Floor Statements

Mr. President, I want to speak about a subject that other Senators should be aware of.

Many Members of Congress have visited the Philippines, a country with which we share a long history of strategic, economic, cultural, and other interests. We also know that, for many years, the Philippine Government has been fighting an extremist insurgency in Mindanao. The United States has been supporting the Philippine Government in that effort.

According to information I have received, on February 21, 2018, the Philippines State Prosecutor filed a legal petition to declare over 600 persons as ``terrorists,'' alleging that they are members of the Communist party of the Philippines, CPP, and the New Peoples Army, NPA, two groups designated by the United States as foreign terrorist organizations. The list was published after the collapse of the peace negotiations between CPP-NPA and the Philippine Government last year.

By itself, that might not be objectionable. There are terrorists in the Philippines. The problem with this ``terrorist list'' is that the government is apparently using it to persecute people who have nothing to do with terrorism, but who have engaged in legitimate, peaceful dissent and protests in opposition to government policies that threaten their way of life.

The list includes a number of indigenous rights defenders who, as far as I am aware, are not at all affiliated with the CPP-NPA. These individuals are known and respected nationally and internationally for their consistent, lawful efforts to protect human rights for the most vulnerable and marginalized populations in the Philippines. By criminalizing their work and including these activists on an official terrorist list, the administration of President Duterte is endangering the lives of these and other human rights defenders and community leaders. It is a misuse of the justice system to deny their rights to free expression, association, and assembly--rights we take for granted and that are enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The affected individuals are now subject to warrantless arrests, surveillance, and freezing of assets. Their lives and the lives of their families are in danger. Human Rights Watch has described the petition as ``a virtual government hit list,'' noting the ``long history in the Philippines of state security forces and pro-government militias assassinating those labeled as NPA members or supporters.'' In March 2018 alone, there were reportedly at least three cases of extrajudicial killings of indigenous leaders, all known for their work to organize communities for the protection of indigenous lands.

Two of the more high-profile targeted activists, Joan Carling and Victoria Tauli Corpuz, were fortunate to have been out of the country when the list was published. Carling is an indigenous activist from the Cordillera region in the Philippines. She has been working on indigenous issues at the grassroots and international levels for more than 20 years. Ms. Carling has been elected twice as the Secretary General of the Asia Indigenous Peoples Pact, AIPP, representing AIPP's 47 member-organizations in 14 countries. She was appointed by the U.N. Economic and Social Council as an indigenous expert-member of the U.N. Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues for 2014-16.

Victoria Tauli Corpuz was appointed as the U.N. Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples by the U.N. Human Rights Council in 2014. She is an indigenous leader from the

Kankana-ey Igorot people of the Cordillera region in the Philippines. As an indigenous activist, she has worked for over three decades to protect indigenous rights and as an advocate for women's rights.

As a consequence of the Duterte administration's action, these women suddenly have no home to return to. They cannot risk going back to the Philippines. Still, they are fortunate compared to those targeted leaders who remain in the country. The terrorist list also includes members of indigenous communities in Mindanao who were displaced from their lands in President Duterte's antiterrorism sweep and now live precariously in evacuation camps.

Much of this reportedly has to do with powerful business interests in collusion with corrupt officials in the government. In the recent past, the Philippine Government has fast-tracked priority infrastructure development projects. Some of these projects are reportedly planned to be built on ancestral indigenous lands, despite opposition from indigenous communities and the failure to secure indigenous peoples' free, prior, and informed consent as required by Philippine law and as contained in the 2007 U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Indigenous leaders have objected to these projects, insisting that the government respect their rights and obtain their consent for projects that affect them.

The United States has long supported efforts of the Philippine Government and civil society to unlock the country's potential to achieve inclusive, sustainable economic growth. As ranking member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on the Department of State and Foreign Operations, I have supported programs to help the Philippines combat poverty, strengthen democratic institutions, enhance maritime security, and protect the rights of its people.

Criminalizing these indigenous rights defenders would reverse progress the country has made and threaten the functioning of civil society which is fundamental to any democracy. Joan Carling, Victoria Tauli Corpuz, and other indigenous leaders and activists who from all indications are guilty of nothing more than defending their territories and cultures do not belong on a ``terrorist'' list. Instead, the government should be defending their rights and protecting their safety and the safety of other indigenous leaders and human rights activists.

Our own government, the Departments of State and Defense and the U.S. Agency for International Development, as well as international financial institutions we support, should ensure that development activities are carried out in accordance with the rights of local communities, including the right of indigenous peoples to free, prior, and informed consent.

We all oppose terrorism wherever it occurs, but our collective approach to preventing terrorism has too often made the problem worse, especially when the result is the curtailment of basic freedoms. Labeling as ``terrorists'' political opponents or civil society activists who do not advocate or engage in violence and who, to the contrary, have been threatened and attacked for defending their rights is one example of this, and it is an increasingly common tactic of governments; yet there are few if any ways more likely to cause people to resort to violence than by misusing government power to suppress legitimate dissent. Far from stopping terrorism, adopting such abusive tactics sets back our collective efforts against terrorism.

Mr. President, many of us here are familiar with the International Commission Against Impunity in Guatemala, known as CICIG. The U.S. Congress and Republican and Democratic administrations have supported it for years, and with few exceptions, it is strongly supported by the Guatemalan people. That is because CICIG, working closely with the Office of the Attorney General, has proven what many Guatemalans thought impossible, that even the most powerful government officials who commit major crimes believing they are above the law can be brought to justice.

CICIG was created in December 2006, when the United Nations and Guatemala signed a treaty-level agreement setting up CICIG as an independent body to support the Office of the Attorney General, the National Civilian Police, and other Guatemalan Government institutions in the investigation and prosecution of particularly sensitive and difficult cases. I vividly remember that time, when impunity for even the worst crimes was a virtual certainty in Guatemala.

During more than 35 years of internal armed conflict an estimated 200,000 Guatemalans, mostly rural Mayan villagers, were murdered--the vast majority by the army. Many were rounded up and never seen or heard from again. Thanks largely to the efforts of the Guatemala Forensic Anthropology Foundation, the tortured remains of many hundreds have been found in unmarked mass graves, some on former military bases. Hardly anyone has been punished for those atrocities, and past attempts to investigate and prosecute some of the individuals responsible were stymied.

Even in the years since that dark period, almost anyone, especially those in positions of authority, got away with anything, including assassinations and robbing the public treasury. Today, few crimes involving official corruption and violations of human rights are prosecuted, and even fewer result in conviction and punishment.

But those that have been credibly investigated and brought to trial are due to the courageous efforts of CICIG and its commissioner, Ivan Velasquez, a respected Colombian jurist, and the recently retired attorney general, Thelma Aldana, who carried on the tradition of independence and integrity established by her predecessor, Claudia Paz y Paz. These prosecutors have given hope not only to victims who long ago lost faith in Guatemala's dysfunctional justice system, but also to many members of the business community who recognize that, without an independent judiciary and confidence that the rule of law will be enforced, Guatemala will never attract the foreign investment it needs to develop.

Predictably and throughout its history, CICIG has come under attack from those who have enriched themselves at public expense and escaped justice, including for heinous crimes. Fearing prosecution, they have sought to challenge CICIG's legitimacy and impugned the character and conduct of its commissioner. Each time, CICIG has survived, thanks to the support of the international community.

Today, CICIG is once again being attacked, including by some senior officials, who have sought to exploit factual misrepresentations, including those echoed in the Guatemalan and U.S. media, about a troubling case involving members of a Russian family who entered Guatemala with fraudulent passports. This has even resulted in a portion of the funds appropriated by Congress for CICIG to be temporarily blocked from disbursement.

Without recounting the bizarre facts of that case, suffice it to say that not a shred of credible evidence has been presented to support the allegations of abuse of authority leveled at CICIG and in particular at Commissioner Velasquez. That, however, does not appear to matter to those who have long sought an excuse to replace Velasquez with someone who is susceptible to intimidation. The Bitkov case, which has all the makings of a made for TV tragedy, should be appropriately resolved in the Guatemalan courts. The family should be treated justly and humanely. But CICIG is not the problem.

It is important to reiterate what the Guatemalan people know: CICIG is an absolutely essential institution that has enabled the office of the attorney general to break through the wall of impunity in ways that would never have been possible without CICIG's support. It is that simple. Without CICIG, there is no reason to believe that any case involving high-ranking officials or members of organized crime networks with the ability to intimidate and bribe prosecutors and judges and threaten or assassinate witnesses will be brought to justice.

It is also a fact that CICIG is only as effective as its commissioner and that, while even those who want to rein in CICIG publicly claim to support it, they make little secret of their goal to get rid of Velasquez.

Commissioner Velasquez is an experienced, courageous jurist with integrity. That is why he was hired for the job, and by all indications, he is guilty of nothing more than doing the job he was hired to do. The more he does so, the more those who fear prosecution will try to find ways to stop him. It is therefore very important at this time that the international community, including the United States, reaffirms its support for Velasquez and the fight against corruption and impunity in Guatemala.

It is noteworthy that the former attorney general has consistently voiced her support for Velasquez because, if anyone should know if there is a grain of truth to the allegations against him, it would be her. She knows from experience the motivations of those who are aligned against CICIG because they have also tried to intimidate her.

In order for CICIG and Commissioner Velasquez to effectively carry out CICIG's mandate through the reminder of its current term that ends in September 2019, he needs the support of the Guatemalan Government, the United Nations, the United States, and other governments that support justice in Guatemala. I commend the Department of State and U.S. Ambassador Arreaga for recognizing what is at stake and for seeking ways to ensure that CICIG and Commissioner Velasquez can carry out their responsibilities transparently and effectively. I also know that a majority of Democrats and Republicans respect Commissioner Velasquez and want CICIG to receive the funds it needs. I am confident that the funds will be released, that CICIG and the role of the Commissioner will be enhanced, and that the cause of justice for the Guatemalan people will be served.

Mr. President, right now, in a small town in West Virginia 90 miles outside of our Nation's capital, dedicated employees of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) are diligently searching through millions of firearms sales records at the National Tracing Center. They are busily responding to urgent requests from detectives and agents to trace firearms found at crime scenes throughout the country. By the end of the day, they will likely have completed more than 1,000 requests, providing law enforcement with information that can lead to arrests, prosecutions, and ultimately justice for victims of violent crime.

The tracing center plays a critical and unique role in keeping our communities safe. It is the only crime gun tracing facility in the country. Its sole purpose is to help track down and hold criminals accountable.

One would expect Congress to fully and unequivocally support this mission. Yet, inexplicably, Congress has done the opposite. Relenting to pressure from the gun lobby, Congress placed archaic hurdles on crime gun traces, prohibiting the ATF from digitizing or electronically searching through firearms records.

These restrictions were born out of an unfounded fear that can only be described as a conspiracy theory: that allowing records to be electronically searched would lead to firearms--presumably to include my own--being seized by the government en masse, in clear violation of both the Second and Fourth Amendments.

This unworldly fear is having a very real-world impact. In an era when an electronic trace could be completed in an instant, the ATF is instead forced to locate individual records by visiting Federal firearms licensees or searching by hand through the records housed at the National Tracing Center; these National Tracing Center records currently number 800 million, and are

growing by an additional 2 million each month.

Some of these records have been damaged by flooding and mold. Countless more have been relegated to rented shipping containers in the parking lot, as the floor of the tracing center is structurally unable to support the weight of so many thousands of boxes. Other records are stored as images on microfilm, forcing ATF employees to reel through up to 10,000 records on a single roll to find the one desired firearm.

Tracing requests are processed every single day, 24 hours a day, so that when a homicide detective finds a firearm believed to have been used in a murder, the detective can determine the chain of custody for that firearm, which may lead to a suspect.

I asked the ATF about the impact of these restrictions on crime gun traces at a recent hearing of the Judiciary Committee Acting Director Thomas Brandon stated that in these criminal investigations, ``time matters, [and] getting accurate information can develop the critical lead.'' He testified that if the ATF were able to electroncially search through records it would be ``beneficial for public safety.''

I agree. That is why today I am introducing the Crime Gun Tracing Modernization Act, which will bring our nation's tracing capabilities into the 21st century. This legislation would empower the ATF to digitize and electronically search through its firearms records, so that it can quickly and accurately connect crime guns with purchasers. Yet this legislation is also narrowly tailored; it only permits the ATF to search through firearms sale and disposition records that it already has access to, and only for the purposes of criminal and national security investigations, and it strictly prohibits searches using an individual's name or other personally identifiable information.

This legislation represents only a modest step, but an important step. There are few signs more revealing of Congress's inability to responsibly legislate gun policy than its insistence that law enforcement not be allowed to effectively search through records already in its possession. The gun lobby cannot be permitted to tie the hands of agents and detectives investigating violent gun crime. We cannot let a baseless conspiracy theory drive our public safety policies.

It is time for Congress to fix our mistakes. It is time to bring one of our Nation's premier law enforcement agencies, which in turn serves every Federal, State, and local agency in the country, out of the Stone Age. It is no surprise that this legisation is supported by important voices within the law enforcement community, including the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, Major Cities Chiefs Association, and Association of Prosecuting Attorneys.

I am also proud that March For Our Lives, led by the students of Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, strongly supports this legislation. We in Congress owe it to those who have been victimized by gun violence to do something. There are many commonsense steps we can and should take right now. That includes removing indefensible restrictions on law enforcement that waste public safety resources and delay critical investigations of violent gun crime. I urge my fellow senators to join me and Senator Nelson in supporting this important legislation.

Mr. President, right now, in a small town in West Virginia 90 miles outside of our Nation's capital, dedicated employees of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) are diligently searching through millions of firearms sales records at the National Tracing Center. They are busily responding to urgent requests from detectives and agents to trace firearms found at crime scenes throughout the country. By the end of the day, they will likely have completed more than 1,000 requests, providing law enforcement with information that can lead to arrests, prosecutions, and ultimately justice for victims of violent crime.

The tracing center plays a critical and unique role in keeping our communities safe. It is the only crime gun tracing facility in the country. Its sole purpose is to help track down and hold criminals accountable.

One would expect Congress to fully and unequivocally support this mission. Yet, inexplicably, Congress has done the opposite. Relenting to pressure from the gun lobby, Congress placed archaic hurdles on crime gun traces, prohibiting the ATF from digitizing or electronically searching through firearms records.

These restrictions were born out of an unfounded fear that can only be described as a conspiracy theory: that allowing records to be electronically searched would lead to firearms--presumably to include my own--being seized by the government en masse, in clear violation of both the Second and Fourth Amendments.

This unworldly fear is having a very real-world impact. In an era when an electronic trace could be completed in an instant, the ATF is instead forced to locate individual records by visiting Federal firearms licensees or searching by hand through the records housed at the National Tracing Center; these National Tracing Center records currently number 800 million, and are

growing by an additional 2 million each month.

Some of these records have been damaged by flooding and mold. Countless more have been relegated to rented shipping containers in the parking lot, as the floor of the tracing center is structurally unable to support the weight of so many thousands of boxes. Other records are stored as images on microfilm, forcing ATF employees to reel through up to 10,000 records on a single roll to find the one desired firearm.

Tracing requests are processed every single day, 24 hours a day, so that when a homicide detective finds a firearm believed to have been used in a murder, the detective can determine the chain of custody for that firearm, which may lead to a suspect.

I asked the ATF about the impact of these restrictions on crime gun traces at a recent hearing of the Judiciary Committee Acting Director Thomas Brandon stated that in these criminal investigations, ``time matters, [and] getting accurate information can develop the critical lead.'' He testified that if the ATF were able to electroncially search through records it would be ``beneficial for public safety.''

I agree. That is why today I am introducing the Crime Gun Tracing Modernization Act, which will bring our nation's tracing capabilities into the 21st century. This legislation would empower the ATF to digitize and electronically search through its firearms records, so that it can quickly and accurately connect crime guns with purchasers. Yet this legislation is also narrowly tailored; it only permits the ATF to search through firearms sale and disposition records that it already has access to, and only for the purposes of criminal and national security investigations, and it strictly prohibits searches using an individual's name or other personally identifiable information.

This legislation represents only a modest step, but an important step. There are few signs more revealing of Congress's inability to responsibly legislate gun policy than its insistence that law enforcement not be allowed to effectively search through records already in its possession. The gun lobby cannot be permitted to tie the hands of agents and detectives investigating violent gun crime. We cannot let a baseless conspiracy theory drive our public safety policies.

It is time for Congress to fix our mistakes. It is time to bring one of our Nation's premier law enforcement agencies, which in turn serves every Federal, State, and local agency in the country, out of the Stone Age. It is no surprise that this legisation is supported by important voices within the law enforcement community, including the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, Major Cities Chiefs Association, and Association of Prosecuting Attorneys.

I am also proud that March For Our Lives, led by the students of Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, strongly supports this legislation. We in Congress owe it to those who have been victimized by gun violence to do something. There are many commonsense steps we can and should take right now. That includes removing indefensible restrictions on law enforcement that waste public safety resources and delay critical investigations of violent gun crime. I urge my fellow senators to join me and Senator Nelson in supporting this important legislation.

Mr. President, as vice chairman of the Appropriations Committee, I want to associate myself with Chairman Shelby's remarks. Since the inception of the Choice Program in 2014, it has been riddled with delays, programmatic problems, and fiscal instability. In many areas of the country, the networks that were established left providers unhappy about the speed of reimbursement and veterans often trying to navigate a cumbersome system. Congress has had to provide $4.2 billion within the last year alone, just to keep the program afloat. That is why I am pleased that Senators Isakson and Tester worked in a bipartisan way to try and fix Choice by establishing a streamlined and consolidated program that will make non-VA care more efficient. However, to truly address these problems and provide the care that our veterans deserve, we need to not only fix the policy, but we must also provide the funding to enact that policy. This bill does not do that.

The MISSION Act appropriates $5.2 billion in mandatory spending, $1.3 billion of which will merely fill the fiscal year 18 shortfall in the current Choice program. The remaining balance of $3.9 billion will provide enough funding for Choice through May 2019, but leaves the program short between $1 and $1.5 billion for the rest of the fiscal year when the new program shifts to the discretionary side. According to CBO the cost only goes up in the out-years, with the major components of the new Community Care program costing another $8.67 billion in fiscal year 20 and more than $9.5 billion in fiscal year 21. This is unsustainable under the BCA non-defense discretionary caps, which are set in law and were negotiated prior to the passage of this bill and without accounting for these costs. We do our veterans no favors by promising care without backing it up with resources.

I will not stand in the way of the new policy created in this bill, as I do believe it creates a better Community Care program, but Chairman Shelby and I have a proposal that will help us fulfill our promise to our veterans by allowing for an adjustment to the caps to help us pay for this program. We intend to address this issue when the Senate MilCon/VA appropriations bill comes to the floor by offering an amendment that keeps the promises we are making today, and I would like to ask both Senator Isakson and Senator Tester for their full support with this effort.

Mr. President, the Senate has often been called the world's greatest deliberative body, where we can thoroughly and respectfully debate weighty matters, regardless of pressures imposed by any given moment. While we do not always live up to this ideal, it is one for which we should always strive. The Constitution entrusts us with the task of serving as a check against the executive branch, providing our advice and--if appropriate--our consent to the Executive's nominees to lead our government's most critical agencies. During my time here, at its best, the Senate can be and actually should be the conscience of the Nation.

So as we move to vote on the nomination of Gina Haspel, with very little debate and gaping holes in her record, I fear the Senate is failing to fulfill its basic duty to provide advice and informed consent to her nomination. Remember, we are supposed to advise and consent, and worse yet, we are failing in our duty to serve as the Nation's conscience.

Now much of what is publicly known about Ms. Haspel's role in the CIA is disturbing. To begin with--and I have listened to Senators on both sides--I do not question Ms. Haspel's commitment to our country or to our national security that, I think, she has established. But what I question is her judgment and her fidelity to a core value of our Nation: that all people have certain inalienable rights. Underlying these inalienable rights is our belief in the basic dignity of human beings, a dignity that is incompatible with inhumane practices like torture. Torture should never be part of America's way of leading the world.

During the height of the CIA's torture program, Ms. Haspel ran one of the Agency's most notorious ``black sites'' in Thailand. There, under her leadership, brutal torture techniques were employed. From available accounts, according to that which has been made public, this included waterboarding detainees, slamming them against walls, and confining them in coffin-shaped boxes for extended periods of time.

At the time, there was a benign euphemism for this treatment. It was called ``enhanced interrogation techniques.'' But we know better. This wasn't ``enhanced interrogation techniques.'' This was government- sanctioned torture, pure and simple. Torture is immoral. Torture is inhumane. Frankly, torture is un-American. I agree with our colleague Senator John McCain--he is one who speaks with a distinct moral clarity on this issue--that Ms. Haspel's refusal to condemn torture as immoral is disqualifying. For that reason alone, I cannot, in good conscience, support her nomination.

But it is worse than that. Ms. Haspel also reportedly advocated for destroying the videotapes of these torture sessions--now, that was against the advice of the CIA's own lawyers. More than that, it was in contravention of a Federal judicial order requiring that they be preserved. The CIA's former general counsel said Ms. Haspel was one of the ``staunchest advocates . . . for destroying the tapes.'' Notwithstanding the advice of the CIA's lawyer, notwithstanding the federal judicial order, she claimed that destroying the tapes was necessary to protect the security of CIA officers conducting these interrogations.

But that explanation withers under even the slightest scrutiny. If that were really the concern, then the CIA could easily have copied the tapes with the officers' faces blacked out and only then destroyed the originals. All of us are used to seeing news items with the faces of certain witnesses and others blacked out. Nor do we have access to the only independent account of Ms. Haspel's role in the destruction of the tapes--the Justice Department's Durham Report. I joined nine Senators on the Judiciary Committee in a request for access to the Durham Report, but our request has not been accommodated. As a result, we will not know the full story of the tapes' destruction before we are asked to vote on Ms. Haspel's nomination today.

This is just what we know through public reports. There is much more the American people don't know about Ms. Haspel's actions because it remains classified. The American people have been kept in the dark in part because Ms. Haspel herself has been responsible for what information about her record is declassified. It is a brazen conflict of interest that Ms. Haspel can decide what to release and what to conceal about her past. The CIA has declassified glowing facts about Ms. Haspel's work with Mother Teresa, but refuses to disclose basic information that would shed light on her past actions and what values would guide her as CIA director. This process has been reduced to a farce.

I have reviewed classified materials on Ms. Haspel's long career at the CIA, and I find these materials to be deeply disturbing. I am not able to discuss any of the details revealed in these materials, again, because Ms. Haspel has decided to keep them cloaked by classification. Candidly, I do not believe a Senator can provide his or her informed consent to this nominee without first reviewing these materials.

Now, I recognize, and I must say I appreciate, that Ms. Haspel has committed to not allowing the CIA to resurrect the use of torture if she is confirmed. I also recognize that that commitment, while commendable, is not optional. Torture is illegal; that is simply what the law demands.

But what about the next immoral action that this President might ask her to commit? Should we trust that she will have the moral compass to stand up and say ``no''? Based on what we have seen, I do not.

The world is watching closely today. Our allies and our enemies--and our own future generations--will view this vote as nothing less than a referendum on torture. If the Senate--this body that I cherish--gives its blessing to a nominee who is synonymous with the CIA's interrogation program, then the demons of our past--from Abu Ghraib to the CIA's black sites--may haunt us anew.

I do not believe that this blight on our history represents who we are or what we stand for. I really do not believe that this is the soul of America. But it is a terrible mistake. I believe we must clearly demonstrate that we are capable of learning from and moving beyond our darker chapters as a nation. If we make a mistake, we should admit it and take steps not to have it happen again. For that reason, I will vote no on Ms. Haspel's nomination.

Mr. President, I do not see another Senator seeking recognition.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr President, millions of Americans were outraged last year when the Federal Communications Commission, FCC, voted to repeal the strong and enforceable net neutrality rules that were adopted in 2015. As a supporter of a free and open internet, I share the public's outrage over the loss of these critical protections, which is why I am voting in favor of this resolution to restore the previous rules.

By repealing net neutrality rules, the FCC and its supporters in Congress have achieved little more than to plunge consumers and small businesses into a fog of uncertainty. Instead of having concrete legal protections in place against blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization, internet users now have little more than vague promises from broadband providers about how they will treat content online. These promises could disappear with little notice or no recourse for those affected. This is the wrong way to approach policy for the greatest engine of economic growth and free speech ever devised.

The uncertainty created by Republicans at the FCC and blessed by too many here in Congress jeopardizes the success of small businesses and startups across the country. One of the main concerns I hear from small businesses in Vermont is fear of paid prioritization. Without clear rules in place, broadband providers can set up pay-to-play schemes that disadvantage small businesses against deep-pocketed competitors.

In a pay-to-play online world, small businesses will be forced to decide whether or not to pay tolls in order to avoid being stuck in the slow lane. These tolls do nothing to promote innovation, but they would impose a tremendous cost on entrepreneurs. These costs would come at the expense of investing in new equipment, new products, or new jobs. For those who choose not to pay, the cost would be access to customers, who today already make decisions based on how fast a page or application loads. A few seconds of lag time can mean the difference between a sale made or a sale lost to a competitor.

Net neutrality rules matter because they provide small businesses with the certainty that paid prioritization will not happen. The promises and statements made by leading broadband providers following the repeal of the rules too often make no mention at all of their stance on paid prioritization. Others have quietly deleted promises not to engage in this behavior from their website. In February, the CEO of Sprint was quoted comparing the internet to roads, saying that, on many roads, ``you have a faster road and you pay more. There's nothing wrong with that.'' Concerns about paid prioritization cannot be dismissed when CEOs of leading companies are speaking openly about the benefits of toll roads on the internet.

This should not be a partisan issue. Republicans and Democrats alike should want to provide the small business community with the certainty that the internet will remain an equal playing field. The simple reality is that, without net neutrality rules, this certainty will not exist. The resolution we are considering today gives us the clearest path to restoring that certainty. I urge all Senators to stand with the American people, small businesses, and startups in supporting this resolution.

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

Mr. President, notwithstanding what we sometimes hear about a deadlocked Washington, there are times when both parties work together. Three months ago, Republicans and Democrats came together, and we reached a bipartisan budget agreement. Republicans and Democrats together reached an agreement to lift the budget caps and provide relief from sequestration but, most importantly, to make responsible and new investments in the American people over the next 2 years. Then, President Trump, as he stated earlier that he would do if we reached that agreement, signed it into law.

But now, even though he signed it into law and even though the agreement had been worked out with Republicans, Democrats, and the White House together, the President has proposed--and, unfortunately, House Republicans have drawn up a proposal--to claw back vital funding for children's healthcare, to claw back funding for rural communities, to take back funding for our infrastructure programs, and to take back funding for law enforcement.

These programs from which the White House and, apparently, their allies in the House want to raid the money aren't Democratic priorities. They are bipartisan, American priorities. Ivanka Trump has said that American families need relief. The policies that allow women with children to thrive shouldn't be just for a press conference or a photo opportunity. They should be the norm.

President Trump's proposal would claw back $7 billion from the Children's Health Insurance Program, or CHIP. If you can't keep a child healthy, what are they going to be like as an adult? CHIP currently provides health insurance for 8.7 million vulnerable children from low- income families. Millions of families from red States and blue States, urban and rural, depend on CHIP to keep their children healthy and happy and to make them the healthy and happy future generation. I don't know how pulling $7 billion out of this program aligns with the policies to allow children to thrive and to say that should be the norm. You can't say at a press opportunity: This will be the norm--to allow children to thrive--but oh, by the way, we are going to take back the money to make that work. And if the money can no longer be dedicated to the CHIP program, well, then reinvest it in other important programs as we have done in the past--programs that support our Nation's children and families, including Head Start, the Child Care and Development Block Grant Program, opioid prevention, and cutting-edge research at NIH.

The President's proposal also takes away $159 million from our law enforcement. I began my career in law enforcement. I can't understand taking $159 million from law enforcement. The President claims that he is going to ``support our police like our police have never been supported before.'' This week is National Police Week. Today, May 15, is designated as National Peace Officers Memorial Day. This is when we pause to thank and recognize our Nation's law enforcement officers for their important work and those officers who sacrificed their

lives. How does cutting $159 million in resources support our law enforcement?

Then the President's proposal will claw back $462 million from infrastructure programs. The President has tweeted often that our infrastructure will, again, be the best in the world--the greatest in the world, he tweets. A tweet doesn't cost anything, but if you are going to match your actions and your words, it may cost something. It doesn't help if you are going to take almost half a billion dollars out of our infrastructure at the same time that you are saying and tweeting that we are going to make it the best in the world.

He said he is going to cut $252 million that is meant to combat infectious diseases that threaten the United States and threaten millions of Americans who travel, work, serve, and study abroad. Just last week, there were confirmed cases of the Ebola virus in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. This is not a fight we should be retreating from.

We shouldn't say we will stop money to fight infectious diseases but then we send our soldiers abroad. We send our Peace Corps abroad. We send our diplomats abroad, and Americans travel abroad. We have students who go abroad. Don't retreat from that fight.

The United States will not be ready to face the flu pandemic until it improves its vaccines, its healthcare infrastructure, and its coordination with other countries--all of which we are told are top priorities for the White House, according to a National Security Council official who said on Monday:

Influenza is a priority to the White House, and represents

both a health security and a national security threat. Today,

however, we cannot respond with the speed that we need to.

This is probably because of the large number of deaths of Americans inside the United States during the last flu season. But what do they do? They cut back a quarter of a billion dollars meant to combat infectious diseases. The photo op where they say that we are against these kinds of infections in the United States looks good. Nobody is going to disagree with being against it. I hope my colleagues will disagree with cutting out the money we need to carry out the President's promise.

Then, there is the proposal to claw back $1 billion meant to invest in our rural communities. Almost 2 months ago, in about March--it seems so long ago--Secretary Perdue testified before the Senate that ``prosperity in rural America is particularly vital, not just for the rural communities we love, that many of us call home, but also for our entire Nation.'' I agree with Secretary Perdue. Many of us do call rural communities home. My own town has 1,800 people in it. I love it, so I agree with him, but whether it is a rural community in my State or any of the 50 States, we don't invest in their prosperity, as the administration has promised, if we strip $1 billion in resources from them.

In fact, the President's promises this will not be his last proposal. He is going to send another package in the coming weeks that would attack the foundation of the bipartisan agreement--an agreement Republicans and Democrats reached in Congress and was signed into law by the President. He is going to go back on that, adding even more rescissions.

I am sure he is looking at the deficit. The President's tax giveaway to billionaires and corporations increased our Nation's deficit by $1.9 trillion. According to the CBO, the rescission bill the House will debate next week will save only $1 billion--a tiny, tiny fraction of what has been given away to billionaires and corporations.

The President's actions should match his words. He says ``America First,'' but then just in the last few days, he has gone out of his way to fight to save jobs, but they are Chinese jobs. I would rather he fight to save jobs in our State. I wish that rather than spending his time fighting to save Chinese jobs, the President would work to save American jobs. We have people who could use jobs in our country. Let China worry about China's jobs. Don't have the President spending his time, first, cutting the money to create jobs in America and then spending time fighting to save Chinese jobs in China. You can't strip investments from the American people and say you are in favor of saving jobs in China and say that somehow this is making America strong.

In the Senate, though, there is good news. We are focused on moving forward, on a bipartisan basis, on the fiscal year 2019 process. Just yesterday, Chairman Shelby and I announced a schedule. We will mark up all 12 of the appropriations bills by the end of June. Our staffs, Republican and Democratic alike, are going to be working nights and weekends to get us in this position. We, as Senators, are committed to spending whatever amount of time it takes--whether we have to go into the evening, whether we have to go throughout the week--to get all 12 of them marked up by the end of June.

I hope the House Republican leader will abandon this ill-considered rescission bill. This is not the start to the fiscal year 2019 process I would have hoped for.

Chairman Shelby and I have different patterns and different philosophies, but we want the Senate to work. We are working very hard together. I have great respect for him in putting together our 12 appropriations bills. We can do it. We will be a better body if we do it. Let's stop the tweeting and the sloganeering, and let's deal with substance.

Mr. President, I want to bring to the attention of all Senators the winners of the 2018 Goldman Environmental Prize, the world's largest and most prestigious award for grassroots environmental activism.

Richard N. Goldman, 1920-2010, and his wife Rhoda H. Goldman, 1924- 1996, established the prize in 1989. They had devoted much of their lives to environmental protection, and they conceived of the prize in order to recognize ordinary individuals working at the grassroots level who protect and enhance the Earth's environment.

As the Goldman Prize website states, ``It views `grassroots' leaders as those involved in local efforts, where positive change is created through community or citizen participation in the issues that affect them. Through recognizing these individual leaders, the Prize seeks to inspire other ordinary people to take extraordinary actions to protect the natural world.'' The award ceremony, held annually in both San Francisco and Washington, DC, is one of the year's most inspiring events.

Since Richard and Rhoda Goldman passed away, their three children have continued the prize. In doing so, they have honored courageous individuals from Africa, Asia, Europe, islands and island nations, North America, and South and Central America who have struggled for years, often against overwhelming odds, to protect endangered ecosystems and species, combat destructive development projects, promote sustainable environmental and energy policies, and obtain environmental justice.

Recipients of the prize are often from isolated rural communities or impoverished urban neighborhoods who have in common a lack of prior experience in activism, politics, or the law, but what they also share is that, when the forests, farmland, water, and air that their children, families, and communities depend on for their health and survival were faced with potentially existential threats, they took great personal risks to challenge those responsible, whether private industry, criminal networks, governments, or a combination of all three.

Their struggles, beginning with one or a handful of concerned individuals, grew to encompass whole communities and in some instances ignited national movements. What first seemed like tilting at windmills was eventually, through dogged and brave perseverance, shown to be possible, often after exposing lies, unbridled greed, and corruption on the part of large corporations and their accomplices at the highest levels of government.

By doing so, they have reminded us of the grave perils our planet faces today, that a single individual--regardless of his or her station in life--when moved to act can transform cynicism and despair into activism and change and that each of us has a responsibility to follow their example.

This year's prize winners, who deserve our admiration and thanks, are as follows: Europe, Claire Nouvian of France; South and Central America, Francia Marquez of Colombia; islands and island nations, Manny Calonzo of the Philippines; Africa, Makoma Lekalakala and Liz McDaid of South Africa; Asia, Khanh Nguy Thi of Vietnam; and North America, LeeAnne Walters of Flint, MI.

I urge all Senators to go to the Goldman Environmental Prize website and read the inspiring stories of these extraordinary, ordinary individuals. The people of their countries are rightfully proud of them and grateful for what they have done to protect the health of their communities and of future generations. Their governments should likewise afford them the respect and recognition they deserve.

I commend the Goldman siblings for carrying on their parents' generous legacy and educating all of us about these role models for the world.

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

Mr. President, we ``new'' Members don't think to look up at the lights. I apologize, but I appreciate being recognized.

Madam President, I did not vote for Rex Tillerson to be Secretary of State. Although Mr. Tillerson was a successful corporate executive, I did not believe that heading the world's largest oil company was the right resume for the Nation's top diplomat. Mr. Tillerson is a man of substantial intellect who wanted to do the right thing, but his record as Secretary of State speaks for itself. He did not do well, and the country, the State Department, and its employees-- including some of our most experienced diplomats who felt they were no longer relevant--paid a substantial price.

For that reason, it is imperative that the next Secretary of State has the qualities and professional track record to restore the preeminent role that the Department has traditionally played in U.S. foreign policy.

It is also for that reason that today I intend to vote against the nomination of CIA Director Mike Pompeo to be Secretary of State.

By all accounts, Mr. Pompeo, like Mr. Tillerson, is a man of substantial intellect, and my conversations with him have seemed to confirm that. As we have learned, that alone is not enough to qualify one for a job that should be filled by someone who has proven that he or she understands and is skilled in the art of diplomacy and whose beliefs are consistent with fundamental American values. As the country's top diplomat, the Secretary of State should be a vocal and persuasive advocate for diplomacy to avoid conflict and crises. Unfortunately, I believe Mr. Pompeo's record falls far short.

Mike Pompeo has made no secret of his strong support for President Trump, whose saber rattling, provocations, and so-called America First policies would more accurately be described as ``America Alone.'' The President has called for drastic cuts in the State Department's budget and personnel that would sharply diminish its role in diplomacy and development. He would weaken international organizations and alliances that serve our interests and undermine U.S. global leadership at a time when China and our other competitors are seeking every opportunity to expand their global reach. Unlike Secretary of Defense Mattis who, in response to the White House's proposed cuts, has been a strong advocate for the State Department's mission and budget, I am not aware that Mr. Pompeo ever publicly expressed a view either way until his confirmation hearing.

Mr. Pompeo supported the invasion of Iraq, and he has defended the use of torture, two of the most profoundly misguided foreign policy decisions since the Vietnam war. As far as I know, it was not until this week, when his nomination was in jeopardy, that he said the Iraq war that he had long defended was a mistake, a mistake that claimed the lives of thousands of

American soldiers and sowed chaos in the Middle East. The fact that he has insisted that waterboarding is not torture and, by implication, acceptable should by itself be disqualifying for the job of Secretary of State.

He has supported keeping open the Guantanamo detention facility, arguing that detainees ``should stay right where they are'' and that the facility ``is the right place for [detainees] from both a security and legal perspective.'' That is as wrong as it is disturbing. The indefinite detention without trial of detainees at Guantanamo contradicts our most basic principles of justice, degrades our international standing, and harms our national security. Mr. Pompeo's position is particularly troubling, given the President's expressed intent to send new prisoners to Guantanamo for the first time in more than a decade.

Mr. Pompeo has opposed what he called the ``disastrous'' Iran nuclear agreement, and he appears to favor withdrawing from it despite the International Atomic Energy Agency's determination that Iran is in compliance and support for the agreement from a wide spectrum of diplomatic, scientific, and national security experts. As far as I am aware, he has offered no realistic alternative, and the consequence would be to isolate the United States from our closest allies and to risk Iran restarting its centrifuges and quickly obtaining a nuclear weapon.

During the negotiations to halt Iran's nuclear program, Mr. Pompeo supported military strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities, reportedly arguing that it would take ``under 2,000 sorties to destroy the Iranian nuclear capacity,'' which he described as ``not an insurmountable task for the coalition forces.'' It might not be insurmountable, except for the fact that it would be the end of the coalition since few, if any, of our partners would join us. Beyond that, the unilateral use of preemptive military force on that scale in a volatile region in which Russia has its own security interests could ignite a regional war with far-reaching, possibly catastrophic, consequences.

While the world's scientists overwhelmingly warn of the long-term dangers of climate change, Mr. Pompeo is an unabashed climate change sceptic. He has said that the Paris Climate Agreement, which is supported by practically every country including China, amounted to ``bowing down to radical environmentalists.'' That is extremist rhetoric about what many believe to be the most serious challenge facing our planet, a challenge that can only be met through diplomacy, and it belies a disturbing intolerance for opposing views.

Mr. Pompeo has accused American Muslim leaders of being ``potentially complicit'' in acts of terrorism that they do not specifically condemn. He has said that Muslims ``abhor Christians'' and that they ``will continue to press against us until we make sure that we pray and stand and fight and make sure that we know that Jesus Christ is our savior and is truly the only solution for our world.'' It would be hard to think of a more effective way to alienate the Muslim community, without whose help we cannot effectively counter violent extremism.

As a Member of Congress, Mr. Pompeo cosponsored legislation to ban all refugee admissions, regardless of country of origin, even though people seeking safety are already subjected to a rigorous vetting process. It should alarm each of us that the nominee to oversee the bureau charged with protecting refugees, migrants, and other vulnerable people uprooted by conflict--a tradition we take pride in--would take such a crass, ideological approach to our country's refugee admissions policies.

Mr. Pompeo has suggested that the Federal Government should collect records of American citizens' communications, without warrants and in bulk, and combine them with ``publicly available financial and lifestyle information into a comprehensive, searchable database.'' Think about that, at a time when the public is already outraged by Facebook's and Cambridge Analytica's misuse of personal data.

As a Member of Congress, Mr. Pompeo criticized President Obama for going to Cuba, accusing him of making ``unilateral concessions.'' It is true that the restoration of diplomatic relations with Cuba--which was overwhelmingly supported by the people of both countries--did not include an agreement by the Cuban Government to hold free and fair elections, nor to stop persecuting opponents of the government. No one who knows Cuba expected that. But if free and fair elections and respect for human rights are Mr. Pompeo's prerequisite for having an embassy and an ambassador in a foreign country, we will need to close a lot more embassies than the one in Havana.

We could begin with our embassies in China and Russia, Saudi Arabia and Egypt would be next, then Jordan and Morocco, Honduras, Vietnam-- the list goes on. The fact is we need embassies staffed with qualified personnel, including in countries whose governments we disagree with, so our diplomats can work to protect our interests and the interests of Americans who travel, study, work, or serve there. That is diplomacy 101.

Mr. Pompeo opposes LGBT rights and has no record of defending civil society activists and independent journalists who risk their lives speaking out against corruption and abuses of human rights by foreign security forces, particularly in countries we consider friends or allies. He has also worked against women's reproductive rights, including cosponsoring radical legislation that would make abortion illegal nationwide, even in cases of rape. He voted to defund Planned Parenthood and for the ``global gag rule,'' which prevents foreign nongovernmental organizations from receiving U.S. funds if they use their own money to provide safe abortions or even information about abortion services in their country.

I take no pleasure in opposing Mr. Pompeo's nomination. I wish I could vote for him, as I am the ranking member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on the Department of State and Foreign Operations. I strongly support the State Department, its mission, its personnel, and its programs. I have consistently defended its budget when others here or in the White House sought to cut it.

I am pleased that Mr. Pompeo has said he wants to fill the vacant senior leadership positions at the State Department and that he recognizes that the United States has a duty to ``lead the calls for democracy, prosperity, and human rights around the world.'' But his record in Congress and his staunchly ideological views raise grave concerns about the policy direction he would give to those senior leaders. Given his record and beliefs, there is little reason to believe that he will be an effective or consistent defender of democracy and human rights abroad, particularly in the face of President Trump's abandonment of those values and principles.

In many other respects, Mr. Pompeo's testimony before the Foreign Relations Committee had all the characteristics of a ``confirmation conversion,'' when he contradicted many of his previous statements and positions. As Senator Menendez asked, Which Pompeo are we voting for? The job of Secretary of State is too important, especially with Donald Trump in the Oval Office, to roll the dice and discount everything Mr. Pompeo has said in the past.

If Mr. Pompeo is confirmed, as it appears he will be, I will make every effort to work with him to advance our foreign policy and national security interests, as I did with Secretary Tillerson after opposing his nomination, but given the impulsive and reckless statements and actions of this President and the upheaval at the State Department during the past year, we need a Secretary with the necessary temperament, values, and longstanding commitment to diplomacy and development. I hope he proves me wrong, but today I do not believe we have that in this nominee.

Madam President, I would like to take a moment to recognize the life and achievements of Dan Akaka, a veteran, educator, U.S. Senator, and most importantly, a dear friend of mine. Dan passed away recently after 93 years of life imbued with the aloha spirit, and I have been reflecting on his legacy of quiet but effective work in the Senate.

Dan Akaka was a tireless advocate for indigenous people. As I was working on the 2013 reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act, his cooperation and persistence as chairman of the Indian Affairs Committee helped include important provisions to protect Native- American women from violence. He also worked hard to support vital programs that provided education, healthcare, housing, and other basic services for Tribes across the country.

A World War II veteran himself, Dan was a strong supporter of the National Guard. He was one the first cosponsors to support my National Guard Empowerment Act and give the Guard the representation that it deserved. He will also be remembered for fighting to have the valor and sacrifice of Asian-American soldiers in World War II recognized, sponsoring legislation that awarded long overdue Medals of Honor to those who had been discriminated against because of their race.

Hawaiians were lucky to have him as a champion in the Senate, and I was lucky to have him as a friend.

I ask unanimous consent that the New York Times article ``Daniel Akaka, Former Democratic Senator From Hawaii, Dies At 93'' be printed in the Record.

Madam President, I want to take a moment to remember a Vermonter who, with seemingly boundless energy and enthusiasm, devoted her life to her family, her students, her friends, and her community. Hester ``Hep'' Caldwell, who died on April 10, 2018, will be forever remembered and admired for a life well lived.

Hep, who lived to be 89, was one of those people who just about everybody liked immediately. She loved people, she loved sports, she loved the outdoors, and she loved living on West Hill in Putney, VT, with her husband, John, whom she first met when they were both just 10 years old.

For decades, Hep taught history and John taught mathematics at the Putney School. Besides challenging her students in the classroom, Hep's many passions--hiking, skiing, gardening, classical music--inspired all who knew her. She set an example for generations, young and old, in her home, in the classroom, in woods, fields, and on the slopes and summits of mountains in all seasons of the year and by her many years of community service.

Putney will not be the same without Hep, but she has left her mark there and in her children and grandchildren in ways that will live on for generations.

I ask unanimous consent that Hep Caldwell's obituary in the Valley News be printed in the Record.

Madam President, on March 21, 2018, Vermont lost one of its finest sculptors, Frank Gaylord.

Frank Gaylord, a Granite City resident, was a beloved member of the Barre community. Frank influenced the city and its residents, and the city in turn influenced his art. The local granite quarries of Barre provided ample materials for Frank to hone his sculpting skills.

Frank served his country not just in World War II, receiving a Bronze Star for his service, but also in creating the Korean War Veterans Memorial, his most famous work, which resides on the National Mall in Washington, DC. The memorial is visually striking; Frank captured the movement and feel of war, the 19 figures of diverse American soldiers are shrouded in ponchos and seem to walk endlessly. Frank called the day the memorial arrived on the National Mall as the highlight of his life.

Other examples of Frank's work can be seen in many New England towns, including at the Connecticut capital and in Williston and Montpelier, VT. However, what Vermont will best remember Frank by was his dedication and determination to improve Vermont's own Granite City. Frank's contributions to the Barre Granite Association, as well as to the former Barre Players, will be missed.

Frank's passing is a loss to Vermont, to the community of Barre, VT, and to the Nation. I will always remember Frank when I see his work on the National Mall and throughout Vermont, and how he so beautifully captured our country's spirit.

I ask unanimous consent that the Times Argus article ``He had an arts spirit: Famed Barre sculptor Frank Gaylord has died'' be printed in the Record.