonderful for those who are getting those big tax breaks.

We know who the winners are. Who are the losers? Well, just about everybody else ends up on the short end of the stick--just about everybody else in America. That is why you are seeing such strong opposition coming from all over the country. First, there are the millions of Americans who are going to lose their healthcare coverage altogether because they can't possibly afford to pay the huge additional premiums and copays and deductions they would be faced with under these plans that would be offered. Then there are tens of millions of more who will pay much more for much less coverage.

Older Americans are going to be especially hard hit, which is why we are all hearing from AARP. You know AARP--they sometimes give their opinion, they weigh in a little bit here and there, but they are out full force against this TrumpCare bill because it is going to have a very negative impact on seniors in America. They call it a sweetheart deal to big drug companies and other special interests. They argue--and we will talk about how it will weaken Medicare. They say it is going to impose an age tax on older Americans, and that is what it does. In fact, they calculate the following:

The change in structure will dramatically increase premiums

for older consumers. We estimate that the bill's changes to

current law's tax credits could increase premium costs for a

55-year-old earning $25,000 by more than $2,300 a year. For a

64-year-old earning $25,000 that increase rises to more than

$4,400 a year.

A year extra--$4,400 more a year for that 64-year-old earning $25,000 to pay for their health insurance, the health insurance they have today. Then they calculate that it will be $5,800 more for a 64-year- old earning $15,000. In other words, compared to the Affordable Care Act, the less income you have, the more you are going to be paying under TrumpCare than you are paying today under ObamaCare, under the Affordable Care Act.

We are also hearing from groups that fight for the rights of people with disabilities from all over the country, that are against this legislation because of its impact on Medicaid and the impact those cuts to Medicaid will have on people with disabilities throughout the country.

We are also hearing about the impact on Medicare. One of the promises Candidate Trump made was that he wasn't going to do anything that would harm Medicare. That is what he said then, but, in fact, in January, Congress received a letter from the Medicare actuaries. These are the professionals who look at the impact of various proposals on the Medicare system. What they concluded was, this proposal to provide tax cuts to wealthy Americans would actually reduce the life of the Medicare program by 3 years.

Here is what they are proposing. We are going to give a tax cut--and one of the tax cuts means that wealthy Americans will not have to pay a portion of their Medicare taxes. That portion of their Medicare taxes today goes into the Medicare trust fund. You say to those wealthy Americans: We are going to give you a tax break that is going back in your pockets. That means it is no longer going into the Medicare trust fund. That shortens the life of the Medicare trust fund. That is the view, that is the opinion, those are the facts stated by the actuaries for Medicare.

As you begin to reduce the life of the Medicare Program, there will be more and more pressure to go to the plan that has been much discussed, especially by House Republicans, to turn Medicare into a voucher program. The AARP raises this issue, as well, in their letter. If you are going to start cutting down on the Medicare trust fund, if you are reducing the revenues going into that trust fund because you are giving wealthier Americans this tax cut, obviously, there is less money in that program to pay for the bills of Medicare.

One of the ideas that has been pushed is: All right, let's save money for Medicare by transferring the risks Medicare currently takes onto the backs of seniors. So we are going to start giving them a voucher, a voucher that does not keep pace with the rising costs of Medicare. That means that over time, seniors have to pay a lot more, get a lot less in healthcare, and that is how they save the Medicare plan money. Make no mistake, by providing a tax cut, and particularly the tax cut to the wealthy paying into the Medicare Program right now, you are hurting Medicare.

I know that the President says he is a terrific negotiator, just a terrific negotiator, and I have here a book by Trump, ``The Art of the Deal.'' I don't know whether Donald Trump is a good negotiator or a bad negotiator, but what I know is this: When you look at this TrumpCare plan, whoever did the negotiating was negotiating on behalf of very wealthy special interests at the expense of people in the rest of the country.

So all the talk we heard throughout the campaign and since about looking after the little guy, all the talk we heard about the middle class being squeezed, which is very real out there in America, all the talk we heard about struggling Americans, when you look at TrumpCare, it hurts exactly those people.

If President Trump was negotiating this deal, he got a great deal for the billionaires and millionaires who are in his Cabinet. They are going to see a great tax break windfall. I mean, I would like to get a calculator and take a look at what the size of the tax break will be to the members of the Trump Cabinet because it is going to be huge. But ordinary Americans are going to take it on the chin. They are going to be very badly hurt, which is why apparently people are trying to rush this through the Congress so quickly.

First, it was in some remote room, and you needed bloodhounds to go out to try to find out where it was, and now we know why it was kept so secret--because it is such a bad deal for the American people.

Now that it is in the light of day and the details are coming out and we are getting more and more letters from groups from around the country--AARP, the American Hospital Association, the American Medical Association, hundreds of other groups. The letters are pouring in. What is the response? Let's try to get this through the Congress as fast as possible before the word gets out even farther around the country.

It is ironic because I remember that during the debate over the Affordable Care Act, which took months and months--I mean, it took over 7 or 8 months--our Republican colleagues accused us of moving too quickly, of not having sufficient debate and input. Yet what we are seeing right now, now that the bill has come out of hiding, is an effort to try to move that bill through the House in a matter of weeks without any hearings. And then we are hearing over here in the Senate that the plan will be--and maybe the Republican leader can clarify this at some point, but the plan will be to not send it to any of the committees in the Senate for a review but to try to bring it up immediately here on the floor of the Senate without any committee consideration, totally outside the regular

order, flying directly in the face of the complaints that were made many years ago, when the process took well over 7 months, went through all the committees, and was thoroughly deliberated throughout the country.

Today I am looking at some of the publications, and I see Republican colleagues preemptively criticizing the Congressional Budget Office for what it might say about what TrumpCare is going to cost the American people.

Mr. President, I know you and our colleagues know that CBO is the referee on which we all rely. I know some people like to make up their own alternative facts, but you need to have some referee here in Congress when it comes to budget issues because otherwise people just make up whatever numbers they want.

It is also important to know that the current head of the Congressional Budget Office is somebody who was jointly selected by the Republican chairman of the House Budget Committee and the Republican chairman of the Senate Budget Committee. In other words, the current head of the CBO was picked by the Republican chairmen of the House and Senate Budget Committees. It is very important that we have that nonpartisan referee in these discussions. Yet, in the House of Representatives, they are acting on TrumpCare right now in committees without even the benefit of the analysis from the Congressional Budget Office. Apparently, they are afraid of what it might be and what it might say.

If people want to defend this TrumpCare proposal, they are obviously free to do it, but we should do it in the regular order, and we should do it based on information from sources like the Congressional Budget Office so people can have all the facts when they make these decisions which will impact the American people.

One fact we know right now is the fact that I mentioned at the outset, which is from the Joint Tax Committee, the nonpartisan experts, saying that TrumpCare will provide a $600 billion tax cut windfall. We also know it is a fact from the Medicare Actuary that by providing very wealthy Americans with this tax break, you are going to take some years off of the life of the Medicare Program. Those are real facts.

So when I look at this deal, whoever negotiated this deal was clearly looking out for the very wealthiest in this country. That is where the facts lead.

Again, I don't know if President Trump is a good negotiator or a bad negotiator. What I do know is that if he negotiated this TrumpCare deal, he was negotiating on behalf of the millionaires and billionaires in his Cabinet. He was negotiating on behalf of the insurance companies that are now going to get a tax break for the multimillion-dollar bonuses they pay to the CEOs. The larger the bonus, the bigger the tax break under this bill. I know he wasn't negotiating for everyday working Americans and certainly not for older Americans or Americans with disabilities. That is why the AARP and others are weighing in so strongly against this.

We are going to have a little more time to debate here in the Senate, apparently, than in the House, but I would hope we would send this through the regular order because it requires a thorough vetting of the facts, and the American people deserve that kind of transparency and accountability in this process. I am absolutely confident that when the American people get a good look at this deal, they will know it is a very bad deal for the country and for millions of Americans.

I hope we will get on with that process. I hope the bill will never arrive in the Senate. I hope the folks in the House will recognize that it is a bad deal for the country and go back to the drawing board because when I heard the mantra ``repeal and replace'' and when I heard President Trump say that replacement was going to be much better and cover more people for less cost, I think people took that seriously. Now when they actually take a look at TrumpCare, as it is emerging from the House, they see something very different. They see something that is, quote, wonderful for the 1 percent of Americans who are going to get a tax cut, but it is really lousy for everybody else in the country.

We need to defeat this charade. This is not a replacement. This is a fake. The American people are catching on quickly. That is why it is very important that we not try to rush this through, that we have an opportunity to discuss it in the light of day. I am absolutely confident that if we do the right thing in terms of a full democratic debate, TrumpCare will go down.

Mr. President, I rise to join my colleagues in this important conversation on the Senate floor and, once again, to demand answers to the many questions raised about Russia's interference in our elections.

Not so long ago, I came to the floor to speak out against a belligerent act from an adversarial nation, an attempt to undermine American democracy and foment chaos and uncertainty on the world stage, an effort that we now know from our own intelligence community's assessment was ordered by President Putin himself, a campaign that senior intelligence officials have concluded ``blend[ed] covert intelligence operations--such as cyber activity--with overt efforts by Russian Government agencies, state-funded media, third-party intermediaries, and paid social media users, or `trolls,' '' to undermine our 2016 Presidential elections.

In recent weeks, the American people have been confronted by a daily drumbeat of headlines regarding Russian interference with our elections and possible ties to President Trump's campaign. They have learned that the President's former National Security Advisor, LTG Michael Flynn, was not truthful about the nature of the conversations he had with the Russian Ambassador shortly after President Obama sanctioned Russia for meddling in our elections.

They learned that Attorney General Jeff Sessions, the highest law enforcement officer in the land, did not fully disclose at least two meetings he had with the Russian Ambassador during his nomination hearings.

They have learned, through reporting in the news media, that U.S. law enforcement continues to investigation Russian agents' contacts with President Trump's inner circle.

Yet despite these revelations, the American people now face more questions than answers. Has anyone else on the President's team been in contact with the Russian Government? What were the nature of these conversations? How credible are reports of business dealings between Russian oligarchs and the Trump organization?

But here is the reason I came to the floor today, as serious as those questions are. Getting answers to these questions, whether it be through a special prosecutor, or an independent commission--on which Senator Cardin has legislation and which I strongly, strongly support and believe it is the ultimate vehicle--or the Senate Intelligence Committee's own investigation--those efforts are not about President Trump. It is about the American people. It is about protecting our free and democratic way of life and our time-tested system of self- governance. It is about showing our constituents that, when the stakes are high, when the allegations are this startling, when the implications are this alarming, we are capable of setting politics aside and getting to the truth.

Time and again, the President has dismissed the significance of Russia's interference in our elections, and he derides reports about his financial interests and campaign contacts with Russia as ``fake news.'' Well, this isn't fake news. On the contrary, these are real threats--real threats from a real foreign adversary; real threats that undermine the integrity of our elections and, therefore, the security of our country; real threats from a brutal leader who sees the erosion of Western democracy as a strategic imperative for Russia's future.

So let's be clear about why these threats matter. Vladimir Putin's rise to power in Russia has been marked by the suppression of the freedom of the press, the oppression of the Russian people, the murder of political opponents, and the transfer of wealth and assets from the Russian people to a handful of powerful oligarchs.

President Putin sees the spread of Western democratic values that we enjoy here in our country and others in the Western world--like freedom of speech, the rule of law, and human rights--as a threat to his power. So Russia has embarked on a systematic campaign to undermine the democracies that uphold the international order established after World War II and that has been the bedrock of peace and tranquility, generally speaking, since then. These threats must be taken seriously.

Russia's aggressive behavior reaches back years and extends to this day. We saw it in 2008, when Russia backed illegal separatist forces in Georgia, declaring South Ossetia and Abkhazia independent states. We saw it in March of 2014--when I was in Ukraine--when Russia authorized the use of military force to annex Crimea, blatantly violating the sovereignty of the Ukrainian people and the Budapest Memorandum, a memorandum that we--the United States, Russia, and others--signed, saying that we would observe the territorial and sovereignty rights of Ukraine if they gave up the nuclear weapons that had been left to them after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

They did just that. They did just that, and what happened to them afterwards? Their territory has been annexed and invaded. Today, Putin continues to break ceasefires, sow discord, and incite violence throughout eastern Ukraine--an effort that to date has claimed 10,000 lives and displaced 2 million people.

Unfortunately, Russia's interference in our 2016 Presidential election is not an isolated instance. According to U.S. intelligence reports, these efforts are only the most recent manifestation of

the Kremlin's ongoing campaign to undermine Western democracy.

In recent years, we have seen Russian oligarchs funnel money to fringe political movements across Europe, and Russian operatives conduct sophisticated disinformation campaigns. After the revelations that Russia interfered with our own elections, Putin has shown no signs of slowing down. On the contrary, just weeks ago, Russian's Defense Minister announced that the Kremlin will begin using troops to enhance their information operations, emphasizing that ``propaganda must be smart, competent, and efficient.''

Again, Russia's end goal here is no mystery. Putin aims to undermine European unity and fracture the transatlantic alliance--an alliance that has served as a bedrock for international security, peace and stability, and economic cooperation between the United States and Europe for the past half century.

In the Middle East, President Putin continues to disregard international norms. He aligns Russia with Iran, the world's leading state sponsor of terror. He aids Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad in his atrocities against innocent civilians. In Aleppo, Russian bombs fall on homes; Russian bombs fall on schools and hospitals; Russian bombs fall on aid convoys that only seek to feed starving, trapped families, and rescue children from the rubble.

Just last month, Russia violated the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty when they illegally launched a cruise missile, showing no regard for an agreement that has been a hallmark for nuclear security cooperation for nearly four decades. That is not an insignificant act.

The United States cannot ignore such destabilizing behavior. That is exactly why Senator Graham and I introduced S. Res. 78 just 2 weeks ago, recognizing 3 years of Russian military aggression and calling on Russia to respect its obligations to the international community. Our resolution should serve as a reminder to this administration that the U.S. sanctions imposed on Russia for violating the international order should remain in place until Russia starts respecting and returning to that international norm.

Nor can we let Russian efforts to undermine Western democracies continue unabated. That is why I joined my colleagues in the Countering Russian Hostilities Act of 2017. This bipartisan bill codifies the sanctions imposed by President Obama for Russia's annexation of Crimea and interference in the U.S. elections into law.

It is the same type of proposition we had with the Iran agreement. We want a congressional opportunity to voice ourselves and make sure that those sanctions aren't lifted arbitrarily, capriciously, without Russia paying the consequences and coming back into the international order. At the same time, the legislation authorizes $100 million for the State Department and other agencies to counter Putin's propaganda.

The time for action--and for answers--is now. We can get to work immediately by holding hearings in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to ensure that the United States has a strategy in place to protect the security of our democracy and promote stability abroad. From the spread of extremist propaganda across Europe and the denial of Ukrainian sovereignty, to the bombing of civilians in Aleppo and the cyber attacks against the Democratic National Committee, Putin's intentions are not up for debate.

Russia's destabilizing behavior should make it absolutely clear to the President of the United States that the Russian Federation is not our friend. But when the President hesitates to acknowledge this reality or fails to address such aggressive behavior, it is up to Congress to act. There can be no hesitation when it comes to protecting the security and sanctity of our elections.

But to take action we need answers. That is why we need an independent investigation into Russia's interference in the 2016 elections. What President Trump fails to realize time and again is that this investigation is not about whether or not Russia successfully swayed the American elections. This investigation is not about him. This investigation is about the American people. It is about ensuring that our elections are free, fair, and secure so that our government that we elect is responsive and accountable to the people. It is about understanding Russia's tactics in cyber space and preparing for future attacks. It is about standing with our allies, preserving peace and avoiding war, and preventing the need to send our sons and daughters into harm's way. It is about ensuring that, when the President of the United States faces tough decisions, the American people can trust that he puts their interests--their interests--ahead of any other interests he has abroad.

It is time to protect the integrity of our elections and to secure our democracy against the cyber threats of the 21st century--whether they come in the form of election machine tampering, or paid propaganda on social media, or targeted hacks on political and public officials.

Russia poses a real strategic threat to the United States, to our core values, and to the international order. I call on the President to treat these threats with the seriousness they deserve.

I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to protect the integrity of our elections here at home, to defend democracy abroad, and to ensure that the transatlantic alliance, so vital to international security and stability, remains strong for generations to come.

I yield the floor.