Floor Statements

Mr. President, let me return the compliment to Senator Corker.

Senator Corker announced in his opening remarks about the bipartisan vote in our committee on the Iran sanctions bill. In the last Congress, we were able to get a unanimous vote on the Iran bill. We, under the leadership of Senator Corker, fully recognized that particularly on foreign policy, our country is much stronger when we speak with a united voice, so bringing Democrats and Republicans together is in our national interest.

Senator Corker has listened to different views. He and I do have different views on many issues concerning foreign policy, but in almost every one of those cases, we have been able to reconcile those differences. That is true and it was very clear on the Iran sanctions and it is also very true on the Russia sanctions amendment that we will be voting on later today.

To Senator Corker, I just want my colleagues to know we have a leader on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee who puts America's national interests first and has respected the rights of every Senator, not only in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee but in the U.S. Senate, that can add to the richness of our discussions and debate. I think we are much stronger today because of that. This is a good example of that, and I am very proud to be supportive of all these efforts and supportive of how this came about because I think it is important for our colleagues and the American people to know about that.

Congressional Baseball Practice Shooting

Mr. President, Senator Corker and I both want to express, before we start our debate on this issue, our concerns for our colleagues who were victimized by the shooting that took place in Virginia--an outrageous event--and for our security people as well as the innocent bystanders who were struck by the gunfire. Our prayers are with those who are recovering. We hope they will have a complete recovery. We are committed to making sure we keep our Senate and congressional family safe, and we will do everything we can to make sure that takes place. We will continue to work to make sure we preserve the democratic ideals of this Nation and the free society we live in. We know there are rifts, and we know we can do service and stand by those democratic commitments but also keep America safe.

I think the work on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee had those goals in mind, and Senator Corker, through the Chair, I thank you for your attention to those details.

Mr. President, let me talk for a few minutes about S. 722, the Countering Iran's Destabilizing Activities Act. This bill will impose new sanctions on Iran for its nonnuclear violations. I want to make that clear--nonnuclear violations. Their responsibilities on the nuclear side is now judged by the nuclear agreement that was entered into. We had a great debate about it last year, and we are not going to rehash that debate. I think every Member of this Chamber wants to make sure Iran complies with its nuclear obligations, but that is a separate debate.

The debate we have here is on the nonnuclear activities of Iran that violate international norms and international agreements. We saw, for example, ballistic missile tests that violated their U.N. obligations that took place in January and in March.

We have seen a significant increase in illicit arms shipments being done by Iran, causing destabilizing activities in many parts of the region. We see it in Bahrain. We see it in Yemen. We see it in Iraq. We know they are supporting Hezbollah in Lebanon. We see they are supporting Hamas in Gaza, and we know about their activities in support of the Assad regime in Syria. This all violates international norms.

Iran today has violated, in an incredible way, human rights issues that violate international norms. Yesterday we saw a part of the impact of that as we had a debate on the Saudi arms sale, and we can argue the Saudi's culpability with what is going on in Yemen, but there is no question about Iran's activities supporting the Houthis in Yemen causing atrocities in that country. They are clearly very actively engaged in violating internationally recognized human rights. We also see cyber attacks on the United States that have come from Iran, and they are detaining at least five U.S. citizens today illegally.

There are increased activities in Iran in relation to the nonnuclear side of their activities. For that reason, S. 722 looks at strengthening the sanctions regime so we can make it clear, yes, we will comply with the JCPOA, the nuclear agreement, but we need to have better activities--improvement on the nonnuclear side.

Basically, the bill increases the sanctions menus that are available for ballistic missile violations, for support of terrorism, for human rights violations, and for violating the arms embargo. Those who knowingly do those violations or materially assist will be subject to additional sanctions by the United States.

We codify the IRGC, that was done by Executive order, and we codify some of these other Executive orders as it relates to Iran. We coordinate. This is done in a way that it coordinates with what Europe is doing and making sure it is a consistent approach that we have taken in the past.

We ask the administration to develop a regional strategy so the Congress and the American people know our policies in the Middle East. That provision was drafted before the Trump administration. This is a desire by Congress to have a better articulated regional strategy, recognizing the dangers in that region. Iran is a major player in the region against U.S. interests, and we need to know what our strategy is in confronting those challenges. Quite frankly, with the Trump administration, we haven't heard that coordinated strategy, and this legislation will require that report be given not just to Congress on a regular basis but to the American people.

I want to underscore how this agreement is totally consistent with the nuclear agreement that was entered into 2 years ago--the JCPOA, as it is referred to. I want to go through quickly how this came about. Senator Corker talked a little bit about it.

Senator Corker is absolutely correct. Senator Menendez has been a leader on Iran sanctions way before this Congress. He was very much involved in the original sanctions legislation passed by Congress. That led to putting enough pressure on the international community to join us, which ultimately led to Iran having no choice but to negotiate. Senator Corker and Senator Menendez had introduced legislation that was out there, and we had a chance to review it, which is how the process should work. As a result of that review, both Senator Corker, Senator Menendez, and I--all three of us--reached out to interested groups to understand what the Congress has done. Many of the people we talked to were involved in the negotiations with Iran who had different views than we did on the final outcome of that agreement, but we wanted to make sure we weren't violating any of the provisions of the JCPOA so we sought their input. As a result, there was revised legislation that was offered known as Corker-Menendez-Cardin, which incorporated the ideas of all three of us, but really the outside groups working with us, to make sure it was totally consistent with the JCPOA and consistent with the intent of the original bill. I think that bill was well scrubbed. I think it did not violate the JCPOA, but we went through another process, another review, another opportunity for those who could perhaps see things we don't see quite as clearly when it comes to Iran and our European allies. We went through a second scrubbing, and we had a managers' amendment that was offered in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that tightened the bill up even more dealing with those issues.

I think I can state very confidently that there is nothing in the underlying bill that violates the U.S. commitment under the JCPOA nuclear agreement. It is my intent, and I think the intent of almost every member of this committee that the United States should comply with the JCPOA. Even though I didn't support it, I think it is important we comply with it today.

The other aspect I wanted to go through is that--and I don't want to give the wrong impression. There are people who are involved in the negotiations of the nuclear agreement who would state--some would say they oppose the bill, some might say it is not helpful, some might say Iran might take it the wrong way. Any one of those arguments aside, I do not think you will find anyone who says that it violates the JCPOA.

I want to give a little bit of history here because this was anticipated, that we would need this bill, when we acted on the JCPOA, by those of us who supported and opposed the nuclear agreement.

As the chairman will recall, shortly after the failure to reject the JCPOA--that action--I filed additional legislation that I thought was necessary, along with many of my colleagues, who voted for and voted against the JCPOA. I voted against it. Those who voted for it thought it was necessary. It included the regional strategy so that we would know what the administration was doing. We expedited procedures to deal with nonnuclear violations if Iran used the sanction relief they got under the nuclear agreement to increase their terrorist activities or ballistic missile activities or human rights violations. In fact, they have done that, and that is why we filed the bill right after the action on the nuclear agreement.

This is consistent with what we thought would be necessary. Yes, we had hoped Iran would change its activities, but we were not naive about it. We knew that this was going to be a long road. We knew that Iran did not respond to niceties and that we were going to have to keep the pressure up for them to be able to take the action that was needed.

I know many of us were encouraged when we saw the votes a couple of weeks ago in Iran whereby the Iranians voted for a more open society, a more transparent society. I must say that Iran has a wonderful history of very talented people who want democratic principles, and I am sure that is true among many of the people in Iran today. It is their leaders with whom we have an objection, not with the people of Iran. The people of Iran want a more open, democratic society. This legislation will help get to that point by making it clear to the leaders in Iran that they must change their behavior as it relates to terrorism, as it relates to human rights violations, as it relates to their other international obligations. That is the reason this bill has become so important.

Let me give one more example on the consistency.

There are many provisions that we have changed. One is that we all acknowledge that the United States and

our partners are fully at liberty to take action against Iran for terrorist activities, which is not part of the nuclear agreement, but there is some confusion as to how that is done in relationship to the sanctions relief that is provided under the JCPOA. In listening to their concerns, we will set up an independent review process within the next 5 years that will resolve that issue before we hit the 8-year mark so that we are not jeopardizing thwarting a crisis in the future that might occur. I really just want to point that out because this bill is totally consistent with the obligations of the United States under the Iran nuclear agreement.

Amendment No. 232, as Modified

I talked briefly yesterday about the amendment that is pending. I want to spend just a moment, if I might, in underscoring some of the details of the amendment that is passing.

I am for S. 722, and I am for the amendment that was crafted in the same spirit as was the underlying bill--in a bipartisan agreement. It involved not just the Senate Foreign Relations Committee but the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee because the jurisdictions on sanctions do overlap between the two committees.

As I said yesterday, I thank Senators Crapo and Brown--and Chairman Corker has already mentioned this--as they were extremely helpful in making sure that we tailored the financial sanctions in a way that is workable and consistent with that of our European partners so that we can make sure we have collective strength.

I am sure the Presiding Officer has been in meetings with our European friends and knows how they feel about Russia. He knows how they feel--that they are the direct bull's-eye with regard to what Russia is doing. They want the United States to be strong, and they want the United States to provide leadership, but we need to provide it in a manner that is consistent with their security interests. With regard to the way this bill has evolved, I think we have a better bill that is consistent with those concerns.

With Russia, we know their activities. We know their cyber activities against our democratic institutions. As we have said frequently, all countries collect cyber information, but the use of that cyber information to attack our democratic institutions is an attack on our country. That cannot go unchallenged. We have to protect ourselves and take action when we have been attacked. This bill does that.

We also know, not just recently but historically, that Russia has been very aggressive in its interfering with the sovereignty of other countries. Today, in Moldova and Georgia, you see the consequences of Russia's aggression. Of course, in Ukraine, with the annexation by Russia of Crimea and its continued activities in eastern Ukraine, Russia has violated every single commitment of the OSE's Helsinki Accords and has violated the sovereignty of other countries.

We also know about Russia's activities in support of the Assad regime in Syria and, by the way, in other countries in that region. It has assisted in horrible human rights violations--just terrible. We have seen some of the videos of the tragedies of innocent children as a result of Mr. Putin's support of the Assad regime.

In January of this year, Senator McCain and I introduced legislation that would have imposed new sanctions on Russia because of these activities. We wanted to make sure that this was bipartisan, so we had 18 Senators cosponsor the bill with us--10 Democrats, 10 Republicans-- to make it clear that this was not an attack on one administration but that this was America and that we had to be together in a strong message against the Putin regime. That bill included sanctions on cyber activities. It included sanctions on their Ukrainian activities. It included sanctions in regard to their Syrian activities. The legislation also incorporated what has been known as the Democracy Initiative, which provides ways in which we can provide a more unified front with our European allies in defending against the cyber attacks we have seen coming from Russia.

At the same time, Senator Graham filed a bill, with my cosponsorship, that would require congressional review before the President could give sanction relief to Russia. The review was patterned very similarly to the review we had under the Iran nuclear agreement.

So those two bills were pending, and there has been a lot of debate about them.

We then received a draft bill from Senators Crapo and Brown as it related to the sanctions. It was focused--I would not say exclusively but primarily--on the financial and energy sectors in order to make sure those sanctions were drafted in the proper way, and we went through considerable negotiations. Senator Corker, as I pointed out before, brought additional text to the discussion in an effort to try to bring this together.

Although I am mentioning Senators' names, we know it is the staff. Our staffs have been working around the clock to try to make sure we get this done right. So I thank the majority and minority staffs on the Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee and on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

There are many parts to the amendment that will be voted on at 2 p.m. One part codifies additional sanctions against Russia. I have already mentioned Senator Menendez's role in Iran. He was very instrumental as it relates to Russia. Senator Durbin has been very active. I must tell you that there has been no Member on the Democratic side who has been more vocal than Senator Shaheen on the need to take action against Russia. There are many Members on our side who were active on this. I thank my colleagues for their contribution.

We do codify the Executive orders that were issued that were related to both Ukraine and cyber attacks. With the adoption of this amendment, we would be codifying--giving congressional support for what took place by President Obama.

It expands the list of where sanctions can apply to the energy projects and foreign financial institutions that facilitate such projects. For actors who try to undermine cyber security, it provides for their being subject to sanctions, and it provides secondary sanctions for those who materially assist those actors in undermining our cyber security. It provides sanctions against suppliers of Russian arms to Syria. It goes after the actors who are involved in the corrupt privatization of Russia's governmental assets. We do not support those who are supporting Mr. Putin's corrupt regime. It deals with sanctions against Russia's activities on pipelines, the Russia railway, metals, mining, and shipping. So it is comprehensive, and most of these sanctions are mandatory. It is not ``may''; rather, it is that the President ``shall'' in most of these circumstances.

As is the tradition, the President also has the ability, if there is a significant national security issue, to weigh whether that sanction should be applied. Yet we use a different standard in most of these sanctions that requires the President to certify before he issues those waivers that there has been, basically, significant progress made by Russia in removing these sanctionable activities. So we have a pretty strong hand that we are giving President Trump in his negotiations with Mr. Putin.

In addition, this bill provides for congressional review. We talked about that--a bill that was originally introduced by Senator Graham and me. As I indicated, it is very similar to the Iran Review Act. I think this is very important in that it puts a lot of transparency into the negotiations between the Trump administration and the Putin administration.

As Senator Corker was talking about earlier as to how one President can do something by himself--and I hope that the amendment is adopted and that the bill passes the House and becomes law--the President cannot by himself remove a sanction until he has given Congress notice and an opportunity to review that. We can have congressional hearings. We can put a spotlight on it. Then we will have an expedited process whereby we could reject the President's decision to give relief, and all during that process the sanctions will remain in place.

It is a very strong congressional review, and it is our responsibility to do that, but it also brings in the American people and brings in a more transparent process. What we have found is

that, with that transparency, it is a much stronger hand that President Trump has in his negotiations, knowing that he has to go through this process at the end of the day in his negotiations with Russia.

Sometimes we call it the strength of our independent branches of government. The executive branch can say ``Look, we would like to move faster, but we have to do this with the legislative branch'' or ``We would like to do this, but we cannot get it through Congress.'' Use the independence of the Congress. We are certainly very strongly against what Russia is doing. Use that to increase the pressure on Russia to do the right thing. That is what this bill does. This is why it is helpful to the President of the United States to have this congressional review.

It would reply to anything from cyber sanctions that had been imposed under the Obama executive order to the attempt to return the compounds that are located in Maryland and New York. All of that would be subject to a congressional review before the action by the President could become effective.

I mentioned earlier that the bill does include the authorization of democracy funds, as I call it, that assist our allies in their fight against Russia's aggression, particularly in cyber. It authorizes $250 million, and it applies to our work with the EU member states, the NATO member States, as well as with candidate nations. It is a pretty strong opportunity for us to work together.

I have had many meetings with our European colleagues and friends. Yes, every country recognizes that it is vulnerable against Russia's attacks--believe me, they do--and they are doing everything they can to protect themselves. What I find disappointing is that there is not enough coordination. We know how they acted in the United States and how they acted in France and now how they are likely to act in Germany and what they did in Moldova. We know how they are likely to proceed, but do we have a common strategy to prevent this type of manipulation by Russia of our democratic institutions?

This authorization and the funding--I thank Senator Graham and Senator Leahy for putting money into the fiscal year 2017 budget to start this process going forward. We have approved that, and that is now in the budget. It allows us to coordinate those efforts among the United States and our European friends to protect against what we know is going to be continued activity by Russia.

There are obviously investigations going on. Part of the investigation is to understand what Russia is doing, quite frankly, so that we can protect ourselves. I think that will be very helpful, this information, and the role of the United States in working with our European allies to protect against certain continued malicious activities by the Russian Federation.

There is a provision in this bill that deals with Ukraine. We make it clear that we will not recognize Crimea's annexation of Ukraine, that we will continue to stand with the people of Ukraine in regard to their sovereignty, and we ask for a plan to reduce Ukraine's dependence on Russia energy imports.

We know that Ukraine is vulnerable because of energy, and we know that we have to develop a plan to deal with that. There are many Members involved in that, and I wish to acknowledge my friend from Ohio, Senator Portman, for his work in regard to the Ukraine provisions.

There are new counterterrorism financing provisions, which are pretty comprehensive, so that we make sure that we have all the tools we need in order to track the financing of terrorism activities. That is in there.

So let me just tell my colleague how proud I am to be associated with the underlying bill as well as the amendment that we are going to vote on at 2 o'clock. Both the underlying bill and the amendment were developed in the best of the bipartisan manners of the U.S. Senate.

I wish to thank, again, all of those who were involved to give us this opportunity to speak with a strong, united voice against the activities that Iran is doing globally and that are destabilizing so many countries through their terrorism and ballistic missiles and human rights violations and arms embargo violations, and to make it clear to the Russian Federation that we are not going to let them attack our country, that we are going to stand up to that and work to be sure to keep our allies safe.

With that, Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I just want to follow up briefly with Chairman Corker. The two of us became friends in 2007, when we were both elected to the U.S. Senate the same year and were part of the same class. But I think the two of us really became close friends a little over 2 years ago, when we were confronted with how Congress should deal with the nuclear agreement being negotiated by President Obama with Iran and our European friends, along with Russia and China.

As the two of us worked around the clock to try to develop an appropriate review process so that Congress could play a constructive role--we recognize that we are the legislative branch, and we have oversight functions, but there is an appropriate role for us with regard to Executive actions--we came out with something that no one expected could be done; that is, nearly unanimous support in this body for a review statute in regard to the Iran negotiations.

Chairman Corker has taken this same template and has now used that to apply to Russia in the removal of sanctions on Russia. It started with a bill that was put together by Senator Graham and me. It has been modified through the negotiations we have had, as Senator Corker has commented, with Senator Brown and Senator Crapo. But it does, in effect, provide that there will be notice to Congress before the administration can give any sanction relief to Russia, so there can be transparency and a discussion and a debate. Then there is a process by which Congress, if we feel strongly and can get the necessary support, can disapprove of sanction relief.

I think that is the proper way for us to deal with one of the most important bilateral relationships in the world--between the United States and Russia--and it is appropriate that it is going to be an amendment to the Iran sanctions bill because the review process came out of the Iran agreement.

The review process would be triggered if there is action taken by the President to give relief, but the legislation also includes additional sanctions, as the chairman pointed out, with Russia. It does this in a way that codifies the President's Executive orders so that there is now congressional support for Executive orders. It expands those sanctions in the area of cyber, as the chairman pointed out, and for energy projects, financial institutions facilitating transactions, Russian arms and related materiel to Syria, the corrupt privatization of government-owned assets.

I particularly thank the chairman for the way he was able to recognize that, in Russia, what we don't want to see us contribute to is corruption, and we concentrate on the corruption issue, not the business issue. It is the area of corruption that becomes the important thing.

We tighten up a lot of the different sanctions. Then we set up a process where there needs to be certified progress made; otherwise, these are mandatory sanctions the President must impose.

As the chairman pointed out, negotiations included aspects of legislation that was first introduced by Senator McCain and me on sanctions, by Senator Graham and me on review of sanction relief, by Senators Crapo and Brown on proposed legislation dealing with sanctions, and Chairman Corker had significant drafting issues that he brought to the table in our negotiations. So it was a free discussion, and the end result is--I said this before but I want to underscore this--the Banking Committee brought some very helpful suggestions to make sure the financial sanctions worked. It is one thing that we want to make sure there are penalties, but we have to make sure they

work right, and I compliment the work of the Banking Committee in making sure that we use the right standards and that this will meet international muster. It is absolutely essential that this template be one in which our European allies can follow our leadership. If we didn't do that, we could have been isolated, which would not have had the same impact as I think these sanctions will have in working with our European allies.

The chairman mentioned several of our colleagues on the committee. I need to mention Senator Shaheen and Senator Menendez, who played very, very important roles in our caucus. Senator Durbin and Senator Schumer also played roles in this, and I acknowledge their contributions.

Included in this bill is the democracy initiative, which deals with providing more unified support with our allies in Europe in fighting Russia's propaganda and attacks on our democratic institutions. Senator Portman made major contributions to that, as the chairman has also acknowledged, and then, brought to us mainly through the Banking bill, we have a strategy to trace terrorism and financing in terrorism, which I think is very important to be included in the amendment.

We will have a chance to vote on this amendment at 2 o'clock tomorrow. I encourage my colleagues to adopt this. Senator Corker and I expect to be back on the floor tomorrow as we manage the underlying bill, at which time I will want to comment on the importance of our passing the Iran sanctions bill, which is vitally important because of Iranian activities taking place today.

For all of those reasons, I encourage my colleagues to please read the amendment that has been filed in a bipartisan effort to deal with this challenge that Russia has provided through their activities in attacking our democratic institutions, in their continued aggression in Ukraine, and their human rights violations in Syria.

I might add that Senator Menendez's provisions on human rights sanctions are included in this amendment. It really does, I think, capture the essence of the broad consensus of the U.S. Senate and is worthy of our support.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, this June marks the 50th anniversary of the reunification of Jerusalem. I am honored to have supported S. Res. 176, which commemorates the 50th anniversary of the reunification of Jerusalem.

This resolution reaffirms the Holy City of Jerusalem's central role for the Jewish people dating back many millennia. Since 1967, all people of all religious faiths are able to visit and worship at the holy sites of Jerusalem. I will always stand with Israel as it ensures that all individuals enjoy opportunities to visit and worship at Jerusalem's holy sites.

The United States has stood with Israel for the past 50 years and will continue to do so. The intervening 50 years have included momentous changes in Israel and throughout the region, including peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan that stand to this day. These events give me hope for a future in which Israel and all of its neighbors together benefit from a comprehensive, warm peace.

Madam President, this Thursday, the Sydney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins is hosting an event that includes a memorial cancer research symposium and a dinner in honor of the late Dr. Albert H. Owens, Jr., who died this past January at the age of 90. It is fitting to pay tribute to Al Owens, who served as president of the Johns Hopkins Hospital and was one of our Nation's pioneering oncologists.

Al Owens was born into a medical family. His father, Dr. Albert H. Owens, Sr., was a dentist; his mother, Grace Masters, was a head surgical nurse at Mount Sinai Hospital. He originally matriculated to Harvard University, but his college education was interrupted by his service as a medical officer in the Navy during the Korean war. He subsequently earned his bachelor's and medical degrees from the Johns Hopkins University and the school of medicine, respectively.

He joined the faculty in 1956. A year later, A. McGehee Harvey, who was head of the school of medicine's department of medicine, established a cancer research and treatment division within the department. He asked Al to head the new division. There was a slight problem: The Johns Hopkins Hospital did not have available space. So Al moved inpatient, clinical, and research oncology activities to Baltimore City Hospitals, now Johns Hopkins Bayview Medical Center. He opened Johns Hopkins' first cancer chemotherapy unit at Baltimore City Hospitals in 1961, making it one of the first university-based centers of its kind nationwide. In 1973, Al was named the first director of the Johns Hopkins Oncology Center, which had won Federal designation as one of the Nation's first comprehensive cancer centers. In 1977, he moved the center from Baltimore City Hospitals back to the main campus, where it was housed in a brand new facility, named the Oncology Center. Over the next decade, the Johns Hopkins Oncology Center--now named the Johns Hopkins Kimmel Cancer Center--became one of the most prestigious cancer centers in the country.

Al was named president of the Johns Hopkins Hospital in 1987, but he relinquished the presidency after only 18 months so that he could devote all of his time to developing a new oncology center for the hospital, but during his brief tenure as president, he decreed that the hospital would become smoke-free. We take smoke-free buildings for granted now; 30 years ago, it was a revolutionary move.

Thanks to Al's tireless devotion, the Harry and Jeanette Weinberg Building was completed in January 2000, followed shortly thereafter by the opening of the Bunting Family and Jacob and Hilda Blaustein Family Cancer Research Building. In 2006, the David H. Koch Cancer Research Building opened. These two research buildings are connected by the Albert H. Owens Auditorium, which was named in his honor.

Al was a beloved teacher and mentor, as well as a superb doctor, researcher, and administrator. His enthusiasm about cancer research was limitless. He frequently would visit young faculty members-- unannounced--asking them to describe the most exciting research project they were working on that day. Al is survived by his wife, Sally W. MacConnell; children Albert Henry Owens III, Elizabeth Ann Owens, David Tilden Owens, and Sarah Louise Owens;

and five grandchildren. The Baltimore Sun ran an obituary at the time of his death; I ask that it be printed in the Record following my remarks.

There is an epitaph to Sir Christopher Wren, who is buried in St. Paul's Cathedral in London, which he designed. The epitaph reads, ``Si monumentum requiris, circumspice.'' The English translation of the Latin is ``if you seek his monument, look around.'' This is a fitting epitaph for Dr. Albert H. Owens, Jr., too, but it is not just the buildings dedicated to cancer research that you will see. Look around, and you will see people, probably including members of your family and your friends, who are alive today because of Al's unrelenting dedication to finding treatments and cures for cancer. They are his living monuments. I encourage my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to this wonderful and extraordinary man.

The material follows:

[From the Baltimore Sun, Jan. 26, 2017]

Albert H. Owens Jr., Pioneering Oncologist and Former Hopkins Hospital

President, Dies

Dr. Albert H. Owens Jr., a pioneering oncologist who helped

establish new ways to fight cancer and was a former president

of Johns Hopkins Hospital, died of congestive heart failure

Jan. 13 at Hopkins. The Churchville resident was 90.

Born on Staten Island, N.Y., he was the son of a dentist,

Dr. Albert H. Owens Sr., and Grace Masters, a Mount Sinai

Hospital head surgical nurse. He was a graduate of a high

school in Port Richmond, N.Y.

His studies at Harvard University were interrupted by his

Navy service in Korea, and he earned bachelor's and medical

degrees from the Johns Hopkins University.

He became a Hopkins researcher and worked in liver

metabolism. Hopkins colleagues said that in 1957, Dr. A.

McGehee Harvey, who headed the Hopkins medical department,

created a cancer research and treatment division.

Dr. Harvey asked Dr. Owens to head the new oncology

division.

``At first, they gave him a card table, a secretary and a

PH meter,'' said Dr. Donald S. Coffey, a colleague for many

years who is a professor emeritus of urology, oncology and

pathology. ``Up to this time, there was no treatment for

cancer other than surgery and radiation. Al went to work

immediately and started drawing blood from his patients.''

The hospital did not have room for the new treatment

service, and Dr. Owens saw his patients and conducted

research at the old Baltimore City Hospitals, now Hopkins

Bayview Medical Center.

``He found a place in the backwater of the old buildings

there and soon assembled a first-class team,'' said Dr.

Coffey. ``His great genius was his ability to bring great

scientists and clinicians together. He would also say, `We

have to do everything right for this patient.' ''

He recalled Dr. Owens as a quiet listener who would talk

about patients as though they were his own children.

``Al Owens was one of the great figures in cancer. . . . He

should receive a great deal of the credit for what cancer

care and research have become today,'' said Dr. William G.

Nelson, Hopkins Kimmel Cancer Center director. ``He was a

wonderfully thoughtful person and was not prone to hyperbole.

He liked people who worked on cancer seriously. And like

great leaders, he distributed the credit.''

A Hopkins statement described Dr. Owens as ``a slightly

bashful, bow tie-wearing researcher and clinician.'' In 1973,

he became the first director of the Johns Hopkins Oncology

Center. In 1977, he moved his work back to Hopkins' East

Baltimore campus and a new oncology center. Much expanded,

the facility is now named the Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive

Cancer Center.

``Al was an exceptional leader who believed that the best

way to foster science that would improve patient outcomes was

to put basic scientists and clinicians into the same building

so they would naturally bond as team members sharing

projects, discoveries, frustrations and coffee on a daily

basis,'' Hopkins professor Dr. Stuart A. Grossman said in a

statement. ``He radiated interest and enthusiasm when it came

to cancer research and frequently dropped unannounced into

the offices of young faculty members, asking them to describe

the most exciting research project they were working on that

day.''

Dr. Owens was named Johns Hopkins Hospital president in

1987 and held the post for 18 months. He then resumed his

work fighting cancer, but not before he instituted a smoke-

free policy throughout the hospital. An auditorium at the

medical campus is named in his honor.

``Dr. Owens was not only a superb oncologist and mentor,

but a first-rate gentleman,'' Dr. David Ettinger, Hopkins

professor of oncology, said in a statement.

Dr. Owens was a past president of the Maryland division of

the American Cancer Society, the Association of American

Cancer Institutes and the American Society of Clinical

Oncology.

Dr. Owens resided at Medical Hall, a historic Churchville

home, where he cultivated bee colonies.

Plans for a memorial service at Johns Hopkins Hospital are

pending.

Survivors include his wife of 20 years, Sally W.

MacConnell, a Johns Hopkins administrator; two sons, Albert

Henry Owens III of Washington, N.J., and David Tilden Owens

of Minneapolis; two daughters, Elizabeth Ann Owens of

Baltimore and Sarah Louise Owens of England; and five

grandchildren.

Mr. President, today I wish to recognize May as Asian Pacific American Heritage Month and celebrate the many contributions of Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders, AAPI. The Asian American and Pacific Islander community is diverse and draws from a variety of distinct cultures, each of which has strengthened this country-- providing leaders, innovators, scientists, activists, artists, and citizens.

As we take the time to recognize Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders and their heritage, it would be negligent to forget that this year marks 75 years since President Franklin Delano Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066. He signed Executive Order 9066 in the aftermath of the attack on Pearl Harbor and authorized the Department of War-- today known as the Department of Defense--to establish ``military zones.'' The military had complete authority over these zones, including control over who entered and who was permitted to leave. The military zones became internment camps. In total, some 75,000 Americans of Japanese ancestry and 45,000 Japanese nationals were imprisoned in these camps across the country.

At the time, many attempted to justify the internment camps by citing Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor. They cited the need to protect our homeland from potential espionage. They cited the fact that Japan was our wartime enemy. They cited the likelihood that the next attack would come from someone ``looking like'' the enemy.

What they failed to explain was why no internment camps were established for Americans of German ancestry--or Italian ancestry. Japan was not our only wartime enemy; yet Japanese Americans were the only ones thrust into imprisonment under the guise of ``national security.''

It is not difficult to guess why. Japanese Americans were targeted because their heritage was thought to be easier to perceive. Of course, in many cases, the U.S. Department of War did not draw distinctions between Americans of Japanese ancestry and Americans of other Asian or Pacific Islander ancestry. If you were thought to look like the enemy, you were a target--full stop--and were at risk of being imprisoned illegally by the American Government.

This is one of the darkest periods in our history. We must not forget it. We cannot forget the tens of thousands of innocent families who were stripped of their basic human and legal rights and

property, racially profiled, and degraded. We cannot forget that ``national security'' was then--and is now--a poor justification for racial profiling and a transparent attempt to sanction and institutionalize racism.

These are lessons the Asian American and Pacific Islander community has carried for generations, all while making our country stronger and more inclusive. The AAPI experiences--when we take the time to hear them--force us to engage in self-reflection, to be more aware of our own biases, and more cautious of our own impulses.

As the former chairman and ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on East Asia and the Pacific, I have worked hard to stay mindful of the needs and concerns of the AAPI community. I have learned that, while we have come a very long way over the past 75 years, the AAPI community still battles nativism that portrays its members as something other than ``real'' Americans. They still bear the burden and pain of discrimination, and they still struggle to have their voice and their perspective heard during the great debates of our time.

The changes Republicans are seeking on healthcare, for example, would have far-reaching consequences for the AAPI community. Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders have one of the highest incidences of Hepatitis A. In fact, in 2013, they had the highest Hepatitis A rates out of any ethnic group in the country. In 2015, tuberculosis was 30 times more common among Asian Americans than among any other group. Both Hepatitis A and tuberculosis would be considered preexisting conditions-- conditions that would have made many Asian American and Pacific Islanders uninsurable before President Obama signed the Affordable Care Act into law and conditions that would result in sky-high premiums under the misguided American Health Care Act.

By comparison, the Affordable Care Act has reduced the uninsured rate for minority communities by at least 35 percent. It also expanded Medicaid, allowing over 250,000 more Maryland beneficiaries to access an array of mental health services like therapy, psychiatric rehabilitation, and many others. The Affordable Care Act's Medicaid expansion had similar positive impacts for mental health services across the country, which affects Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders directly as they continue to work tirelessly to reduce suicide rates. For these reasons, when we think of healthcare, we must consider the human cost our policies inflict on every community--on every American.

Likewise, immigration bans based on country of origin, race, or religion are awakening newfound fear that minority communities will be targeted once more, that racial profiling will rear its ugly head again, licensed and sanctioned by the Federal Government. The AAPI community's concern is warranted; people's fear is understandable. Each Member of Congress must realize that caring about the mistakes of our past means working with purpose and with conviction to prevent them from happening again in the present. We must use our votes where our values need defending and our voices where there is silence.

As we move forward through Asian Pacific American Heritage Month and beyond, I implore every member of this Chamber to remember that the best way to honor that heritage is to respect the community bearing it. Hearing their experiences, carrying their lessons with us into the policy arena, and considering their needs and fears as our own, these are the substantive ways by which we can truly honor Asian American and Pacific Islander Heritage. I am committed to honoring it accordingly and join every American of Asian or Pacific Islander heritage in celebrating this month as their own.

Mr. President, today I wish to recognize and celebrate Jewish American Heritage Month. As a proud Jewish American, I am honored to have the opportunity to acknowledge our heritage and the ways by which it has helped shape this country. The list is a long one, but this year, I want to focus on Mendes Cohen, whose legacy serves as a microcosm of our community.

Mendes Cohen was born in Richmond, VA, in May of 1796 to Israel and Judith Solomon Cohen, both of whom were immigrants. Mendes's father came from Germany, and his mother came from England. His father died when Mendes was just 12 years old. The event was a tragedy, of course, for Mendes, his six siblings, and his mother, who moved the family to Baltimore for a fresh start shortly thereafter.

Mendes grew up not far from where I grew up; he was raised not unlike I was raised. He believed in the value of public service. He believed in serving his country and working for the good of his community. He held fast to an ideology based on tolerance, equality, and fraternity. It was precisely this ideology that led him to fighting in the War of 1812 at Ft. McHenry. After the war, he and his brother Jacob began lobbying to change Maryland's constitution so that Jews could run for public office. In 1826, he was successful, and by 1847, he was a delegate in the Maryland General Assembly. He carried his love of country and belief in public service with him throughout the remainder of his life, going on to serve as a delegate to the State Peace Convention during the Civil War.

Mendes was, simply put, a historic marvel. He was a forward thinker, an activist, a consummate public servant, and a proud Jew. He broke down the single greatest barrier to Jewish entry into public life and opened the door for Jews--including me--to pursue public service. Today, as I stand in this Chamber as a U.S. Senator from Maryland, I am struck by the impact of Mendes Cohen's legacy. If I were able to speak to him now, I would tell him: thank you. Thank you for paving the way for me to have it all: my faith, my family, my heritage, and my career in public service. If Mendes were able to speak now, I imagine he would tell us that his work is unfinished. He would encourage us to continue carrying the torch of public engagement and civil service. He would remind us that path toward progress, by its very definition, has no endpoint.

These values underpin the broader Jewish community in Maryland and across the country. We learned early in our own history that the tide of oppression and bigotry can rise quickly and that, when it floods one shore, it floods them all. We learned that, when it comes for one community, it spares none. We learned that we must be our own stewards--that pluralism and equality demand constant guardians and that, when prejudice threatens them, nothing but our own tenacity can fend it off.

That tenacity is needed now more than ever, as we are confronted by resurgent anti-Semitism in every corner of the world--even here, at home. In the past few months, we have witnessed hate speech targeted at the Jewish community on social media, the ostracism and vilification of Jewish students on college campuses, and attacks against Jewish businesses and synagogues; yet it is precisely because the Jewish community has endured generations of persecution that promoting tolerance, equality, and inclusion has become a central tenant of Jewish American culture.

Jewish Americans participated in the abolitionist movement in the 19th century. They joined the ranks of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee during the Civil Rights movement. The partnership between Julius Rosenwald and Booker T. Washington resulted in the construction of thousands of schools for African-American children in the South throughout the 20th Century.

Jewish Americans are proud of their history promoting such causes. They are proud of their faith and their heritage, but they are also proud to profess their support of other people's faiths and heritage. They are proud to be guardians of a free and pluralistic society; they are proud to weave love out of millennia of knowing hate. That is the story of Jewish Americans. From Mendes Cohen to the American Jewish community's defense of diversity and inclusion today, every chapter we write, though unique, shares the same theme: progress--progress and equality.

Jewish Americans have, therefore, helped make the United States the force for human and equal rights that it is today, but each day, we face challenges to those ideals, challenges that

have felt increasingly ominous in recent months; yet this country will remain a beacon for the oppressed and the downtrodden. That beacon will stay lit due, in no small part, to the continued activism and conviction of the Jewish American community. This month, we thank them for that service, as we remind ourselves that our work goes on.

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

Mr. President, on Tuesday President Trump sent his proposed fiscal year 2018 budget to Congress. A budget is supposed to reflect the President's priorities and the values our country holds dear. Unfortunately, President Trump's full budget shows how much disdain he has for supporting American families here at home, how little he values America's strong leadership around the world, and how much he misunderstands the essential role the Federal Government has in keeping our air and water clean, roads and bridges functioning, and the public safe from deadly diseases and other threats.

This President's budget shows how much he values corporate profits and polluters over children's health and demonstrates an irrational ignorance of basic principles that have worked for and against the American economy throughout the years. The budget wastes money on a border wall and deportation force that will not make America any safer and will tear apart families and communities.

President Trump fails to uphold the promise he made as a candidate to protect American workers and seniors, and he breaks new ground in the level of uncertainty he is willing to inject into our economy, our local communities, and relationships with our historical allies and economic partners. More than any other Presidential budget in recent memory, this budget must be considered dead on arrival.

President Trump's full budget for fiscal year 2018 is an exercise in extremism. President Trump wants to ax $610 billion from Medicaid--the program that lifts up America's veterans and the most vulnerable men, women, and children, capping the funding in order to finance tax cuts for big businesses and the wealthiest among us. The budget further slashes the social safety net by cutting the food stamp program and eliminating critical social services programs. It directly hurts children by cutting $6 billion from the Children's Health Insurance Program. The President wants to choke off funding for essential scientific research at the National Institutes of Health and infectious disease detection and response at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, while also slashing funding for key global health initiatives that ensure economic stability.

Further demonstrating his misunderstanding of the ripple effect Federal investments can have, the President inexplicably wants to end the economic development assistance programs to rural and economically distressed communities. I was particularly disappointed that he would eliminate the Appalachia Regional Commission, which is very important to the people in the western part of my State as an economic tool that can bring badly needed jobs to Appalachia country.

He wants to put the American dream out of reach for would-be homeowners and seekers of safe and affordable housing with the elimination of HUD's rental assistance and homeowner partnership programs. The President calls for shifting more than $143 billion in additional student loan payments to hard-working students and their families. And he recommends ending a vital program that helps first responders, law enforcement, teachers, nurses, librarians, public safety, and military have a chance to reduce the burden of their student loans so that they can continue to serve their communities. The President also continues the ill-conceived Republican assault on Federal workers and retirees with his proposal for wholesale slashing the programs and staff, such as the economic and environmentally important EPA and Chesapeake Bay Program, making it nearly impossible for many departments to carry out their basic mission.

I want to talk a few minutes about the foreign assistance budget. I have the privilege of being the ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. In terms of our Nation's foreign policy, if the budget is a reflection of values, then what the Trump administration values is an American retreat from the world that would make the United States less safe and secure. The numbers speak for themselves in the narrow-minded budget release we have received.

What is most perplexing about the administration's combined 31.7 percent gutting of international affairs spending--as Secretary Defense Mattis has said: If you don't fund the State Department Diplomacy Center, you had

better give the Defense Department more bullets and soldiers. This is counterproductive to making the world a safer place for America.

America is safer when the United States helps feed millions of starving people in Africa and the Middle East, helps Europe defend its democratic institutions from Russia interference, helps support countries and international organizations caring for vulnerable refugee populations, helps train farmers and other technical workers, helps lead the world in fighting climate change and promoting global health, and helps fund programs to protect human rights and promote democracy. In each of these areas, the administration has taken a penny-wise and pound-foolish approach that will cost lives abroad and endanger Americans here at home.

Each of the programs I mentioned are either eliminated or there are significant cuts, making it impossible for our dedicated Foreign Service officers to carry out the critically important missions they undertake.

As I look at the massive spending cuts put forward by the White House for vital national security, it is impossible to conclude that this is anything but an ``America alone'' budget--one that, if enacted, will have disastrous effects on our standing in the world.

Luckily, the majority of Members of Congress know this budget is dead on arrival. I look forward to working with like-minded Republican colleagues to make sure nothing remotely close to this budget is enacted.

Fortunately, our Founders developed a system of checks and balances with the Constitution providing that Congress appropriates public funds. It is our responsibility to pass the appropriations bill. I intend to do everything within my power to work with Republicans, using the model of the fiscal year 2017 Omnibus appropriations, to prevent enactment of this outlandish executive branch attempt to cripple our economy and do lasting damage to our Nation's global leadership. Congress has a responsibility to ensure that we have a more realistic budget that helps the American public, contributes to genuine economic growth, and furthers America's true values.

I want to cite some examples in some areas as to how detrimental this budget is. First of all, there are economic assumptions made by the President's budget that are just not realistic. He assumes there is going to be a 3-percent economic growth rate, which economists tell us is simply not realistic. What does that mean? That means there is about $2 trillion that is being used by economic assumptions which have no justification, meaning that we are going to see significant budget deficits increase if this budget were to become law. The budget double counts some of these gains in order to offset tax reductions. He is putting our economy at risk.

In healthcare, the President's budget continues the administration's misguided and ill-conceived efforts to jeopardize the health and well- being of our constituents under the Affordable Care Act. Make no mistake about it, President Trump is trying to make sure that the healthcare system in this country does not work. He is deliberately putting at risk the cautionary provisions that are in the Affordable Care Act, which ensure that many of our constituents have affordable health rates without outrageous deductibles or copays. The Trump administration is jeopardizing that.

The Trump administration is jeopardizing the Medicaid system--$610 billion cut in the Medicaid system, which is critically important for some of our most vulnerable people. There are 280,000 Marylanders who gained essential health coverage through the Medicaid expansion who will be left without access to care. There are an estimated 1.25 million Maryland Medicaid enrollees who will no longer be able to depend on benefits like mental health and substance abuse, pediatric dental services, or maternity coverage.

Our President is recommending a $6 billion cut in the Children's Health Insurance Program, the CHIP program. That is absolutely outrageous. There is a bipartisan effort in Congress to make sure the children of America have the health they need.

Then there is a $7 billion--22-percent--cut in the National Institutes of Health. Democrats and Republicans have come together, recognizing that America has provided the true leadership and basic research to deal with the mysteries of illness, and the President wants to reverse that trend. That will not only cost us in terms of our health advancements, but it will also hurt our economy.

The President cuts the funds to the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities. I thought we had made a commitment that we are going to narrow the gap of discrimination in our healthcare system. The President's budget moves in the opposite direction.

In Social Services and Social Security, the President, on his campaign trail, promised not to cut the Social Security system. He broke that promise with this budget. These cuts are a ``Robin Hood in reverse'' budget. His cuts in the Supplemental Security Income Program and Social Security Disability Insurance Program will be devastating for low- and modest-income individuals, as well as persons with disabilities and those over 65 years of age.

So we have seen cuts to programs the President claimed he would not cut when he was a candidate. The budget cuts nearly $200 billion from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, SNAP, or food stamps, which helps low-income Americans with food purchases. He also cuts the TANF Program, which helps people who are in need of assistance. The budget eliminates the LIHEAP, Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, the Weatherization Assistance Program, and State Energy Program. I guess Donald Trump wants low-income Americans to freeze in the dark. This is shameful and reprehensible.

Yes, there is money for some advancements--the advancement of the so- called border wall with Mexico. I visited Mexico just a few months ago. I visited the U.S.-Mexico border. I couldn't find one border security guard, security personnel, who felt that building a wall made any sense. It will not keep out the illegal flow of people or drugs, and it will compromise our ability to work with our neighbors in the south to control immigration and to control drugs. The President's Executive order on immigration and the President's fiscal year 2018 budget ramp up deportation forces inside the United States, which will do more to harm our national security and public safety than to help. We shouldn't be moving in that direction.

Legal Services is one of the areas I worked on for a long time with my Republican colleagues to make sure we fund the Legal Services Corporation. The Trump budget completely eliminates that funding. The late Justice Antonin Scalia said at Legal Services Corporation's 40th Anniversary Conference in 2014: ``LSC pursues the most fundamental of American ideals, and it pursues equal justice in those areas of life most important to the lives of our citizens.''

We believe in equal justice under the law. If a person cannot get legal help, they cannot get equal justice under the law. And the President says there is no Federal role for this. I hope that we will soundly reject that.

The President's budget eliminates the Community Development Block Grant Program. That is very troubling. Here is one of the more flexible programs we offer the local government in order to be able to make their own decisions, and the President's budget eliminates that program.

The President's budget eliminates many of our programs under agriculture, which will hurt our rural areas and hurt our farming community. The budget proposes to eliminate new enrollment in the Conservation Stewardship Program and funding for the Regional Conservation Partnership Program. I am very familiar with the Regional Conservation Partnership Program. It was put in the last farm reauthorization bill. It was done as an effort to help deal with conservation in critically important areas, including the Chesapeake Bay watershed. It is a very important program to preserving our bay and preserving farm land so that we can have both a healthy bay and healthy agriculture. The President eliminates those programs. I could go on and on about agriculture--the many programs that are either severely restricted or eliminated under the President's budget.

In education, the fiscal year 2018 budget released by President Trump

may be entitled ``A New Foundation for American Greatness,'' but President Trump and Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos have severely undercut our students, educators, and public schools. The budget proposes to eliminate the Preschool Development Grant Program, a program that has successfully placed more than 2,700 additional 4-year- olds in high-quality preschool programs across my State. The vulnerable children in this program get a boost that helps them to lower the achievement gap among students of color, low-income children, and children with disabilities across my State. We should be expanding these programs, not reducing them. And 85 Members of this body voted in favor of the Every Student Succeeds Act and the Student Support and Academic Enrichment Grant Program. That progress is jeopardized by the President's budget.

Yes, he finds money for a new program to help school choice programs, which will undermine the progress we have made in public education. Mr. President, 95 percent of our students get their education through the public schools, and that is jeopardized by the $1.25 billion the President has included in his budget for school choice programs.

Maryland families understand the value of higher education. For too many, the cost of higher education means that it is difficult, if not impossible, for their children to have the higher education they need. Yet the President's budget takes away some of the tools we have in order to afford higher education. That is just not right. We should be making higher education more affordable, not less affordable.

In the environment, the President's proposed budget would eliminate the Chesapeake Bay Program. The Chesapeake Bay Program and related efforts are delivering encouraging results throughout the watershed and have built a tremendous movement forward. Yet President Trump has still targeted them for elimination. The local governments are doing their job in stewardship of the bay. The States are doing their job. Our stakeholders are doing their job. We depend upon the Federal Government to monitor and make sure that the programs are there--that all stakeholders are doing their fair share. The elimination of the Chesapeake Bay Program would jeopardize all of that progress. We cannot let that happen.

The President's budget would cut the EPA budget by 31.4 percent, the most severe cut of any major Federal agency. The investment in our Nation's water and waste water infrastructure has been flatlined through this budget proposal.

What in the world makes President Trump think that our Nation's drinking water infrastructure shall be kept at status quo? Don't we all remember what happened in Flint, MI? We have discovered similar things in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. In Baltimore, our public school system cannot connect their water fountains to the water supply because of lead contamination. We need to have a greater commitment to make sure that the water supply to America is safe.

Under the budget, the Office of Compliance would be cut by one-third of its budget. That is EPA not being able to enforce the law. Aren't we a country of the rule of law? You would not think so under President Trump's budget.

The President's budget also does not contain a critical infrastructure plan. We heard that during the campaign. But nowhere in this budget is he providing for that increase. Instead, it proposes cuts in some of the highway trust programs.

Every day, civil servants perform countless tasks that help support and defend and protect America. Civil servants are saving lives, empowering small businesses, keeping America safe from harm, and otherwise ensuring a safe and prosperous future for our country, including our children and families. We know that our Federal employees often perform the type of work that no one else can do. It is a highly qualified Federal workforce. On May 5, Donald Trump issued a proclamation declaring May 7 through 13, 2017, as Public Service Recognition Week. He stated:

Throughout my first 100 days, I have seen the tremendous

work civil servants do to fulfill our duty to the American

people. At all levels of government, our public servants put

our country and our people first.

He has a bizarre way of showing his appreciation. Earlier this week, he released a budget that punishes Federal workers by making them pay much more for their pensions, an additional $5,000 for an average Federal worker, while making these pensions much smaller.

The relentless assault on the Federal workforce must end. The civilian workforce was smaller last year than it was 40 years ago, according to data from the Office of Personnel Management. Federal workers increasingly have been asked to do more and more with less and less. They have already sacrificed financially, contributing $190 billion to deficit reduction just since 2011.

Workers hired in 2012 already are paying more for smaller pensions. Sequestration-related furloughs cost Federal workers $1 billion in lost pay, and there was a 3-year pay freeze from 2011 to 2013, and substandard rises since then. Salaries and wages have fallen 6.5 percent since 2010, adjusted for inflation.

Now comes the latest attack on the Federal worker's pension, on top of continued attacks on pay, healthcare and other benefits, collective bargaining, and due process rights. President Trump would eliminate the annual cost of living adjustments for people in the Federal Employees Retirement System, including current retirees, and reduce them by half a percentage point for people in the old Civil Service Retirement System, including current retirees.

According to certified financial planner Art Stein, the annuity would lose one-third of its value over 20 years if inflation averages between 2 and 3 percent annually, and nearly half of its value if inflation averages 4 percent. According to the National Active and Retired Federal Employees Association, the average FERS annuitant would lose $99,471 over 20 years, and the average CSRS annuitant would lose $60,576 over 20 years under the Trump budget.

That is outrageous. That is outrageous. We are talking about people who are already retired. They can't reenter the workforce. They have no choice. Yet we are telling them that they are not going to get what we promised. It is important to understand that 85 percent of the Federal workforce is located beyond the Washington metropolitan area. Federal workers are in big cities and small towns across America, striving to make things better for their neighbors.

Do we really want to engage in a race to the bottom with respect to our Federal workers? These are the people who make sure our parents' Social Security checks arrive on time. They make sure the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the food we eat are safe. They are trying to find a cure for our spouse's cancer and our sibling's type 1 diabetes.

They support our sons and daughters in harm's way, and they care for the wounded warriors at home. They patrol our borders and discover and disrupt terrorist threats aimed at our community. They are working to ensure that our grandchildren inherit a habitable climate. When we punish Federal workers--30 percent of whom are veterans, by the way--we are not just harming them and their families, but we are harming each and every American.

I intend to do everything within my power to work with Republicans, using the model of the fiscal year 2017 omnibus appropriations, to prevent the enactment of this dangerous executive branch attempt to cripple our economy and do lasting damage to our Nation's global leadership. Congress has the responsibility to ensure that we have a more realistic budget that helps the American public, contributes to genuine economic growth, and furthers America's true values.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, shortly we will be voting on cloture on the nomination of John Sullivan, the nominee to be Deputy Secretary of State, and as the ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I urge my colleagues to support the cloture motion and support the nomination of John Sullivan to be the next Deputy Secretary of State.

Mr. President, I join the Senator from Iowa in supporting Governor Branstad as our next Ambassador to China. I have the opportunity of being the ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. I knew of Governor Branstad's reputation as the Governor of Iowa--that he was well thought of and that his leadership was recognized not only by the people of his State but in our Nation.

So I was, before the nomination was made, impressed by his dedication to public service. I then had a chance to meet with him in my office. I must tell you that I was extremely impressed about how he was prepared to move on to be the Ambassador to China and how he spoke in favor of our strong ideals.

We then had a confirmation hearing in our committee, and that very much confirmed his knowledge of the challenges that he has, his dedication to public service, and that he would be a strong advocate for American values. So I support his nomination and I urge my colleagues to confirm Governor Branstad. As Senator Ernst pointed out, our mission in China is a particularly important international responsibility.

We know that China plays a significant role--maybe even a dominating role--in regard to North Korea and in trying to get North Korea to give up its nuclear arsenal. We also know that China has a very checkered record on protecting the human rights of its own citizens. We have major trade issues between the United States and China, in which our Ambassador needs to be engaged to protect American commercial interests.

We have the continuing saga between Taiwan and China and living up to our commitments to protect the integrity of Taiwan. Then, we have a very dangerous situation in the South China

Sea, where China has done many provocative activities that will require the diplomacy of our Ambassador in Beijing in order to encourage the use of the rule of law in direct negotiations between the parties and not claiming territory by provocative actions.

So, for all of those issues, we need an experienced Ambassador in China to represent our interests. What really impressed me about Governor Branstad is that I do believe he has a passion for American values.

I particularly appreciated his willingness--and would even say he was anxious--to represent American and global interests for China's improving their human rights record and dealing with the right of religious minorities, dealing with the right of dissent, and dealing with the right of free expression and the press. He very much spoke about the need for the rule of law. So while we welcome the emergence of a prosperous China, we want one that follows international institutional laws and norms. That is going to be the challenge for our next Ambassador.

Let me comment on what I believe the Trump administration is doing that is going to make our next Ambassador's responsibilities even more challenging than perhaps they should be; that is, that we have seen already that in the discussions between President Xi and President Trump with respect to North Korea, it seems like the Trump administration is prepared to give up some of our American values in order to make progress with regard to North Korea, such as our interests in our American workers, our interests in the South China Sea, in maritime security, our relationship with Taiwan, and human rights, et cetera.

That would be a bad deal. Yes, we want North Korea to be under control and to give up its nuclear weapons. Yes, we want China to exercise a much stronger role in convincing North Korea that it is in their interests to give up their nuclear weapon program. We want to do that. There are ways we can. It is in China's interests that North Korea give up its nuclear weapon ambition. They want a nonnuclear Korean Peninsula. We should not trade our values in order for that to be able to occur.

The second matter, which I have talked about on the floor before, that is going to make it more difficult for our next Ambassador is the President's continued unwillingness to comply with the emoluments clause of the Constitution.

As I have said on the floor before, every President before President Trump either divested of their conflicted ownership of assets or they set up a blind trust, but Mr. Trump did not. Shortly after his election, the Trump organization received trademarks through the Chinese Government that they had been unsuccessful in obtaining for years, in which they have spent literally hundreds of thousands of dollars if not more in legal fees.

All of a sudden, 1 week after the President is elected, the Chinese Government grants these trademarks. It is hard to believe that the fact that they were dealing with the President of the United States did not weigh into decisions made by the Chinese Government.

But it does not end there. We also know that a member of his family was in China to sell the EB-5 visas. That, again, presented a direct conflict. We actually know that his daughter received three new trademarks in an incredibly speedy turnaround--the same night that the daughter had dinner with President Xi.

These things don't look good. The emoluments clause is where a foreign government tries to influence our President through doing favors. It is going to be very difficult for the American people--in fact, very difficult for the international community--to believe that it was not, in part, due to the position that Mr. Trump holds that these actions took place.

That violates our Constitution. That is wrong.

The bottom line is that our next Ambassador is going to have to deal with those issues. We have a hard enough assignment in dealing with North Korea, trade, the South China Sea, Taiwan, and human rights to throw in these additional hurdles. So I urge my colleagues to support Mr. Branstad's nomination. I believe that he is well-qualified to represent this country. I hope the Trump administration will give him a stronger hand to play.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, just last Wednesday, I spoke on the Senate floor about the extremely suspicious timing of the firing of FBI Director James Comey by President Trump.

In the past few days, President Trump's actions, statements, and changing of his story on the Comey firing has only strengthened the case for the appointment of a special counsel to investigate ties and collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian Government in the 2016 Presidential election. Congress should also establish an independent commission to get to the bottom of the Russian interference in our election. In addition, there needs to be an independent investigation into whether Mr. Trump abused power and played a role in obstruction of justice in terms of the ongoing criminal investigation at the Department of Justice.

Let me start by going back to the beginning of the Trump administration. According to news reports, on January 27, Mr. Trump invited Mr. Comey to a private dinner with him at the White House. Mr. Trump then asked Mr. Comey for his ``loyalty,'' but Mr. Comey only promised to provide his ``honesty'' or his ``honest loyalty.'' Why did the President allegedly ask Director Comey for his loyalty?

On March 4, President Trump tweeted without evidence that ``how low has President Obama gone to tap my phones during the very sacred election process. This is Nixon/Watergate. Bad (or sick) guy!'' On March 20, Mr. Comey testified he has ``no information'' to support Mr. Trump's claim. Why did the President try to distract the public's attention by blaming President Obama for the Russia investigation?

On April 12, in an interview, Mr. Trump said Mr. Comey ``saved Hillary Clinton'' during the campaign and said that ``it's not too late'' to remove Mr. Comey. Mr. Trump continued: ``But, you know, I have confidence in him. We'll see what happens, you know, it's going to be interesting.''

What changed between Mr. Trump having confidence in Mr. Comey in April and firing him in May?

On May 3, Mr. Comey testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee and said ``it makes me mildly nauseous to think that we might have had some impact on the election.''

On May 8, former Acting Attorney General Sally Yates and former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper both testified before the Judiciary Committee.

Ms. Yates testified about the warnings she gave to White House Counsel Don McGahn about how National Security Adviser Michael Flynn was compromised by the Russians and was lying to White House staff and the Vice President about his conversations and interactions with the Russians.

On May 9, we witnessed a series of three letters, all dated that day. The first letter was from Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein to Attorney General Jeff Sessions. The Rosenstein letter concludes that the FBI's reputation and credibility had suffered ``substantial damage'' due to Mr. Comey's actions during the Clinton email investigation. Notably, Rosenstein's memo does not explicitly recommend Mr. Comey's removal. That same day, Attorney General Sessions, who has recused himself from the Russia-Trump campaign investigation, sent the Rosenstein letter to the White House, along with his own letter, concluding that ``a fresh start is needed at the leadership of the FBI.'' Again, on the same day that Mr. Trump fired Director Comey, the Trump letter includes a curious aside: ``I greatly appreciate you informing me, on three separate occasions, that I am not under investigation.'' Did Director Comey really give those assurances to President Trump when the criminal and counterintelligence investigations into the

Trump campaign and Russia connections are still active and ongoing?

At the same time, we heard from White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer and we heard from the Vice President of the United States that the reason for the firing of Mr. Comey was the recommendation of the Department of Justice. That is what they said it was, only to find the next day President Trump saying:

In fact, when I decided to just do it, I said to myself, I

said ``You know, this Russian thing with Trump and Russia is

a made-up story, it's an excuse by the Democrats for having

lost an election that they should have won.''

Then he talked about Mr. Comey and said he had decided to fire him. So it was not the memos; it was what Mr. Trump had decided. So there is a lot of misinformation being sent out, which raises a lot of questions.

Over the weekend, former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper stated:

I think in many ways our institutions are under assault

both externally--and that's the big news here is the Russian

interference in our election system--and I think as well our

institutions are under assault internally.

So we have the former Director of National Intelligence, Mr. Clapper, saying we have some problems internally.

The only way we are going to get to the bottom of this, the only way we are going to find out what this loyalty oath is all about or how Mr. Trump came to the conclusion to fire Mr. Comey or, more recently, where we hear Mr. Comey has memos of a meeting in which the President asked him to go easy on an investigation, which could rise to obstruction of justice--the only way we are going to get to the bottom of all this is by having an independent special counsel prosecutor appointed by the Department of Justice. That is what needs to be done. The facts need to go where they take us, but we also have to have an investigation that has the credibility that it will not be interfered with by the President of the United States. The only way to do that is by having special counsel appointed by the Department of Justice. It is the only way to restore the reputation of the Department of Justice.

I might say that we also need to understand exactly what Russia was doing here in the United States. There are so many examples of Russia being aggressive in our campaign. We know they wanted to discredit the American campaign. We know they took sides in favor of Mr. Trump over Mrs. Clinton. We know they hacked information. We know they used misinformation. We know they used cyber and social media in order to further their advancements. We also know they met with representatives of the Trump campaign. The American people have a right to understand exactly what those contacts were all about. That is why I filed the resolution, which is supported by many of my colleagues, to set up a 9/ 11 independent commission in order to get to the bottom of what is happening. That can be done simultaneously with the work being done by the Senate Intelligence Committee, which is important work for us to do, but we also need to have an independent commission in order to determine exactly what Russia was doing so we can take the necessary steps to prevent this from occurring in the future.

There are a lot of unanswered questions. People say: Well, how can you call for action if you don't know all the facts? I am calling for us to know all the facts. I am calling for us to understand exactly why on one day the White House sends out one story that the Department of Justice recommended the firing of Mr. Comey, and then on the next day the President said: No, I decided that before I met with the Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General.

We need to understand why there was a conversation in which Mr. Comey has notes that indicate Mr. Trump wanted him to go easy in an investigation. That is a pretty serious charge. We need to understand this information. That is why it is impossible for the Department of Justice to do an independent investigation. It will always be suspect as to whether that investigation of the President of the United States or the White House will have impact as to how that investigation is being done because there is already evidence that they tried to do that previously in this investigation.

The law is clear; the law is clear as to how special prosecutors and counsel are appointed where conflicts exist. The Department of Justice has this authority. We know that Attorney General Sessions has recused himself from the Russia investigation. Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein now has the authority to make that decision. He should clearly make that decision, not because it is the right thing to do-- which it is, which it is--and we have the obligation to make sure the American people get all the facts as to what happened here, but it is also the reputation of the Department of Justice that is at stake.

I urge my colleagues to continue. I know we will have a chance tomorrow in our meeting with Mr. Rosenstein, but I would urge us to listen to what the American people are saying and recognize that we are an independent branch of government, and one of our principal responsibilities is oversight--and oversight of the executive branch of government. I urge us to carry out that responsibility by collectively--it shouldn't be partisan--collectively telling the Department of Justice: Get all the facts, do it in an independent way, appoint an independent prosecutor, let the facts lead us where they are going to lead us, and let's not prejudge. But this is a serious, serious matter.

In order to protect ourselves from an aggressive enemy--and that is Russia, which is trying to bring down our democratic government, which has now been acknowledged not just by the intelligence community over and over again, but their ability to try to compromise our system is now much better understood--we need to have that independent commission devoted to giving us the recommendations to keep America safe.

I urge my colleagues to exercise that independent function and to set up an independent commission.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, April was Genocide Awareness and Prevention Month. It commemorated some of the most horrific genocides and atrocities of the 20th century: the siege of Sarajevo in April 1992, the Rwandan genocide in April 1992; the Cambodian genocide in April 1975; and, the Armenian genocide in April 1915. Last, Yom Hashoah or Holocaust Remembrance Day fell during the month of April this year.

We must remember the past. And we must also be mindful of the present and the future. As we know all too well, criminal atrocities persist around the globe. In South Sudan, the world's youngest nation, a political and ethnic conflict is now in its fourth year. Tens of thousands of civilians were killed in mass atrocities and thousands more have fled the country fearing for their lives. In Iraq, ISIS has committed genocide against Yezidis, Christians, and Shiite Muslims, a determination made by former U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry last year. ISIS has killed, expelled, raped, and enslaved Yezidi men, women, and children in northern Iraq, and has committed similar atrocities against other groups living in areas under its control.

In Burma, the Rohingya Muslim community faces such severe violence and dehumanization, including slaughtering and sequestration, that many experts believe their suffering amounts to genocide. Moreover, in Syria, repeatedly, we see a government committing atrocities against its own people. Children are being gassed. Hospitals are being bombed. Innocent people are being tortured to death.

Too often, we have done too little, waited too long, or been caught unprepared by events that should not have surprised us. We continue to forget the lessons of the past and fail to live up to the post- Holocaust pledge of ``Never Again.'' Ignoring the genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity that continue to rage around the world sends a message to the global community that criminal atrocities are tolerable. We must do better to see that atrocities never again occur on our watch.

On April 7, I introduced the Syrian War Crimes Accountability Act, which expands the tools the U.S. government is using to document atrocities in Syria and hold President Bashar al-Assad and other perpetrators accountable. Today, under the heavy cloud of atrocities occurring in South Sudan, Iraq, Burma, Syria, and elsewhere, I am introducing another atrocity-related bill, the Elie Wiesel Genocide and Atrocities Prevention Act of 2017. This bill--named in honor of the courageous, inspiring Holocaust survivor and Nobel Laureate Elie Wiesel--strengthens the U.S. government's infrastructure to prevent and respond to mass atrocities, wherever they may occur.

I am here today to stress that our job, our responsibility, is to make sure the United States has the full arsenal of tools--diplomatic, economic, and legal--to take meaningful action before atrocities occur. The costs--both human and economic--of addressing these atrocities too late or after-the-fact are skyrocketing. The United States must do a better job of responding earlier and more effectively to these crimes-- when warning signs begin to point towards possible atrocities occurring, and when strategic investments can have a greater impact in promoting stability and security. Essential to this effort is ensuring that the United States Government has structures in place and mechanisms at hand to better prevent and respond to potential atrocities.

Atrocity prevention has long been a bipartisan cause. In 1988, President Reagan signed implementing legislation allowing the United States to become a party to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. In the 2006 National Security Strategy, President George W. Bush highlighted the ``moral imperative that states take action to prevent and punish genocide.'' In 2008, the bipartisan Genocide Prevention Task Force, which was co-chaired by former Secretary of Defense William Cohen and former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, stated: ``Genocide and mass atrocities . . . threaten core U.S. national interests.'' In 2010, the Senate unanimously passed a resolution recognizing ``the United States national interest in helping to prevent and mitigate acts of genocide and other mass atrocities against civilians, and supporting and encouraging efforts to develop a whole of government approach to prevent and mitigate such acts.'' In 2011, President Obama declared: ``Preventing mass atrocities and genocide is a core national security interest and a core moral responsibility of the United States of America.'' The same year, former U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations Samantha Power stated that preventing genocide ``required a degree of governmental organization that matches the kind of methodical organization that accompanies mass-killings.''

We need to continue taking proactive steps to enhance our Nation's capacity to quickly anticipate and address genocide and other atrocity crimes. I am introducing the Elie Wiesel Genocide and Atrocities Prevention Act of 2017 to ensure that we do just that. I am joined in this effort by Senators Young, Tillis, Durbin, Rubio, Menendez, Murkowski, Blumenthal, Warren, Whitehouse, Gillibrand, Klobuchar, Shaheen, Franken, Peters, Coons, Stabenow, Booker, Markey, Brown, Baldwin, and Wyden. This bill does a number of things. First, the bill authorizes the creation of a Mass Atrocities Task Force, which is a transparent, accountable, proactive, high-level, interagency body that includes representatives at the assistant secretary level or higher from departments and agencies across the U.S. Government. The Task Force would work collaboratively with representatives of governmental as well as nongovernmental organizations to oversee the development and implementation of U.S. policy on atrocity prevention and response.

Second, this bill gives our Foreign Service Officers the training they need to recognize patterns of escalation and early warning signs of potential atrocities and conflict. With this training, we will, over time, build atrocity prevention into the core skillset of our people on the ground. They will be better equipped to see warning signs, analyze events, and engage early.

Third, this bill calls on the Director of National Intelligence to include in his or her annual testimony to Congress on threats to U.S. national security a review of countries and regions at risk of mass atrocities as well as, whenever possible, specific risk factors, potential groups of perpetrators, and at-risk target groups. With this information, Congress will be better informed and better able to respond to mass atrocities that are brewing.

Finally, this bill authorizes the Complex Crises Fund, which is a specifically dedicated portion of our foreign assistance budget for mitigating conflict. The Complex Crises Fund enables

us to rapidly respond to emerging crises overseas, including potential atrocities. We have already used the Complex Crises Fund to respond to crises in the Central African Republic, Cote d'Ivoire, Guinea, Kenya, Sri Lanka, and elsewhere. Without this important tool, our ability to effectively prevent and mitigate crises is severely constrained.

Mr. President, this is a good bill. It does good things, and places the United States on solid moral ground. However, the moral argument is not the only reason to support this bill. We must also remember that America's security, and that of our allies, is impacted when civilians are slaughtered. Our security is impacted when desperate refugees stream across borders. Our security is affected when perpetrators of extraordinary violence wreak havoc on regional stability, destroying communities, families, and livelihoods. We have seen groups like ISIS systematically targeting communities because of their ethnicity or religious beliefs and practices, and yet, we still lack a comprehensive framework to prevent and respond to genocide and other atrocity crimes. So, let this bill act as our framework, and our call to action, so that when we use the phrase ``never again,'' we know that we are taking meaningful preventative action.

Mr. President, April was Genocide Awareness and Prevention Month. It commemorated some of the most horrific genocides and atrocities of the 20th century: the siege of Sarajevo in April 1992, the Rwandan genocide in April 1992; the Cambodian genocide in April 1975; and, the Armenian genocide in April 1915. Last, Yom Hashoah or Holocaust Remembrance Day fell during the month of April this year.

We must remember the past. And we must also be mindful of the present and the future. As we know all too well, criminal atrocities persist around the globe. In South Sudan, the world's youngest nation, a political and ethnic conflict is now in its fourth year. Tens of thousands of civilians were killed in mass atrocities and thousands more have fled the country fearing for their lives. In Iraq, ISIS has committed genocide against Yezidis, Christians, and Shiite Muslims, a determination made by former U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry last year. ISIS has killed, expelled, raped, and enslaved Yezidi men, women, and children in northern Iraq, and has committed similar atrocities against other groups living in areas under its control.

In Burma, the Rohingya Muslim community faces such severe violence and dehumanization, including slaughtering and sequestration, that many experts believe their suffering amounts to genocide. Moreover, in Syria, repeatedly, we see a government committing atrocities against its own people. Children are being gassed. Hospitals are being bombed. Innocent people are being tortured to death.

Too often, we have done too little, waited too long, or been caught unprepared by events that should not have surprised us. We continue to forget the lessons of the past and fail to live up to the post- Holocaust pledge of ``Never Again.'' Ignoring the genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity that continue to rage around the world sends a message to the global community that criminal atrocities are tolerable. We must do better to see that atrocities never again occur on our watch.

On April 7, I introduced the Syrian War Crimes Accountability Act, which expands the tools the U.S. government is using to document atrocities in Syria and hold President Bashar al-Assad and other perpetrators accountable. Today, under the heavy cloud of atrocities occurring in South Sudan, Iraq, Burma, Syria, and elsewhere, I am introducing another atrocity-related bill, the Elie Wiesel Genocide and Atrocities Prevention Act of 2017. This bill--named in honor of the courageous, inspiring Holocaust survivor and Nobel Laureate Elie Wiesel--strengthens the U.S. government's infrastructure to prevent and respond to mass atrocities, wherever they may occur.

I am here today to stress that our job, our responsibility, is to make sure the United States has the full arsenal of tools--diplomatic, economic, and legal--to take meaningful action before atrocities occur. The costs--both human and economic--of addressing these atrocities too late or after-the-fact are skyrocketing. The United States must do a better job of responding earlier and more effectively to these crimes-- when warning signs begin to point towards possible atrocities occurring, and when strategic investments can have a greater impact in promoting stability and security. Essential to this effort is ensuring that the United States Government has structures in place and mechanisms at hand to better prevent and respond to potential atrocities.

Atrocity prevention has long been a bipartisan cause. In 1988, President Reagan signed implementing legislation allowing the United States to become a party to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. In the 2006 National Security Strategy, President George W. Bush highlighted the ``moral imperative that states take action to prevent and punish genocide.'' In 2008, the bipartisan Genocide Prevention Task Force, which was co-chaired by former Secretary of Defense William Cohen and former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, stated: ``Genocide and mass atrocities . . . threaten core U.S. national interests.'' In 2010, the Senate unanimously passed a resolution recognizing ``the United States national interest in helping to prevent and mitigate acts of genocide and other mass atrocities against civilians, and supporting and encouraging efforts to develop a whole of government approach to prevent and mitigate such acts.'' In 2011, President Obama declared: ``Preventing mass atrocities and genocide is a core national security interest and a core moral responsibility of the United States of America.'' The same year, former U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations Samantha Power stated that preventing genocide ``required a degree of governmental organization that matches the kind of methodical organization that accompanies mass-killings.''

We need to continue taking proactive steps to enhance our Nation's capacity to quickly anticipate and address genocide and other atrocity crimes. I am introducing the Elie Wiesel Genocide and Atrocities Prevention Act of 2017 to ensure that we do just that. I am joined in this effort by Senators Young, Tillis, Durbin, Rubio, Menendez, Murkowski, Blumenthal, Warren, Whitehouse, Gillibrand, Klobuchar, Shaheen, Franken, Peters, Coons, Stabenow, Booker, Markey, Brown, Baldwin, and Wyden. This bill does a number of things. First, the bill authorizes the creation of a Mass Atrocities Task Force, which is a transparent, accountable, proactive, high-level, interagency body that includes representatives at the assistant secretary level or higher from departments and agencies across the U.S. Government. The Task Force would work collaboratively with representatives of governmental as well as nongovernmental organizations to oversee the development and implementation of U.S. policy on atrocity prevention and response.

Second, this bill gives our Foreign Service Officers the training they need to recognize patterns of escalation and early warning signs of potential atrocities and conflict. With this training, we will, over time, build atrocity prevention into the core skillset of our people on the ground. They will be better equipped to see warning signs, analyze events, and engage early.

Third, this bill calls on the Director of National Intelligence to include in his or her annual testimony to Congress on threats to U.S. national security a review of countries and regions at risk of mass atrocities as well as, whenever possible, specific risk factors, potential groups of perpetrators, and at-risk target groups. With this information, Congress will be better informed and better able to respond to mass atrocities that are brewing.

Finally, this bill authorizes the Complex Crises Fund, which is a specifically dedicated portion of our foreign assistance budget for mitigating conflict. The Complex Crises Fund enables

us to rapidly respond to emerging crises overseas, including potential atrocities. We have already used the Complex Crises Fund to respond to crises in the Central African Republic, Cote d'Ivoire, Guinea, Kenya, Sri Lanka, and elsewhere. Without this important tool, our ability to effectively prevent and mitigate crises is severely constrained.

Mr. President, this is a good bill. It does good things, and places the United States on solid moral ground. However, the moral argument is not the only reason to support this bill. We must also remember that America's security, and that of our allies, is impacted when civilians are slaughtered. Our security is impacted when desperate refugees stream across borders. Our security is affected when perpetrators of extraordinary violence wreak havoc on regional stability, destroying communities, families, and livelihoods. We have seen groups like ISIS systematically targeting communities because of their ethnicity or religious beliefs and practices, and yet, we still lack a comprehensive framework to prevent and respond to genocide and other atrocity crimes. So, let this bill act as our framework, and our call to action, so that when we use the phrase ``never again,'' we know that we are taking meaningful preventative action.

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

Mr. President, I was, to say the least, shocked last night when I heard that President Trump had dismissed FBI Director Comey from his position as the Director of the FBI. To me, this decision by President Trump crossed the line. I have tried to understand what was going through the President's mind at the time he dismissed Mr. Comey. It is clear that he had memorandums written by the Department of Justice that were released at the time, but there is also a clear indication that President Trump had been considering this decision for over a week and that after he had reached the decision to fire Mr. Comey, he needed grounds from the Department of Justice and that that information was supplied to Mr. Trump for his decisionmaking. This was Mr. Trump's decision.

At the time he dismissed Mr. Comey, President Trump's associates had been involved in the investigation being done by the Department of Justice. This is a criminal investigation that is being done by the Department of Justice because of Russia's interference that involved Mr. Trump's associates in the U.S. election system. We do not know where that investigation is going--we do not--but we do know now that the President of the United States has compromised the ability of that investigation by firing Mr. Comey. That should not happen in American politics. No one is above the law.

The timing of Mr. Comey's firing is extremely suspicious. If the President were really concerned about the FBI Director's conduct in the Hillary Clinton email investigation, why didn't the President fire Director Comey when he took the oath of office in January? It just does not add up. No one is above the law.

According to news reports, President Trump was also upset over the amount of media coverage that the FBI Director and the investigations were attracting, and the White House asked DOJ officials to come up with reasons.

It is clear to me that the decision to fire Mr. Comey was a personal decision that was reached by President Trump and that it was known by him at the time that it would compromise the investigation that is being done by the Department of Justice.

I have been approached by others in their saying that Mr. Comey was not popular with Democrats or Republicans and that he had done things during his term as Director that had upset a lot of us, which is true, but the Director of the FBI has a 10-year term for a reason--a term that is longer than the two terms of the President of the United States. This is not a partisan position. The FBI is not required to be popular with either Democrats or Republicans. What he is required to do is to uphold the law of the land for all Americans, and no one is above the law. That is what we expect from the Director of the FBI.

President Trump has compromised the integrity and independence of the FBI. At this point, what can we do? I would suggest, with regard to the criminal investigation that is being done by the Department of Justice, that there is only one course of action that will maintain the credibility of that investigation, which is that it is incumbent upon the Department of Justice to name, as soon as possible, a special prosecutor to take over that role.

If that is not done, in my view, it will be difficult to have the confidence of the American people that that investigation is not being directed by those who were supposed to be the subject of that investigation.

I think it would also compromise the nomination process of the next Director of the FBI. If we do not have a special counsel named, then there will be so much focus on how that next Director will handle this investigation that we really will not have attention paid to the other responsibilities and talents of that individual to be able to handle the FBI's broad jurisdiction.

If that is not resolved--the investigation and the appointment of a special prosecutor--it is difficult to see how we are going to have a truly bipartisan process for maintaining support for the FBI.

I urge the Deputy Attorney General to name, as soon as possible, a respected person as an independent prosecutor to take over this investigation.

There are deeper concerns than just the President of the United States' hampering a criminal investigation in which associates of his are involved because it also involves a country that is not a friend to the United States. All of this was triggered by Russia's involvement in our democratic election system. We know that Russia was directly engaged in trying to compromise our election system by calling into question the confidence of our system and trying to tilt the scales in favor of one of our candidates. Russia made contact with Americans in order to further its game at bringing down our democratic system of government.

This is not unique to the United States. Russia has used similar tactics in other elections of democratic countries. In the Montenegro election, we saw that Montenegrins were voting on their government's accession into NATO and that Russia exported individuals into that country to try to disrupt that election. They were not successful, but they tried. Just recently, in the French election, we saw how Russia got directly involved in trying to help one of the candidates who it believed would help pull France away from the EU and create a vacuum for Russia's influence, but the French voters turned that down. It was not successful, but that does not mean Russia will not continue to try to bring down democratic systems of government.

Mr. Trump's casual and consistent dismissal of the facts, as laid out by the entire Intelligence Committee, about Russia's engagement in the United States should set off alarm bells. It cannot be business as usual. Yet, today, President Trump and Secretary Tillerson met with Foreign Minister Lavrov. Today of all days, they decided to meet like nothing has happened, but a lot has happened. Did we see any indication that the purpose of that meeting was to raise our strong objections to Russia's interference in our election system or Russia's compromising Americans to try to help in regard to its campaign against our free election system or Russia's engagement and encroachment into other countries? Did we really hear a commitment by the President of the United States that we would not tolerate that type of behavior by Russia? No. Business as usual. The President wants to establish a friendlier relationship with Russia.

Russia has not just tried to bring down free elections systems; they have invaded other countries. We know about the active campaign in Ukraine, the annexation of Crimea, the Russian presence in Moldova and Georgia. I met with the Prime Minister of Georgia with Senator Wicker earlier today, and he can tell you firsthand about how their country is trying to deal with the Russian presence in their sovereign country.

We all know about Russia's engagement in other parts of the world. Their engagement in Syria is bringing about serious challenges to trying to resolve the crisis in that country. The Russian Government supporting the Assad regime, war crime activities targeting humanitarian convoys, targeting hospitals, the use of chemical weapons--all of that is facilitated by Russia. That is well known, but it might be not as well known that Russia is ambitious in going into many more parts of the world. Russia is now engaged in Afghanistan. We have had one of our longest wars ever in Afghanistan and our commitment to the people of Afghanistan to have a democratic government. So Russia is now engaged with the Taliban, trying to upset our ability to bring all of the parties together in unity in the government.

That, to me, is totally counter to history. We know about Russia's presence in Afghanistan. Does anyone believe Russia is really sincere in maintaining peace in that country?

Then we see Russia's fingerprints in Yemen, trying to get a naval base on the Yemeni coast, showing no concern for the humanitarian crisis that has been created in that country. We see Russia's presence in Libya, supporting General Haftar, who has committed his own human rights violations and war crimes and has disrupted the Government of National Accord, which is our best chance for peace in Libya.

We see Russia's presence in Nicaragua, sending troops and equipment to that country and now building a major compound that many believe is being built to spy on the U.S. compound. That is Russia.

So to President Trump: It is not business as usual with Russia. There is a reason we need an independent commission to investigate what Russia was doing in the United States because Russia is trying to create space where they can expand their influence, and expanding their influence is for values that are just the opposite of ours--a corrupt government, no respect for human rights, no respect for democratic institutions, and opposition to a free press. That is what Russia is trying to expand. We know that in their involvement in the United States, they are trying to find a way to expand that opportunity.

So it is for all of those reasons it cannot be business as usual, and when the President of the United States interferes with a criminal investigation that was precipitated by Russia's engagement in the United States, every American should be alarmed. Every American should be asking what we can do to make sure we have an independent review so we can take steps to protect our national security.

It is not acceptable for the Senate to say business as usual. We need to come together and facilitate the independent review of potential criminal involvement of Americans in facilitating the Russians and what they were doing, and we need to have an independent review of all of what Russia was doing in this country so we can take the necessary steps to protect our national security.

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