Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, as I indicated earlier, this afternoon I had an opportunity to meet with King Abdallah of Jordan. During that conversation with Members of the Senate, there was a good deal of discussion about foreign policy challenges that are very much a part of this debate on Mr. Tillerson.

It was interesting to listen to King Abdallah of Jordan talk about his country's commitment to refugees. They have taken in refugees from many parts of that region--from Iraq, Yemen, and other countries. They have taken in over 600,000 refugees from Syria. I think King Abdallah used a number. If you wanted to use a comparable number of refugees coming into America, it would be equivalent to about 60 million refugees coming into our country. Let me remind you that in Syria, President Obama committed to 10,000. It is literally a drop in the bucket compared to what Jordan has done in accepting refugees. It just underscores even more how wrong President Trump's Executive order over the weekend was, which put a hold on our refugee program and restricted travel to the United States.

The vetting that goes forward in Jordan in regard to refugees is under the auspices of the United Nations, and of those who are seeking refugee status, a very small percentage--I understand it is less than one percent--will actually ever get a chance to be considered for refugee status here in the United States. Let me remind you that we are talking about, generally, women and children who are fleeing persecution, who have established themselves as refugees. They go through several screening procedures. Their background is thoroughly checked. They check all of the different indices as far as different agencies are concerned to make sure that they have no concern. Then a small percentage of that number actually ever gets to the United States. It takes 18 to 24 months. To date, there hasn't been a single episode of terrorism from a Syrian refugee. We have a pretty strong vetting process--the strongest in the world--that very much puts American security first.

It was disheartening for me to listen to King Abdallah talk about the sacrifices his country has made. Of the 650,000 refugees that Jordan has taken in from Syria, the King indicated that about 90 percent are integrated into the Jordanian society. They are not in camps. They are in their schools, in their communities. They have been able to make sure that the refugees are well cared for. It is a huge part of the budget. I think the King indicated that maybe 20 percent of the Jordanian budget deals with refugees. That is a country that understands their regional responsibilities and international responsibilities.

The United States has been the leader in the global community, recognizing that the flight of people--the refugees--represents not only a humanitarian requirement for the global community but also security issues. We have to have an orderly process for those who are fleeing persecution, and the United States has always been in the leadership. We have been in the leadership in opening our borders. We are proud of the refugees that came to this country after World War II, from Cambodia, Vietnam, and Cuba. There is a long list of those who have escaped persecution coming here to the United States and helping to build this great country. We recognize that diversity is our strength. This made us the great Nation that we are.

For all those reasons, it was very disheartening to hear President Trump's Executive order, where he really questions whether America is committed to its traditional values, whether we are going to maintain our international leadership, whether we are going to be

credible when we deal with other countries around the world to take on the responsibilities of dealing with the flight of people who are escaping persecution.

I mentioned all this because the Secretary of State is the key diplomat that we have for America and to use America's power of persuasion, of using diplomacy, of using the tools at our disposal under the Department of State, including development assistance for how we can, in fact, promote those values. We need someone who is going to be able to speak out about these policies that were announced over the weekend because they weaken America. They make us less safe. I brought this out: In reality what you are talking about is how do you engage other countries around the world to help us in our war against terror when we tell them that Muslims aren't really welcome here in America and it is a majority-Muslim country? How does that work? How do we protect Americans who are traveling abroad who may be subjected to physical danger because of the statements that have been made by our President? How do you protect this country from the concerns about homegrown terrorism, which might, in fact, be encouraged by the recruitment of terrorists as a result of what the President has done in his Executive order?

For all those reasons, it is even more important for us to have as the next Secretary of State a person who is committed to the core values of this country--that it is part of their gut, and that they will be a strong advocate for those issues. I have already indicated during the questioning in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that we did not see that moral clarity in regard to Mr. Tillerson and in regard to those values.

The second issue that came up in King Abdallah's meeting was very interesting. We had a long discussion about Russia and about Russia's influence. We know about Russia's influence in Ukraine. We had a little discussion about Russia's desires in regard to the Baltics and whether the Baltics could be the next Ukraine, as far as Russia's aggression. We know that Russia is already in Georgia. Russia is already in Moldova. Russia is in Ukraine. Do they have their sights now set for Lithuania or Latvia or Estonia or Poland, where there is a large Russian-speaking population?

Interesting observations were made that if Russia sees that we don't have resolve, they will use that opportunity to expand their influence. We saw that in the Middle East. We saw how in the Middle East Russia, which a few years ago had very little influence in the Middle East, now has a growing influence in the Middle East--not only in Syria but in other countries in that region where you see Russia's active engagement. So this is not theoretical.

Russia's interests are different than our interests. Make no mistake about that. They don't share our values. They are not our friends. They are trying to compromise our democratic institutions. We have seen that over and over--not only the attack on our election system here in the United States, not only the attack on the system in Montenegro in parliamentary elections, but the concern now in Western Europe, as they are entering into the election season. We see over and over what Russia has done in denying space for civil society, in compromising dissent in their own country, in the way that corruption has been established as part of government. All of that is just against the principles that we believe in, that we believe the global community has accepted, and that leads to the stability in nations and advances America's national security interests.

I must tell you that there are Democrats and Republicans all talking about the fact that we have to stand up to Russia. We have to be stronger on Russia. Yes, we have been able--thanks to the leadership of the Obama Administration--to take the sanctions that were passed by Congress. We passed the sanctions. The leadership and Members of the Senate and the House have brought about the stronger sanctions regime here in the United States. I congratulate my colleague, Senator Menendez, who was one of the principal leaders to get stronger sanctions here in regard to Russia, and other members of our committee who worked on that. We were able to get stronger sanctions. At the same time, we were able to get Europe to join us in these sanctions, and that helped us. But now there is a concern as to whether these sanctions will remain.

President Trump at least has raised that question as to the continuation of sanctions. The question becomes this: Should we be maintaining those sanctions until Russia complies with the Minsk agreement that are relevant to its invasion into Ukraine? But we should also be strengthening those sanctions because of Russia's illegal activities in attacking our country and in what they are doing in Syria in perpetrating war crimes. We should be looking at stronger sanctions against Russia.

I mention all of that because the person who can lead us in that effort is our next Secretary of State. We look at Mr. Tillerson and his record as the CEO of ExxonMobil, their relationships in Russia, and his answers to questions as to whether we should consider additional sanctions. Over and over he says: Well, there are multiple considerations. To me, that was a red flag that indicated that maybe there is some business interest here. Maybe, if there is a business interest, we shouldn't let that be more important than the human rights advancements and the other areas that we are concerned about.

In reality, we saw that in the way ExxonMobil lobbied against the original sanctions that were imposed against Russia. They lobbied against it because they said it didn't create a level playing field for U.S. companies. The reason it didn't create a level playing field is that the United States is always the leader on sanctions. We always set the international bar as to what we need to do, and then the rest of the world follows us. But if we take the lowest bar, we will never have a tough enough stance against Russia.

We need, as the next Secretary of State, a person who is going to be a leader in saying: We are going to use every one of our diplomatic tools to isolate Russia if they continue this activity of interfering with our elections, threatening to interfere with European elections, interfering with humanitarian assistance in Syria, or if they continue their illegal occupation of Crimea. We need that type of leadership. That is one of the reasons we have been so much engaged in this debate.

There are many other issues about which we talked with King Abdallah that dealt with foreign policy challenges, including moving forward with broader coalitions against ISIS in the region. All of that requires the use of all the power we have. We know that our military is very strong. We are very proud of our Department of Defense and very proud of the men and women who serve in the military. They are the guardians of our freedom. We thank them every day for the sacrifices they make on behalf of our Nation. We owe it to them to make sure our military is only used as a matter of last resort, that we use all of our diplomatic skills in order to prevent the unnecessary use of our military, that we only use the military when it is absolutely essential and it is a matter of last resort.

We must have as our chief diplomat a person who will carry out that strong commitment to our diplomatic skills and agenda in order to make sure that we only use the military when necessary.

We have heard this before. But it was General Mattis who said: If you don't fund the Department of State, if you don't give them the resources they need for development assistance, you are going to have to give me a lot more soldiers.

Our diplomats can very much keep us safe, and they can do it with less risk to our men and women who serve in the military and at less cost.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I yield 15 minutes under my control to the Senator from Massachusetts, Ms. Warren.

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

Madam President, shortly we are going to be taking up the cloture motion in regard to the confirmation process of Mr. Tillerson to be the Secretary of State for our country. I had the opportunity, as the ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, to meet with Mr. Tillerson. I had a chance to talk with him concerning his vision for America. I participated in a lengthy committee hearing, where not only I had a chance to ask him questions but every member of the committee had a chance to ask questions and then had the opportunity to present questions for the Record and look at his responses to questions for the Record.

I wish to say, at the outset of this debate before the U.S. Senate, Mr. Tillerson is a successful businessperson. I am certain he has great negotiating skills, as he has shown as the CEO of ExxonMobil, and I think that is an important ability to have if he were confirmed as Secretary of State.

I do think he wants to serve our Nation, and he has put forward his ability to serve as Secretary of State for the right reasons. However, I have serious reservations, as a result of this process, this confirmation process, that leads me to the conclusion that I cannot support his nomination, and I will be voting against his nomination. I wanted to at least start this debate by giving some of the reasons I will not be supporting Mr. Tillerson to be the Secretary of State.

Mr. Tillerson's business orientation and his lack of moral clarity to questions that were asked during the confirmation hearing, to me, compromises his ability to forcefully promote the values and ideals that defined America's leading role in the world for more than 200 years. When I am referring to the values, they are the values of good governance, the values of standing up for human rights, the values of speaking up for a free press, the values of recognizing the importance of civil societies, which is lacking in so many places around the world.

When Mr. Tillerson was asked the question as to how he would characterize what Russia is doing in Syria in supporting a regime that has attacked humanitarian convoys, whether that should be considered as war crimes, Mr. Tillerson was less than clear as to how he would characterize Russia's conduct in Syria.

When I asked Mr. Tillerson how he would characterize Philippine President Duterte's extrajudicial killings--this is a President who has authorized individuals to be killed on site without judicial process, which has been well-documented--whether that was a gross violation of human rights, Mr. Tillerson was less than clear as to whether that in fact would elevate to a serious human rights violation.

When I asked the question, whether under any circumstances we could have a national registry for any group of religious or ethnic minorities in America, his answer was not as clear as I would have hoped it to be. The answer should have been a simple ``no,'' but he did not give that answer in that moral clarity.

For all those reasons, I have serious concern as to whether he will speak with a strong voice on American values or whether that will be compromised for narrow business interests or for other considerations that should not take priority to the values that have made America the great Nation it is.

I was concerned about this before what has happened in recent days, but when I take a look at President Trump's first 10 days in office and I look at the Executive orders he has issued as President of the United States, it is even more critical that the next Secretary of State speak with moral clarity as to the values of America.

The gag order that was reimposed by President Trump wasn't the same gag order that other administrations have imposed. It is far broader and could prevent U.S. participation with health workers around the world to stop the spread of HIV-AIDS or to deal with the Zika virus or to deal with issues concerning global health issues, maternal health. I want someone, as Secretary of State, to say that America stands for providing the leadership we need on global health issues.

More recently, when President Trump announced his Mexican policy; that it would build a wall, he not only asked the taxpayers to pay for it once but to pay for it twice, to build the wall, which almost anyone will tell you will not work. We do have tunnels that we already know could go under walls. It will be expensive, but he is also asking Americans to pay for it twice because he is going to impose a tariff, at least that is under consideration, that middle-income families will end up paying--starting a trade war with Mexico. And why? Why would you start this? Mexico is working with us to stop illegal immigration. They are working with us to stop the illegal trafficking of drugs. They are working with us to build a regional, natural economy that benefits both countries. Why would we pick a fight with our neighbor? It makes no sense whatsoever.

The last thing that was done over this weekend points out even more clearly why we need a Secretary of State who will speak with moral clarity, and that was this outrageous, reckless, and dangerous Executive order that would ban certain individuals from coming to America. It would put a hold on our refugee program and would establish a religious test for people coming to America--a Muslim ban. That is not what America stands for.

I believe that Executive order is illegal. I know that Executive order will put Americans at risk. I would like to know from our Secretary of State how he, if he is confirmed, would respond when other countries ask: Why should we help you when you will not allow people from Muslim countries the right to visit your country? Why should we give you that information? How will Americans, who are traveling abroad, be treated? It puts all at risk. Our next Secretary of State has to have that credibility to deal with other countries with moral clarity. Time and time again, when confronted with questions, Mr. Tillerson was not clear.

Let me give you one example that may sum up my concern on his moral clarity issues, and that is with Russia. We had asked several times whether he would support the existing sanctions, would he support stronger sanctions. After all, the sanctions were put on because Russia invaded Ukraine. They

are still there. They are still in Crimea. They are still interfering with eastern Ukraine. Unless they comply with the Minsk agreement, our European allies are looking for America to say no way would we ever weaken our sanctions as long as Russia is violating its commitment in Ukraine.

Since that, they have been doing other things. I already mentioned the war crimes they are committing in Syria, but they also attacked America. They attacked us through cyber, trying to bring down our democratic system of government, free elections. I would certainly have hoped Mr. Tillerson would have shown some compassion for increasing sanctions against Russia. Instead, we asked him a question about Cuba, and Mr. Tillerson was very clear when he talked about Cuba. He said: Look, if we do business with Cuba, we are allowing a repressive regime to have greater resources. Why would we want to support a repressive regime?

Mr. Tillerson didn't show the same concern about Russia. He has no compulsion at all about doing business with Russia, even though that business is allowing the Putin repressive regime to carry out their activities of attacks against our allies, attacks against us, interfere with what is going on in Syria, and to do all the activities they are doing. I would have hoped that we were seeing a greater sense of moral clarity from our Secretary of State nominee.

There are other issues I am concerned about. I know we will have a chance to talk about it if this issue is still on the floor tomorrow, as I expect it will be. We will have a chance to talk about issues regarding his quick use of military power versus diplomacy. We asked him several times about external events and how he will respond to them. His answer was too quick about using our military and not quick enough about using our diplomacy. The use of military must be a matter of last resort. I want to make sure our next Secretary of State is very sensitive to that particular issue.

Then we get to the concern about the ethical issues. I need to mention this because when we asked him questions about his knowledge of ExxonMobil, he was less than forthcoming to the committee, not aware of ExxonMobil's lobbying on certain issues, and very unclear about how its activities were in Sudan, Syria, Iran, and other countries that have horrible human rights records. And his willingness to recuse himself from anything affecting Exxon for 1 year, not for the entire length of term that he would be Secretary of State if confirmed by the Senate--he should not deal with ExxonMobil for the entire length of his time as Secretary of State. He is a person who has substantial wealth as a result of his working at ExxonMobil. None of us criticize him for that, but it disqualifies him from dealing with ExxonMobil.

We are going to be involved in a lengthy debate on the next Secretary of State, as we should, but I just wanted to share with my colleagues my concern about Mr. Tillerson and why I am opposing his nomination. And I would just indicate that I think the events particularly over the weekend with this immigration policy really point out the need for the next Secretary of State to be willing to stand strong for American values, and I have serious questions in that regard on Mr. Tillerson.

With that, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, shortly we will be voting on the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley. She went through her confirmation hearings at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and I had a chance during those confirmation hearings to ask her a series of questions. I have also had an opportunity to meet with her and talk personally about her vision of the United Nations and the United States' role in how she would conduct her leadership at the United Nations.

I must say, originally there was some concern because of her lack of foreign policy experience, but I must tell you, I was extremely impressed about her competency as Governor of South Carolina--the work that she did, dealing with some very difficult issues, including a tragedy that occurred in her State, as well as dealing with the Confederate flag and removing it from the State Capitol.

She handled these issues with real professionalism and sensitivity to all communities, and during her confirmation hearing, she displayed a willingness to reach out, to understand more about world affairs, and to become fully knowledgeable in these areas. She

exercised, I thought, a commitment and passion for the commitments that are important to this country--good governance, human rights, and democracy.

I was impressed during the confirmation hearing about her commitment to the importance of the United Nations and the important work that it does. The United Nations, as we all know, does do work as peacekeepers to try to avoid conflicts but also does an incredible job on humanitarian needs with refugee assistance, as well as the sustainable development goals that provide help to people around the world, increasing maternal health, reducing infant mortality, dealing with women's education needs. These original Sustainable Development Goals-- originally the Millennium Development Goals, now the Sustainable Development Goals--have saved millions of lives.

I must tell you, Governor Haley was very mindful of this and very committed to the United Nations and the work that it does and the U.S. participation in the United Nations. She recognized that it is important that we engage the international community in the work that is done within the United Nations.

When she was questioned about whether she thought it was a good idea to slash funds to the United Nations in order to make a point about votes that we thought were unpopular, she said no. She opposed that slash-and-burn strategy; we need to engage and find ways to leverage our participation to get more favorable results.

I might tell you, she was very strong about her sensitivity that the United Nations has not been fair to one of our key allies, Israel, and she would be a strong voice to make sure those types of issues are dealt with and the United States uses all the tools at its disposal to fight against those types of bias and prejudice within the United Nations.

We have talked a great deal in our committee about moral clarity from our nominees, so there is no misunderstanding anywhere in the world that the United States stands for human rights, that the United States stands against abuses that take place around the world, and that it will fight for democracy in all parts of the world and support those causes through our diplomacy, through our development assistance, through our tools.

She was very clear about the moral certainty issue. Just to give a few examples, we talked a great deal about Russia and its conduct and what it is doing in the United States about the attack on our free election system. She was very clear about how outraged she was with that type of conduct--what Russia has done in Ukraine, its occupation of Crimea. She acknowledged that Crimea is not Russian, that it belongs to Ukraine, and she spoke very strongly about defending Ukraine's rights and sovereignty.

We talked specifically about what was happening in Syria and Russia's support for the Assad regime and the atrocities that have taken place in that country, most recently in Aleppo. When we asked if she would characterize that type of conduct as war crimes, without any equivocation she said: Absolutely--that this was a matter that required international accountability.

I also brought up with her what was happening in the Philippines, one of our allies, where the President of the Philippines, Mr. Duterte, has done extrajudicial killings and how she would characterize that as gross violations of human rights. She agreed that type of conduct cannot be tolerated, that we need to speak to whether they are friend or foe when they commit this type of conduct, that this is wrong and the United States must stand up for our principles. I was impressed by the way that she spoke to those types of issues.

One of the more telling questions that we asked was whether she would support any registry for any subgroup of ethnic or religious Americans, and she said: Absolutely not.

We had, I thought, moral clarity in her response to some of the most important questions. I think all of us feel that she has the passion to represent the United States and our views well at the United Nations.

What was particularly important to us is how she would speak out to power within the United Nations; that she had no problem in dealing with Mr. Putin and calling his conduct exactly what it was and would not be intimidated by Mr. Putin saying ``Well, you need me for some other issue''; that we have to be clear that we will not tolerate that type of conduct that violates basic human rights.

She gave us confidence that, on behalf of the American people, she would speak up in the Cabinet room with Mr. Trump and the Cabinet as to these values. For all those reasons, it was a comfortable vote for me to support her nomination and confirmation.

I do want to relay the fact that she does represent the American story. She is a daughter of immigrants who came to this country at great risk in order to seek a better life for their children. She experienced some of the discrimination against immigrant communities as she grew up in this country and tried to participate in the business and political sphere. She overcame all of those types of challenges and is extremely sensitive, I think, to all the needs of Americans.

For all those reasons, I am proud to recommend her to our colleagues on both sides of the aisle. I hope we will support her confirmation. I think she is the right person now to represent us at the United Nations. For all those reasons, I will support her nomination.

With that, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, today I would like to pay tribute to a dear friend, the Honorable Aaron A. Baer, who died yesterday, just 2 days shy of what would have been his 103rd birthday. He was the oldest living judge in Maryland.

Judge Baer was known to his family as the ``centennial cowboy'' who had ``a great ride,'' as his family put it. He was a Baltimore native, the son of a Russian immigrant who worked in a clothing factory and became a tailor. Judge Baer graduated from the University of Baltimore Law School in 1937. He supported himself and paid for law school by repairing and replacing tar roofs.

Judge Baer practiced real estate law for several years before becoming an assistant Baltimore City solicitor, an assistant attorney general, and a State senator for the 5th District in 1959. He was appointed to the Municipal Court of Baltimore City in 1961 by then- Governor J. Millard Tawes. In 1971, he was appointed to the newly created District Court of Maryland by then, Governor Marvin Mandel. He retired as a district court judge in 1981 at the age of 67.

Judge Baer was married to Judy Weinberg for 66 years before her passing in 2007. He and his wife had two daughters. The older daughter is Susan Reichmister, who is married to Dr. Jerome Reichmister. They have two children: Beth, who is married to Bart Casper, and Jodi, who is married to Craig Kessler. The younger daughter is the Honorable Barbara Baer Waxman, who is administrative judge of the District Court of Maryland for Baltimore City. She is married to Dr. Carl Waxman. Judge Baer had four great-grandchildren: Nicole, Sloane, Mitchell, and Blair, and numerous nieces and nephews.

The Cardin family is friends with many members of the Baer family. Judge Baer and my parents were close friends. It has been a great privilege to know Judge Baer, to receive his counsel, and to count him not just as a close friend of my father's, but as my close friend, too.

Judge Baer lived an exemplary life devoted to public service, the community, and to his family. He started riding Indian motorcycles as a youth and then became an avid horseback rider until he turned 100, which is how he earned the nickname ``centennial cowboy.'' He did have ``a great ride,'' and I am grateful for having been along for some of it. My wife, Myrna, and I send our deepest condolences and prayers to his family.

Mr. President, I have said many times that the Senate is a family, and today we are a family in mourning. Tim Mitchell, the assistant Democratic secretary and a 25-year Senate staffer, lost his battle with brain cancer this past Saturday night. It was a battle he waged with uncommon courage and grace. We are disconsolate that such an outstanding person in the prime of his life has been taken from his family and from the Senate. We send our deepest condolences and prayers to his beloved wife Alicia; his cherished son Ben; his father, the Reverend Dr. Philip Mitchell; his sister Christi; and the rest of his family and many, many friends.

While Tim spent part of his formative years in Binghamton, NY, he was born in Boston and also grew up in New Hampshire, so he ultimately pledged his sports allegiance to Boston and New England. He called himself a P-K--a preacher's kid. He earned his undergraduate degree from the State University of New York at Fredonia. He earned his juris doctor degree at night while he worked here in the Senate, from Catholic University's Columbus School of Law. Tim loved his family most of all, but he also loved the Senate, and he loved the Boston Red Sox-- I am not sure of the order there; maybe they were tied. He actually acquired two seats from Fenway Park and put them in his basement for when he wanted to watch a game. They were just part of his extensive collection of Red Sox memorabilia, hats, ties, and the like. I don't think any other fan was as excited and as proud as Tim was when the Red Sox won the World Series in 2004, ending an 86-year drought.

Tim started his Senate career following his junior year in college as an intern for then-Senator Don Riegle from Michigan. He returned to the Senate after he graduated to work as a staff assistant in Senator Riegle's office, where he quickly displayed his talents and work ethic and was promoted to a job on the Senate Banking Committee. Later, he worked on the special Whitewater Committee. He also worked for former Democratic Leader Tom Daschle, on his personal staff and on the Democratic Policy Committee, before joining the floor staff in 2001.

As a member of the floor staff, Tim was intimately involved in every bill, every nomination, every accomplishment of the Senate. Throughout it all, he was always calm, always patient, always courteous, and always exhibiting his innate sense of decency and fairness. He was a parliamentary expert and a trusted adviser.

I hope Tim's wife Alicia, his son Ben, and his other family members know just how much Tim was loved and respected here in the Senate. Given the partisan nature of his job, that is, perhaps, the best testament to the type of person Tim was. Our hearts, like theirs, are broken. I hope they may find some solace in these words written by the Reverend Henry Scott Holland, originally as a sermon, but usually reprinted as a poem:

Death is nothing at all.

It does not count.

I have only slipped away into the next room.

Nothing has happened.

Everything remains exactly as it was.

I am I, and you are you, and the old life that we lived so

fondly together is untouched, unchanged.

Whatever we were to each other, that we are still.

Call me by the old familiar name.

Speak of me in the easy way which you always used.

Put no difference into your tone.

Wear no forced air of solemnity or sorrow.

Laugh as we always laughed at the little jokes that we

enjoyed together.

Play, smile, think of me, pray for me.

Let my name be ever the household word that it always was.

Let it be spoken without an effort, without the ghost of a

shadow upon it.

Life means all that it ever meant.

It is the same as it ever was.

There is absolute and unbroken continuity.

What is this death but a negligible accident?

Why should I be out of mind because I am out of sight?

I am but waiting for you, for an interval,

somewhere very near,

just round the corner.

All is well.

Nothing is hurt; nothing is lost.

One brief moment and all will be as it was before.

How we shall laugh at the trouble of parting when we meet

again!

Mr. President, civilian control of our military is one of the bedrock principles of American self-government. The National Security Act of 1947, U.S.C. Title 10 Section 113(a), stipulates that an individual ``may not be appointed as Secretary of Defense within seven years after relief from active duty as a commissioned officer of a regular component of an armed force.'' President-Elect Donald Trump's choice of retired U.S. Marine Corps General James N. Mattis violates that provision since he has only been out of the uniform for 3 years; thus, Congress will need to pass a waiver so that he can serve if confirmed.

I have considered this issue carefully, and I have listened to Gen. Mattis's testimony earlier today before the Senate Armed Services Committee. I believe Gen. Mattis is committed to the principle of civilian control of the military. I was reassured by his testimony this morning, and I will vote to grant the waiver. There is a precedent: in 1950, the Senate voted to confirm General George C. Marshall's as Secretary of Defense, despite the fact that he had been retired for only 5 years. Former Secretaries of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, Robert M. Gates, and Leon E. Panetta have expressed bipartisan support for Gen. Mattis. I am willing to vote for the waiver, as long as one nomination does not turn into a trend. There are particular times and circumstances in which granting the waiver may be appropriate, but the bedrock principle of civilian control of our military must not be eroded.

Mr. President, on behalf of the people of Maryland, I vote no.

Mr. President, first I want to thank Senator Durbin for his comments about the policy of repealing the Affordable Care Act and not knowing what comes next, the impact it is going to have on people from Illinois. I am going to talk about people in Maryland. I have received similar letters showing that people are going to be adversely impacted.

I want to share with my colleagues the conversation I had with the secretary of health from Maryland. Maryland has Governor Hogan, a Republican Governor, and his secretary of health met with me several weeks ago to express his concerns about the impact on the people of my State of Maryland if the Affordable Care Act were repealed. What I heard from the secretary of health of Maryland was similar to what I heard from many of the health care stakeholders from the hospital association to physician groups, to health care advocates, to ordinary Marylanders who have contacted me about their concerns about what happens if we see a repeal of the Affordable Care Act.

Let me just give you some examples of how the Affordable Care Act is working in my State and, as Senator Durbin indicated, in his State. The uninsured rate in Maryland has dropped from 12.9 percent to 6.6 percent. That is about a 50-percent drop in the uninsured rate. That benefits all Marylanders--all Marylanders. Yes, 400,000 Marylanders now have health coverage who didn't have health coverage before, and for those 400,000, that is a big deal. That means they can see a doctor and get a physical examination. If they are ill, they can get treated and know there are doctors and hospitals that will want to take care of them because they have third-party reimbursement. They

no longer have to show up in emergency rooms because that is the only place they could get to. They can now go to a doctor and get a physical examination.

Mr. President, it benefits more than just those 400,000 Marylanders, who, thanks to the Affordable Care Act, have health coverage. It affects all Marylanders because we no longer have the amount of cost shifting of those who have health insurance paying for those who don't have health insurance because they use the system and don't pay for it. That dislocation has been dramatically changed in my State. So all Marylanders are benefiting from having 400,000 Marylanders who now have health coverage, but it goes beyond that. Many Marylanders who had health insurance didn't have adequate health insurance. They had restrictions on preexisting conditions. They had caps on their policies. It didn't cover preventive health care. They now have quality health coverage.

All of that is at risk. All of that is at risk because of what we are talking about doing, if I understand correctly. Quite frankly, I am still trying to figure out what the Republicans are doing to the Affordable Care Act, but if I understand it, they are going to repeal it, and they are not going to tell us right now how they are going to replace it. So everything that is included in the Affordable Care Act is at risk.

I will give you one more example of costs because I think this is an important point. Under the Affordable Care Act, if an insurance company wants to increase rates more than 10 percent, there are certain procedures they have to go through, certain public disclosures. We have a much more public process, but the number of claims of those who wanted to increase their policies by 10 percent have dropped from 75 percent before the Affordable Care Act to now 14 percent nationally. We have seen one of the lowest growth rates in health care costs in modern history. Yes, the Affordable Care Act has helped us do that. Why? Because individuals who had insurance now have coverage for preventive health care and are saving us money. Those who didn't have health care coverage now have health care coverage, and they are seeing doctors, and they are saving us money because if they have a disease, it is being caught at an earlier stage, being treated in a more aggressive way, and they are saving more intensive health care costs. All that is benefiting the people of Maryland and our country.

Senator Durbin mentioned several people in his State--a person in his State--and letters. I want to talk about people in Maryland whom I have talked to over the last several years about the impact of the Affordable Care Act and why they are so concerned about the policy now of repealing the Affordable Care Act.

I want to go back to 2007. That is a date that Marylanders know very well. I want to go back to a 12-year-old, Deamonte Driver. Deamonte Driver was a 12-year-old who lived about 10 miles from here. His mom tried to get him to a dentist, but he had no insurance coverage, and she couldn't find a dentist. She couldn't find a dentist who would take care of him. Deamonte Driver needed about $80 of oral health care. He had an abscessed tooth that needed to be removed. It would have cost $80, and he couldn't find care in 2007 in the wealthiest country, in America. As a result, his tooth became abscessed and it went into his brain. He had thousands of dollars of health care costs, and he lost his life. As a result of that incident, I, along with other members of Congress, took up the cause of pediatric dental care to make sure every child in America has access to pediatric dental care. That is included in the Affordable Care Act as an essential health benefit.

Before the Affordable Care Act, very few health policies included pediatric dental; therefore, families were at risk as to whether they would actually use dental services because they did not have the money to pay for them. That was changed under the Affordable Care Act. That is at risk. That is at risk because, if I understand what is being suggested here, we are going to repeal the Affordable Care Act and the essential health benefits. We can't allow any more tragedies like Deamonte Driver in America, and yet we will be putting our children at risk if we repeal the Affordable Care Act.

There was another provision I worked very hard to get into the Affordable Care Act that I think is extremely important. We now have a National Institute of Minority Health and Health Disparities at the National Institutes of Health. We have agencies that deal with minority health and health disparities in all of our health care agencies thanks to the Affordable Care Act. That means we are now acknowledging that historically we have not done right for minority health in America. We looked at a lot of the research dollars; they were not spent in areas that minorities were impacted by. We see that access to care in certain communities is much more challenging because of minority status. We are looking at these issues and taking action.

The Institute sponsored a study in my home city of Baltimore. That study showed that depending on what ZIP Code you live in, your life expectancy could be as different as 30 years--a generation. Just your ZIP Code. We are taking steps to change that in Baltimore thanks to the National Institutes and the Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities. Are the Republicans telling us that is not needed anymore, that we are going to repeal our efforts to look at minority health and health disparities? That is unconscionable. Yet, if I understand correctly, that is the course we are going to follow.

Mental health parity is another area we have talked about at great length here. We know we still have not reached that goal to make sure mental health receives the same attention as any other health need, but in the Affordable Care Act, we did amazing things to expand access to coverage for mental health and drug addiction. By expanding the Medicaid population, we have 1.6 million Americans who now have expanded coverage for mental health and substance abuse.

We have had great discussions in this body. I am very proud of the Cures Act, where we expanded coverage for drug addiction. Now Republicans are talking about taking a major step backward by repealing Medicaid expansion that allows access to coverage for mental health and drug addiction. To me, that is something that is unthinkable. Yet we are moving on that path by the legislation that is before us.

Let me share a letter I received from Lillian from Baltimore. In 2008 she lost her job. She has a history of abnormal mammograms. She could not get coverage. She could not get an insurance company to cover her because of the preexisting concerns. She wrote: The Affordable Care Act has worked. I have coverage.

No preexisting conditions. No longer is being a woman considered a preexisting condition in America. Are we now going to turn our backs on the women of America and allow these discriminatory practices that existed before the Affordable Care Act to come back? I will tell you, I am going to fight to do everything I can to make sure that does not happen, and I would hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle feel the same. But you are marching down a path that puts women at risk, that puts Americans at risk.

We know about the caps that were in the law before the Affordable Care Act. What do I mean by caps? That is the maximum amount your health insurance policy will pay you. Some 2.25 million Marylanders had caps on their policies before the Affordable Care Act--not just the 400,000 new people who have come into the system, 2.25 million Marylanders will be impacted if we eliminate the protection against arbitrary caps.

The tragedy about caps is that when you really need coverage, that is when you are impacted. You get insurance to cover you. You discover you have cancer. It is extremely expensive to treat cancer in an aggressive way. All of a sudden, you are in the middle of treatment and you reach your cap. What do you do? What do you do? There are real, live examples from before we passed the Affordable Care Act. We are going to go back to those days in the United States of America? That is what repealing the Affordable Care Act means for 2.25 million Marylanders who are being put at risk.

Rebecca from Baltimore told me about her daughter Eva, who is 18 months of age and has severe congenital heart defects and has gone

through numerous operations. If caps are in place, she cannot get adequate care for her 18-month-old daughter. Those are real, live examples of people who are impacted by the Affordable Care Act. She also told me: Thank you for the 26-year-old provision where you can stay on your parent's policy. At least she knows Eva will be able to stay on her policy until she is 26.

I heard from Nichole, who is a 22-year-old student at Towson University. She could not get affordable health coverage and was able to stay on her parents' policy. That is an important provision which is being repealed by the Affordable Care Act.

I helped work on the provision in the Affordable Care Act that provides preventive care coverage--immunizations, cancer screening, contraception, no cost sharing. That saves money. Preventive health care saves money. It makes our health care system more cost-effective. That is why we decided to put a focus on preventive health care and expand it dramatically. Now, 2.95 million Marylanders benefit from the preventive health care requirements of the Affordable Care Act that is included in every health policy. That will be repealed, if I understand correctly what the Republicans are attempting to do on their repeal of the Affordable Care Act. We don't have a replacement. We don't know what it is going to look like. It is not easy to figure out how to put the pieces back together again.

There is a provision in the Affordable Act that deals with prevention and public health funds and that provides dollars to deal with some of the real challenges we have out there--obesity, tobacco abuse. My State is getting funds so that we can deal with healthy eating that will not only provide a better quality of life for those who have weight issues but also lead to a more cost-effective health care system. That will be gone with the repeal of the Affordable Care Act.

Let me talk for a moment about health centers because I know we made that a priority in the Affordable Care Act. Qualified health centers are centers that are located in, in many cases, challenging communities where it is hard to get doctors and hospitals to locate. We provide access to care for people who have limited means. The Affordable Care Act did two things that are extremely important in regard to health centers. First, it provided some significant new direct resources for those programs. Secondly, because they are in challenging neighborhoods, they have a much higher number of people who have no health coverage who go into these centers; therefore, their third-party reimbursement is much lower than other health centers that are located in better neighborhoods or more affluent neighborhoods.

The Affordable Care Act has worked in expanding dramatically the capacities of these qualified health centers. We have 18 that are located in Maryland. I could talk about all of them, but I have been to the Greater Baden Medical Services center several times. It is located in Prince George's County. They also have a center in St. Mary's County. I have been to them many times. I have seen their new facilities thanks to the Affordable Care Act. I have seen the building in which they provide mental health services and pediatric dental care and actually adult dental care also. They provide those services to the community thanks to the Affordable Care Act. They told me that in the very first year alone of the Affordable Care Act, they were able to reduce their uninsured rates by 20 percent, meaning they get a lot more money coming in and they can provide many more services. All of that will be gone if the Affordable Care Act is repealed. I can't be silent about that. This center is providing incredible services. It is one thing to have third-party coverage; it is another thing to have access to care. We provided both in the Affordable Care Act. We are not going to go back.

I heard Senator Durbin talk about Medicare. I just want to underscore this. This is not just about those under 65. It is about our seniors. It is about those on disability who are covered by Medicare.

We heard about the doughnut hole. We all understood. We were getting numerous letters from people who fell into that doughnut hole. Guess what. Those letters are tailing off dramatically. Why? Because the Affordable Care Act closes the doughnut hole for prescription drug coverage. In my own State of Maryland, 80,000 Marylanders benefited in 2014 from the Affordable Care Act and better coverage for prescription drugs, amounting to $82 million, averaging over $1,000 per beneficiary benefit. Those over 65 have better coverage for prescription drugs. You repeal the Affordable Care Act, and all of a sudden seniors figure out they have to pay another thousand dollars a year for prescription drugs. In my State, they don't have the money to do that. You are going to again hear about prescription drugs left on the counter at the pharmacy because of the repeal.

Guess what. It even does more than that. The Affordable Care Act provided greater solvency for the Medicare system. I have heard my Republican colleagues say: We are not going to do anything to hurt Medicare. Repealing the Affordable Care Act hurts Medicare. It hurts the coverage and it hurts the solvency. I don't want to be part of that. I would hope my colleagues don't want to be part of that. Yet repealing the Affordable Care Act does that.

Let me talk for a moment about affordability. It is one thing to have coverage; it is another thing whether you can afford that coverage. We heard all of these stories about the increased premiums, and we know, of course, that insurance premiums in America have gone up at a slower growth rate than they did before the Affordable Care Act. That is a fact. But we do hear about the individual market within the exchanges and how that has gone up by a significant amount, mainly because of the way it was originally rated. We have heard about that. But perhaps what many people don't know is that in my State and around the Nation, 75 percent of the people who qualify for private health insurance within the exchanges are eligible for credits. In other words, we are helping them with the affordability of their health care. In my State, that was $200 million a year to help Marylanders pay for health insurance. That will be gone with the repeal of this Affordable Care Act. That is wrong.

I received many letters from small business owners. One of the proud parts of the Affordable Care Act is that it helped our small business owners. Why? If you ran a small business, you wanted health insurance for your employees because you wanted to keep them well. You were discriminated against before the Affordable Care Act. You didn't have a big pool. God forbid one of your employees gets really sick during the year; your insurance premium goes through the roof. That is what was happening before the passage of the Affordable Care Act. Are we going to go back to the days where we tell small companies: You really can't get health insurance because if someone gets sick, you lose your policies basically. That is what we are talking about.

Annette of Bel Air, MD, wrote to me. She said she has saved significant money as a small business owner as a result of the Affordable Care Act. Tim from Laurel, MD, told me that in his small business, he saved $7,000 a year thanks to the Affordable Care Act. The reason is simple: You have broader pools, and you get the same type of rates larger companies get now. You will lose that with the repeal of the Affordable Care Act.

Let me tell you about one of the tragedies of this that will happen immediately, affecting America's competitiveness and entrepreneur spirit. We know that a lot of people who work for big companies have great ideas, and they want to start out on their own. I have seen that over and over again in the biotech industries of Maryland. I go down the 270 corridor, the 95 corridor. I see small entrepreneurs who used to work for one of the giant defense contractors, and now they are pulling out and coming up with new ideas, doing things in a great way. That is what makes America a great nation. That is how we create jobs and how we deal with innovation.

Here is the situation. You are a 30-something-year-old, ready to leave that company and go out on your own. Your spouse has cancer. What do you do? You are not going to be able to get coverage. You are locked into that job. That will be a consequence of the repeal of the Affordable Care Act. We are

dealing with real people and real people's lives. It is irresponsible to repeal the Affordable Care Act and not tell that young entrepreneur what he or she can expect. That is what is at stake.

There is one last point I want to talk about, and that is the Patients' Bill of Rights. I helped draft the Patients' Bill of Rights. It was not easy to pass the Patients' Bill of Rights. We were able to get it in the Affordable Care Act. We were able to get in the right that--you go to an emergency room. Under a prudent layperson standard, you did the right thing. You find out you didn't have that heart attack even though you had chest pains. Then you wake up the next morning and find out your insurance company is not paying the bill because you didn't have that heart attack. We changed that in the Affordable Care Act.

Are we going back, eliminating those protections, the right to appeal decisions or are we going to repeal that part of the Affordable Care Act? Are we going to go back to medical loss ratios, where insurance companies can make obscene profits and not rebate those excess profits to their policyholders when we have millions of people receiving rebates today? All of that is gone with the repeal of the Affordable Care Act.

Mr. President, I could go on and on, but I see my colleague Senator Kaine is here and others who want to speak on this issue.

Let me conclude with this. This is the wrong way to go about this. I heard the leader say that for 6 or 7 years--for 6 or 7 years--Democrats have been trying to work with Republicans to make the law even better.

We have never passed a major law that didn't need to be revisited. We understand that. We have been working to try to improve the law--not repeal it--improve it, build on it, make it better, and we have gotten no help from Republicans, not any help whatsoever.

Republicans have blocked efforts to improve this law. Instead, they are stuck on this repeal without knowing what the replacement is going to be. That is wrong. We should be working together to improve our health care system, but to pass a repeal, to put Americans at risk will lead to uncertainty, which will lead to insurance companies abandoning the market, giving consumers less choice rather than more choice. To hurt millions of Americans is wrong, and I urge my colleagues to reject this approach.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, may I ask my colleague to yield for just one moment?

Thank you. I appreciate the courtesy. I just wanted to take this time to welcome Senator Van Hollen to the Senate. Senator Van Hollen gave his maiden speech from the desk that was held by Senator Mikulski. I know Senator Mikulski would be very proud of what he said here on the floor and very proud of Senator Van Hollen being here in the Senate. I look forward to working with him.

I want to tell the people of Maryland and the people of this Nation that what you heard tonight, you heard a person who is committed to making our system work, who is committed to working with every Member of the Senate. But he will stand up for the principles and will stand up on behalf of the people of Maryland.

Again, welcome. It is wonderful to have him here in the Senate.

Mr. President, it is with a renewed sense of purpose that I reintroduce my resolution on the Emoluments Clause. It is a resolution intended to uphold the values and strictures of one of our most sacred documents. I am referring, of course, to the Constitution, the instrument that, in but a short time, President-elect Donald Trump will take an oath to preserve, protect, and defend.

Our Founding Fathers could not have been clearer that any Federal office holder of the United States must never be put in a position where he or she could be influenced by a foreign governmental actor. It was a concern made explicit by Alexander Hamilton's writings in Federalist No. 22, in which he noted examples of republics that had been ruthlessly dismembered by their hostile neighbors who had paralyzed the victim republic by bribing its officers and officials.

The Founding Fathers addressed this grave concern by placing the Emoluments Clause within the Constitution as an explicit bar on foreign corruption and interference. Article I, section 9, clause 8 of the United States Constitution declares that:

No title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States:

And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under

them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of

any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind

whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

Longstanding precedent has made it plain that the President of the United States, as the head of the executive branch of the government, clearly occupies an ``office of profit or trust''. As such, the Emoluments Clause clearly applies to and constrains whomever holds the office of the Presidency.

Past American presidents have recognized the danger of foreign corruption and interference, or merely the perception of corruption and interference, and have accordingly taken great pains to avoid even the appearance of impropriety with regard to their personal wealth and investments, ensuring that such investments never interfere with performing their duties as President of the United States. Presidents Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George Herbert Walker Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush all had their assets placed into blind trust while they were President. To fulfill his promises of greater government transparency, President Obama went even further and invested the vast majority of his funds in U.S. Treasury bonds.

The President-elect has claimed he will ``absolutely sever'' his ties to the Trump Organization, which has financial interests around the world and negotiates and concludes transactions with foreign states, as well as entities that are extensions of foreign states. We have a constitutional duty to ensure that he does. It is easy to imagine circumstances in which a foreign government will want to give President Trump a personal gift through his businesses with the intent to curry favor with him and seek to influence his decisions in ways that benefit them, instead of the American people--precisely the danger our Founding Fathers sought to protect against with the Emoluments Clause.

This is not an esoteric argument about rules that do not affect real people. Put simply, the American public has a right to know that the President of the United States is always acting in their best interest, and not take the risk that his actions are influenced by some benefit or gift from a foreign government like Russia or China. The citizens of this country need to know that when the President of the United States is making decisions about potential trade agreements, sending troops into war, or spending America's great resources, those actions are motivated by the public interest, and not because they might advance or harm

the President's private pecuniary interests.

We should be concerned when the President-elect is connected to an organization that has dealings with countries and entities that are not interested in distinguishing between doing business with President Trump and the profit-making organization that bears his name. The President-elect's failure thus far to dispose of his business interests in a comprehensive fashion has left this door wide open, and we are already seeing indications that foreign companies and businesses are beginning to take advantage. Kuwait's National Day event, which has traditionally been held at the Four Seasons in Washington, D.C., was moved to the Trump International Hotel, allegedly because of pressure-- or perhaps merely a suggestion--from the President-elect's associates. Similarly, Bahrain has chosen to schedule an event to take place at the Trump International Hotel.

News reports suggest that one day after a phone call between President-elect Trump and the President of Argentina, permits under review for the Trump building in Buenos Aires were suddenly approved. In China, just days after the presidential election, Donald Trump scored a legal victory in a decade-long trademark dispute over the right to use the Trump name for real estate agent services in commercial and residential properties in China. The timing of these actions is interesting, to put it mildly.

I sincerely regret the necessity of reintroducing this resolution. Just after Thanksgiving, when President-elect Trump held a press conference to state that on December 15, 2016, he would make an announcement about his future with the Trump Organization, I publicly said how encouraged I was to see the President-elect's positive response. When I first introduced this resolution, my intent was to create an opportunity for the President-elect to act and remove this as an issue, so that he could put aside any appearance of impropriety and devote himself to good work on behalf of the American people. That is why I was disappointed when Mr. Trump abruptly canceled his December 15 announcement--and, as of today, he has not yet rescheduled it. This issue is far too critical to kick the can down the road, or to ignore, before an incipient violation of the Constitution becomes an actual violation.

Even before Mr. Trump's cancellation of his December 15 announcement, I was deeply concerned by statements he and his lawyers made with regard to the disposition of his numerous business interests. Mr. Trump's lawyers had initially announced that the Trump Organization would be placed into a ``blind trust'' managed by Donald Trump's older children. That arrangement is, unfortunately, by its terms the complete opposite of an actual blind trust. An actual blind trust is an arrangement which the official has no control over, will receive no communications about, and will have no knowledge of the identity of the specific assets being held, and in which the trust's manager operates independently of the owner.

Around the same time President-elect Trump cancelled his December 15th announcement, he tweeted another idea for disposition of his businesses, stating that ``[t]wo of my children, Don and Eric, plus executives, will manage them. No new deals will be done during my term(s) in office''. Let me be absolutely clear: the arrangement tweeted by Mr. Trump is not sufficient and is hardly independent. Mr. Trump would be well-aware of the specific assets held, and he could receive communications about and take actions to affect the value of those assets. The idea that President-elect Trump's children, who are listed as members of his transition team and have already been present at meetings or phone calls with foreign leaders, can ever be truly ``independent managers'' is simply not a credible resolution of this concern.

This inadequate suggested arrangement is not a blind trust and will not ensure compliance with the Emoluments Clause of the United States Constitution. Indeed, numerous legal and constitutional experts, including Richard Painter, a former adviser to George W. Bush, have made clear that such an arrangement will leave the President-elect with a personal financial interest in businesses that collect foreign government payments and benefits. The notion that the American people should be satisfied by an unbinding promise that no new deals will be pursued--a promise that does not define what constitutes a ``deal'' and which can be reneged on at any time--does not pass the laugh test.

I must admit, I have also been quite disturbed and disappointed by the recent excuses and suggestions by surrogate speakers and supporters of the President-elect as to why no action need be taken and, indeed, by statements the President-elect has made himself. President-elect Trump has tweeted, [p]rior to the election it was well known that I have interests in properties all over the world.'' This is undoubtedly true. But the American people, in voting for a candidate, cannot--and, in fact, would not--want to excuse a potential future violation of the Constitution by that candidate. Indeed, I would say that President- elect Trump has this idea backwards. Prior to the election, he was well aware of the fact that he had interests in unique properties all over the world. Since the President-elect has referred to himself as ``a constitutionalist,'' he must have known of the importance of complying with the Constitution by severing his foreign business connections in advance of his inauguration, which makes his continued failure and delay on this front all the more inexplicable.

On November 22nd, President-elect Trump stated, ``The law's totally on my side, meaning, the president can't have a conflict of interest.'' This regrettable statement selectively picks facts and shows a troubling disregard for the Constitution and for the duties owed to the American people. While the President, Vice President, Members of Congress, and Federal judges may be granted specific, limited exemptions from conflicts of interest so that they may act and carry out their duties, that law does not supersede the Constitution nor, frankly, have anything to do with the very specific provisions of the Emoluments Clause, which are intended to prevent foreign governmental financial influence over the President.

Even as some of the President-elect's most trusted surrogates have acknowledged that the potential ethics challenges facing President- elect Trump are ``a very real problem,'' they have persisted in arguing that Mr. Trump is somehow exempt from constitutional strictures, and even from the temptation of corruption itself, by virtue of his great wealth. For example, former Speaker Gingrich has claimed ``that this is a new situation we've never seen before, and the rules [that] were written for people who were dramatically less successful literally do not work,'' while Mr. Trump's leading candidate to head the administration's Council of Economic Advisors has claimed that ``[w]ealthy folks have no need to steal or engage in corruption.'' Really? That is a transparently false idea that one does not have to look very far to disprove. We need only glance at the countries where the Trump Organization has done business--places like Russia, Azerbaijan, Argentina, and Nigeria--to find numerous examples of already-wealthy government officials who have used their positions to lie, cheat, extort, and further enrich themselves and their families at the expense of the people they are supposed to be serving.

It was the enduring wisdom of our Founders to recognize that America is not magically immune from the corruption problems in other countries, and that not all men are angels. This is why we place our trust in the Constitution, not in individuals. A man with more wealth and extensive foreign holdings than prior presidents is, by an order of magnitude, more vulnerable to foreign corruption and interference than any president before him. The Emoluments Clause has greater bearing on Mr. Trump's presidency than his predecessors, not less.

No man can gain such wealth and power that he outgrows the limits of our Constitution. John Adams said it best: ``We are a government of laws, and not of men.'' No matter our political or partisan sympathies, we all recognize that the Constitution is the law of the land, and that when the needs and ambitions of any man conflicts with the Constitution, the Constitution must win out.

It has also been suggested by some of Donald Trump's supporters that the

Emoluments Clause does not actually apply to the office of the Presidency. Not only does this conflict with longstanding understanding of the Emoluments Clause in the Executive Branch, it contravenes both the strict interpretation of the plain words of the Constitution, as well as the traditional values and practices adopted by previous presidents.

To get around the ethics challenges facing Mr. Trump, it has been suggested by the President-elect's supporters that a panel of five ``experts'' regularly monitor the Trump Organization businesses and tell the President ``don't go over these bounds''. It has even been suggested that the President-elect can simply sidestep ethics issues that clearly violate the law by pardoning advisors ``if anyone finds them to have behaved against the rules''. These 'ideas' are non- starters that cut dangerously against the plain intent of the Emoluments Clause. I am afraid they show a disregard for the values of our Constitution.

The solution to this problem is simple, not complex, and is set forth by my resolution: President-elect Trump has only to follow the precedents established by prior presidents and convert his assets to simple, conflict-free holdings; adopt blind trusts managed by truly independent trustees with no relationship to Mr. Trump or his businesses; or to take other, equivalent measures. This solution also has the benefit of having been successfully implemented by every modem president before Mr. Trump.

This resolution and its aims should not be viewed through the distorting prism of politics. I want the Trump administration to have the support from Congress to succeed on behalf of the American people. Nevertheless, I believe that Congress has an institutional, constitutional obligation to ensure that the President of the United States, whoever that person may be, does not violate our Constitution, acts lawfully, and is discharging the obligations of the office based on the broad interests of the American people and not his or her own narrow, personal interests.

Despite the late hour--just days before the inauguration--it is still possible for President-elect Trump to live up to the values of the Constitution, give the American people the transparency they deserve, and completely sever his relationship with the Trump Organization before he takes the oath of office on January 20, 2017. To do so would avoid a constitutional crisis that would not serve the best interests of the President, Congress, or the American people. Therefore, I ask for prompt, bipartisan support to advance this vital resolution.

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

Mr. President, I rise to celebrate the life of Harriet Tubman and the establishment of the Harriet Tubman Underground Railroad National Historical Park. Harriet Tubman was an American hero who championed freedom and was most famously known as a leader of the Underground Railroad whose roots were on the Eastern Shore of Maryland.

Harriet Tubman was an iconic figure in our Nation's history for whom liberty and freedom were not just ideas

but were God-given rights she fought tirelessly and at great personal peril to spread to others in bondage. The woman who is known to us as Harriet Tubman was born in approximately 1822 in Dorchester County, MD, and given the name Araminta ``Minty'' Ross. Born into slavery, she spent nearly 30 years of her life toiling for various families on Maryland's Eastern Shore.

Even as a young, enslaved girl, she demonstrated impressive mental and physical strength. One of her jobs was to set and check muskrat traps in the swamps of the Blackwater River during blazing hot summers and freezing cold winters. Even though Harriet was slight in physical stature, she frequently worked with the men in the forest cutting timber and carrying logs.

It was in this work setting, where both free and enslaved people worked together harvesting timber, that she first heard stories about what life was like for free Blacks in Northern States.

As a teenaged slave, one of her first acts of defiance was sticking up for an enslaved boy who was being harassed by a shopkeeper. In helping the boy out of this situation, she took a serious blow to the head when the shopkeeper threw a lead weight that struck her in the head. Tubman recalled later in life that the mark of the weight on her skull never fully healed and after this incident she would see visions that later inspired her to escape slavery.

As an adult she took the first name Harriet, and when she was 24 years old she married John Tubman. In her late twenties, Harriet Tubman escaped from slavery in 1849. She fled in the dead of night, navigating the maze of tidal streams and wetlands that to this day comprise the Eastern Shore's landscape. She did so alone, demonstrating courage, strength, and fortitude that became her hallmark.

Not satisfied with attaining her own freedom, she returned repeatedly for more than 10 years to places of her enslavement in Dorchester and Caroline Counties where, under the most adverse conditions, she led away many family members and other slaves to freedom in the Northeastern United States and Canada.

She helped develop a complex network of safe houses and recruited abolitionist sympathizers residing along secret routes connecting the Southern slave States and Northern free States.

No one knows exactly how many people she led to freedom or the number of trips between the North and the South she led, but the legend of her work was an inspiration to the multitude of slaves seeking freedom and to abolitionists fighting to end slavery. Tubman became known as the Moses of her people by African Americans and White abolitionists alike.

Tubman once proudly told Frederick Douglass that in all her journeys she ``never lost a single passenger.'' She was so effective that in 1856 there was a $40,000 reward offered for her capture in the South. She is the most famous and the most important conductor of the network of resistance known as the Underground Railroad.

But Tubman was more than a conductor on the Underground Railroad. She was a scout and a spy for the Union Army, she was active in the women's suffrage movement after the Civil War, and ultimately she served aging African Americans by running a home for the aged in Auburn, NY.

In 1903 she bequeathed the Tubman home to the African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church in Auburn, where it stands to this day. Just this month I was able to attend the midwinter meeting of the Board of Bishops/International Ministers and Lay Association of the AME Zion Church, where we honored Sojourner Truth, Frederick Douglass, and Harriet Tubman.

The AME Zion Church, or the ``Freedom Church,'' as many refer to it, was an important part of Harriet Tubman's life and was involved in the forefront of both the abolition and civil rights movements. She was a dedicated member of the church and actively supported the construction of the Thompson AME Church in Auburn, NY, where she lay in state after her death. Harriet Tubman died in Auburn in 1913, and she is buried in the Fort Hill Cemetery.

Fortunately, many of the structures and landmarks in New York remain intact, in relatively good condition. For the past 7 years, I have championed legislation to establish the creation of the Harriet Tubman Historical Parks in Maryland and New York. The creation of these parks has been years in the making and long overdue, and I am very grateful for the support my colleagues gave this bill in the last Congress.

Recently I was able to celebrate this park's formal designation during a ceremonial event at the Harriet Tubman Museum and Educational Center in Cambridge, MD, just a few miles from where she grew up. I was able to meet some of Harriet Tubman's descendants, which was incredibly meaningful to me.

I am so pleased Harriet Tubman's legacy will live on in these parks. My cosponsors and I all share a deep appreciation for how establishing this park is preserving the legacy of this remarkable historic figure in American history and will also show how important this park will be to communities where they are located.

Every February our Nation's children learn lessons about the many contributions African Americans have made to our democracy and to the growth and prosperity of our Nation. Preserving places significant to Harriet Tubman's life story for future generations creates a learning opportunity that our kids and grandkids can't get in the classroom or learn from a textbook.

The park will educate the public about the historical significance of the Underground Railroad and Harriet Tubman's early life and also is expected to increase tourism, create jobs, and strengthen local economies.

The final passage of this bill to create the park was the result of an unyielding bipartisan effort, including Representative Andy Harris, Senator Mikulski, and me, along with our partners from New York, Senators Schumer, Gillibrand, and former Secretary Clinton when she represented New York in this body, along with Congressmen Dan Maffei and Richard Hanna.

This was a bipartisan effort and involved Members from both New York and Maryland. The effort on this legislative work was started by my predecessor, Senator Sarbanes, when he passed legislation commissioning the national service to conduct a special resource study on Harriet Tubman.

The establishment of the national historical park commemorating the life of Harriet Tubman and protecting the serene and almost untouched landscape is an ideal way to celebrate and honor the outstanding life and incredible work of Harriet Tubman, while establishing an important destination for tourists to come visit, learn, and experience Maryland's Eastern Shore.

The vision for the Tubman National Historical Parks is to preserve the places significant to the life of Harriet Tubman and tell her story through interpretive activities, while continuing to discover aspects of her life and the experiences of passage along the Underground Railroad through archaeological research and discovery.

The buildings and structures in Maryland have mainly disappeared. Slaves were forced to live in primitive buildings even though many slaves were skilled tradesmen who constructed the substantial homes of their owners.

Not surprising, few of the structures associated with the early years of Tubman's life remain standing today. The landscape of the Eastern Shore of Maryland, however, is still evocative of the time when Harriet Tubman lived there. Farm fields and loblolly pine forests dot the lowland landscape, which is also notable for its extensive network of tidal rivers and wetlands that Tubman and the people she guided to freedom used under cover of night. In particular, a number of places significant to Tubman's life--including the homestead of Ben Ross, her father; Stewart's Canal, where he worked; the Brodess Farm, where she worked as a slave; and others--are within the master plan boundaries of the Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge. Similarly, Poplar Neck, the plantation from which she escaped, is still largely intact in Caroline County. The properties in Talbot County, immediately across the Choptank River from the plantation, are currently protected by various conservation easements. Were she alive today, Tubman would recognize much of the landscape that she knew intimately as she secretly led freedom

seekers of all ages to the North. This park helps connect people today to America's history.

Only recently has the Park Service begun establishing units dedicated to the lives of African Americans. Places such as Booker T. Washington National Monument on the campus of Tuskegee University in Alabama, the George Washington Carver National Monument in Missouri, the National Historic Trail commemorating the march for voting rights from Selma to Montgomery, and most recently the Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial on the Mall are all important monuments and places of historical significance that help tell the story of the African-American experience.

As the National Park Service continues its important work to commemorate and preserve African-American history by providing greater public access and information about the places and people who have shaped the African-American experience, there are very few units dedicated to the lives of African-American women. This historic park is the first national park in honor of a woman--obviously the first historical park for an African-American woman.

As we celebrate Black history this month and women's history next month, I cannot think of a more fitting hero than Harriet Tubman to be the first African-American woman to be memorialized with national historical parks. These parks tell both her personal story and her lifelong fight for justice and freedom, from her fight against the cruel institution of slavery and the establishment of the Underground Railroad that she led, to her work in the women's suffrage movement.

I encourage my colleagues to seek inspiration from the heroes of their own States and work to preserve the physical remnants of their legacy so that future generations of Americans might better know who helped form this great Nation.

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

Mr. President, I rise in support of the Medicare Access to Rehabilitation Services Act, which I am introducing today with my colleague Senator Collins. This important bill repeals the monetary caps that limit Medicare beneficiaries' access to medically necessary outpatient physical therapy, occupational therapy, and speech-language pathology services.

Limits on outpatient rehabilitation therapy services under Medicare were first imposed in 1997 as part of the Balanced Budget Act. The decision to impose limits on these services was not based on data, quality-of-care concerns, or clinical judgment--its sole purpose was to limit spending in order to balance the federal budget. Since 1997, Congress has acted over 12 times to prevent the implementation of the therapy caps through moratoriums and an exceptions process. While these short-term actions have provided necessary relief to our seniors, a long-term solution is essential to bring permanent relief and much- needed stability for both patients and providers.

We need a full repeal of the existing caps on physical therapy, occupational therapy, and speech-language pathology services. These annual financial caps limit services often needed after a stroke, traumatic brain injury, or spinal cord injury, or to effectively manage conditions such as Parkinson's disease, multiple sclerosis, and arthritis. Arbitrary caps on these vital Medicare outpatient therapy services are simply unacceptable. They also discriminate against the oldest and sickest Medicare beneficiaries, who typically require the most intensive therapy, and disadvantage Medicare beneficiaries who live in regions with higher health care costs.

In a 2009 report issued by the Medicare Payment Advisory Committee, MEDPAC, it was estimated that the

therapy cap, if enforced without an exceptions process, could negatively impact 931,000 Medicare beneficiaries. Arbitrarily capping outpatient rehabilitation therapy services would likely cause some beneficiaries to delay necessary care, force others to assume higher out-of pocket costs, and disrupt the continuum of care for many seniors and individuals with disabilities.

I urge my colleagues to join me and Senator Collins in supporting the Medicare Access to Rehabilitation Services Act to ensure that our seniors have access to the outpatient rehabilitation therapy services that they need.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am pleased join my colleague, Senator Risch, in introducing the Small Business Investment Company Capital, SBIC, Act of 2015. And I am pleased that Congressman Chabot, Chairman of the House Small Business Committee, is introducing the same bill on the House side today.

This bipartisan legislation makes a common-sense change to the Small Business Investment Company, SBIC, program run by the Small Business Administration, SBA. This change will provide increased support to some of the program's most successful participants, SBICs that run multiple funds at a time. At no additional cost to the taxpayer, the SBIC Act will raise the limit that a ``family of funds'' can borrow with an SBA guarantee from $225 million to $350 million

The SBIC program guarantees loans to qualified investment funds, or SBICs. In turn, these SBICs invest in promising small businesses by combining the SBA loan with privately raised capital, often at a 2:1 ratio. It is important to note that while these SBICs are licensed and regulated by the SBA, they are privately owned and operated.

Since its inception, the SBIC Debenture program has been incredibly successful. SBICs have invested more than $70 billion in nearly 170,000 small businesses. Recently, the program has experienced rapid growth. In 2013, SBA guaranteed loans to SBICs equaling $3.5 billion, a 70 percent increase in financing dollars from three years ago and the highest amount of financings in the past decade.

This success is largely attributed to Congressional action that raised the ceiling for maximum investments for the SBIC program each year from $3 billion to $4 billion. Senator Landrieu, Senator Risch, and I worked with a bipartisan coalition to increase this ceiling and ensure SBIC funds have access to sufficient capital to invest in promising small businesses.

Nowhere is the success of this increase seen more than in Maryland. Since the start of fiscal year 2015, SBICs have already invested nearly $65 million in Maryland small businesses. Yet, this success could be enhanced even more if Congress increased the amount SBICs with a family of funds can borrow from the SBA.

SBICs that run multiple funds at a time are known as ``families of funds.'' While many of our Nation's most successful and reliable SBICs have a family of funds, their success is being restricted by the current lending limit. Simply raising the limit from $225 million to $350 million would provide these proven fund managers the additional capital needed to invest in small businesses and stimulate local economies.

Put simply, by increasing the ``family of funds'' lending limit to $350 million, proven investors can invest in more promising small businesses. The SBIC Act enhances the SBA's ability to support these successful investors as they finance small businesses that will continue to create jobs in this country.

Mr. President, I rise in support of the Medicare Access to Rehabilitation Services Act, which I am introducing today with my colleague Senator Collins. This important bill repeals the monetary caps that limit Medicare beneficiaries' access to medically necessary outpatient physical therapy, occupational therapy, and speech-language pathology services.

Limits on outpatient rehabilitation therapy services under Medicare were first imposed in 1997 as part of the Balanced Budget Act. The decision to impose limits on these services was not based on data, quality-of-care concerns, or clinical judgment--its sole purpose was to limit spending in order to balance the federal budget. Since 1997, Congress has acted over 12 times to prevent the implementation of the therapy caps through moratoriums and an exceptions process. While these short-term actions have provided necessary relief to our seniors, a long-term solution is essential to bring permanent relief and much- needed stability for both patients and providers.

We need a full repeal of the existing caps on physical therapy, occupational therapy, and speech-language pathology services. These annual financial caps limit services often needed after a stroke, traumatic brain injury, or spinal cord injury, or to effectively manage conditions such as Parkinson's disease, multiple sclerosis, and arthritis. Arbitrary caps on these vital Medicare outpatient therapy services are simply unacceptable. They also discriminate against the oldest and sickest Medicare beneficiaries, who typically require the most intensive therapy, and disadvantage Medicare beneficiaries who live in regions with higher health care costs.

In a 2009 report issued by the Medicare Payment Advisory Committee, MEDPAC, it was estimated that the

therapy cap, if enforced without an exceptions process, could negatively impact 931,000 Medicare beneficiaries. Arbitrarily capping outpatient rehabilitation therapy services would likely cause some beneficiaries to delay necessary care, force others to assume higher out-of pocket costs, and disrupt the continuum of care for many seniors and individuals with disabilities.

I urge my colleagues to join me and Senator Collins in supporting the Medicare Access to Rehabilitation Services Act to ensure that our seniors have access to the outpatient rehabilitation therapy services that they need.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am pleased join my colleague, Senator Risch, in introducing the Small Business Investment Company Capital, SBIC, Act of 2015. And I am pleased that Congressman Chabot, Chairman of the House Small Business Committee, is introducing the same bill on the House side today.

This bipartisan legislation makes a common-sense change to the Small Business Investment Company, SBIC, program run by the Small Business Administration, SBA. This change will provide increased support to some of the program's most successful participants, SBICs that run multiple funds at a time. At no additional cost to the taxpayer, the SBIC Act will raise the limit that a ``family of funds'' can borrow with an SBA guarantee from $225 million to $350 million

The SBIC program guarantees loans to qualified investment funds, or SBICs. In turn, these SBICs invest in promising small businesses by combining the SBA loan with privately raised capital, often at a 2:1 ratio. It is important to note that while these SBICs are licensed and regulated by the SBA, they are privately owned and operated.

Since its inception, the SBIC Debenture program has been incredibly successful. SBICs have invested more than $70 billion in nearly 170,000 small businesses. Recently, the program has experienced rapid growth. In 2013, SBA guaranteed loans to SBICs equaling $3.5 billion, a 70 percent increase in financing dollars from three years ago and the highest amount of financings in the past decade.

This success is largely attributed to Congressional action that raised the ceiling for maximum investments for the SBIC program each year from $3 billion to $4 billion. Senator Landrieu, Senator Risch, and I worked with a bipartisan coalition to increase this ceiling and ensure SBIC funds have access to sufficient capital to invest in promising small businesses.

Nowhere is the success of this increase seen more than in Maryland. Since the start of fiscal year 2015, SBICs have already invested nearly $65 million in Maryland small businesses. Yet, this success could be enhanced even more if Congress increased the amount SBICs with a family of funds can borrow from the SBA.

SBICs that run multiple funds at a time are known as ``families of funds.'' While many of our Nation's most successful and reliable SBICs have a family of funds, their success is being restricted by the current lending limit. Simply raising the limit from $225 million to $350 million would provide these proven fund managers the additional capital needed to invest in small businesses and stimulate local economies.

Put simply, by increasing the ``family of funds'' lending limit to $350 million, proven investors can invest in more promising small businesses. The SBIC Act enhances the SBA's ability to support these successful investors as they finance small businesses that will continue to create jobs in this country.