Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I rise in strong support of General Abizaid's confirmation to be our Ambassador to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. It took this administration nearly 2 years to even nominate someone to this critical position, and, unfortunately, we have seen the results of the absence of serious, experienced U.S. leadership.

I was pleased that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee expeditiously moved his nomination. In the past 2 years, we have seen Saudi leadership take actions that have seriously strained the U.S.- Saudi relationship and that have run fundamentally counter to basic international norms.

Saudi Arabia has detained and reportedly tortured members of its own royal family and has effectively abducted the Lebanese Prime Minister. In Yemen, the Crown Prince's coalition has led an offensive that has been responsible not just for breeding the world's worst humanitarian crisis but also for potentially opening the door to more malign Iranian influence. To this day, we still also seek accountability for the brutal murder of American resident and journalist Jamal Khashoggi.

With the White House's having conducted freelance diplomacy, the American people have had little faith that there has been serious pressure on the Saudi leadership for it to correct course. Worse, we continue to learn that the administration appears to be rewarding the Kingdom with secret side deals in support of its nuclear program--far outside the scope of legally prescribed processes.

Amidst all of this, we must find a way to get the U.S.-Saudi relationship back on course, for we do continue to share some common challenges and interests. Yet U.S. alliances are strongest with partners with whom we share values and with whom we can have honest conversations.

General Abizaid faces a tall challenge, but I believe he is up to the job. He has the experience and leadership necessary to both manage a large mission and get the currently fraught relationship with Saudi Arabia back on track in a way that advances our security interests and stays true to our ideals.

I urge my colleagues to support General Abizaid's confirmation. His leadership, deep regional expertise, management skills, knowledge of Arabic, and experience in having served in conflict areas will make him an effective U.S. Ambassador to Saudi Arabia.

Mr. President, I am glad to have been here to hear the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee talk about the oversight and the responsiveness that the executive branch agencies owe to the U.S. Senate and its committees.

In doing so, I am having a similar problem with the State Department as it relates to getting information about actions that have taken place with reference to political reprisals and firings at the State Department and subject to being investigated right now by the inspector general of the State Department and special counsel. So I can share in his concerns about the inability to get information from the executive branch as a legitimate exercise of oversight.

I rise today, as I have so many times in my career, to be the voice for the people of Puerto Rico in the U.S. Senate.

On September 20, 2017, Hurricane Maria--a powerful category 5 storm-- ripped through the center of the island of Puerto Rico, wiping out its electrical grid and leaving millions of American citizens disconnected and in the dark. This was preceded by Hurricane Irma, which also struck the island--a double body blow. What ensued were months of absolute darkness, hunger, despair, and death.

While the President played golf in Mar-a-Lago, thousands of our fellow Americans were dying due to the lack of electricity to power oxygen tanks, dialysis centers, or refrigerated medications--problems that, as I said at the time, could not be solved with paper towels.

I will never forget this moment, one of the most insulting moments to the people of Puerto Rico--a people who are a part of the United States, 3.5 million U.S. citizens who have served and worn the uniform of this Nation, whose names on the Vietnam Memorial here in Washington are disproportionate to the number of their population. The President said:

[They] want everything to be done for them. . . . I hate to

tell you, Puerto Rico, but you are throwing our budget out of

whack.

No other American citizen in any other of the areas of disaster heard anything--anything--near to that.

Today we know that nearly 3,000 Americans perished in what is now known as one of the worst natural disasters to strike our Nation in all of American history.

Now, let me be clear. We know that a President cannot prevent a natural disaster, but when the lives of Americans are on the line, we expect our Commander in Chief to do everything in their power to come to their aid. These are the moments that are supposed to reveal the very best of America. In the face of disasters of this magnitude, we do not turn our backs on our fellow citizens. We face the challenge head- on. We save as many lives as we can. We strive to stem suffering, and we lend a helping hand. That is the American way.

Just imagine how many lives could have been saved had President Trump directed the Federal Emergency Management Agency to give Puerto Rico ``the A Plus treatment'' he called for, for our fellow citizens in Alabama. For the majority Latino, Spanish-speaking island of Puerto Rico, there was no A-plus treatment. They got the F-minus treatment.

The painful reality is, nothing can ever bring the thousands of Americans who died in Hurricane Maria back, but that doesn't mean the President shouldn't try to make things right. He has many opportunities to atone for his cruel and unfair treatment of the Puerto Rican people. Instead, President Trump seems intent on kicking Puerto Ricans when they are down.

Just last week, he hosted a group of my Republican colleagues at the White House and proceeded to complain about how much Puerto Rico has received. What is so disappointing is that none of my colleagues even dared to check the President on this issue. They didn't receive what he said. They received a fraction of what he said.

This President continues to behave as if the people who call Puerto Rico home are not real Americans. It is almost as if he views himself as the real victim here, not the 3,000 American mothers and fathers and brothers and sisters who perished in Hurricane Maria's wake.

We in the Senate have an obligation to do what is right with this disaster supplemental.

So let me say first that I am glad everyone here agrees Puerto Rico needs a fully funded Nutrition Assistance Program for the next fiscal year. Still, it is appalling to hear the White House call the House of Representatives bill's inclusion of an additional $600 million for nutrition assistance as ``excessive and unnecessary.''

There is nothing excessive or unnecessary about helping 1.35 million struggling, low-income Americans in Puerto Rico--many of them with small children--avoid going hungry. We are talking about $649 a month for a family of four, just $160 or so a week for the people who need it the most.

Let's turn for a moment to what is missing from the Senate legislation.

First, Hurricane Maria created 6 million cubic yards of debris for the island. A year and a half later, the island still has approximately 168,000 cubic yards of debris stored in temporary sites waiting to be removed.

To put that in perspective, a large dump truck can carry 10 cubic yards. That means it would take 16,800 dump trucks to remove all the garbage created by the hurricane on a small island that barely measures 100 miles long by 35 miles wide.

Make no mistake, Puerto Rico has made significant progress, but the crippled economy has made everything that much harder. This legislation should help them get the job done, not set them back.

Second, there remains hundreds of open FEMA projects for emergency protective measures. We are talking about short-term locations for government Agencies to provide vital services as they await the completion of permanent reconstruction.

We should also allow for the continued use of generators to power critical facilities on the island. This would help keep the public safe and provide stability to Puerto Rico's power grid while it is repaired. We can do this by increasing the Federal cost waivers for categories A and B to 100 percent, just as the House of Representatives' bill does.

Congress has done this many times before--this is not new--after Hurricanes Katrina, Wilma, Dennis, and Rita, and Puerto Rico deserves no less.

In the bipartisan Budget Act we passed last year, we specifically authorized FEMA to waive Stafford Act requirements so they could replace and repair facilities in a way that reflects today's industry standards, not their previous subpar condition. Yet I keep hearing of FEMA's nickel-and-diming over what it may fix and what Puerto Rico may not fix.

So let's end the ambiguity. Let's fix this language. Let's send a clear message that it was always Congress's intent to rebuild Puerto Rico stronger and more resilient than ever.

No one wants to face the same kind of damage next hurricane season. As it is said, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

So let's properly fund the Army Corps of Engineers so they can help rebuild the Cano Martin Pena, which continues to flood over with raw sewage, imperiling 26,000 American lives with unsanitary conditions and breeding grounds for mosquito-transmitted diseases like Zika.

These are the kind of measures that would be stripped from the House bill by the pending substitute. It is just not right. It is just not right. These 3.5 million U.S. citizens have worn the uniform of the United States, have defended this Nation, going back to when Congress gave the all-Puerto Rican regiment, the ``Borinqueneers,'' the highest commendation it can, the Congressional Gold Medal, but that doesn't mean anything if you turn your back on 3.5 million U.S. citizens. It doesn't mean anything if you treat them as second-class citizens. It is just fundamentally biased and wrong.

Come September, we will have to congregate once again to talk about the island's crumbling medical infrastructure and the need to provide Puerto Rico with additional Medicaid funding. We can solve that problem today by adding critical Medicaid funding for the territories.

Puerto Rico is clearly a subject of angst and resentment for the President. I don't know why, but it is clearly so. So I suggest we do him a favor,

spare him the worry, and get the job done ourselves today. Let's do what is right.

I urge my colleagues to vote against cloture on the substitute, let the underlying bill stand, and let us move forward so we act in the name of our Nation. It is the United States of America. We leave no American behind, and we should leave none of the 3.5 million Americans in Puerto Rico behind.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I come to the floor to correct the record concerning statements the President reportedly made yesterday afternoon when he met with Senate Republicans.

Apparently, in between his efforts to stiff hurricane victims in Puerto Rico and tear affordable healthcare away from millions of Americans, the President claimed that Democrats were holding up ambassadorial nominations in the Senate. Just weeks ago, we heard similar comments from the Senate majority leader, who claimed that GEN John Abizaid's nomination to be Ambassador to Saudi Arabia was ``being held up.''

Let me be clear. No one wants to see the State Department vested with all the resources it needs to effectively conduct American foreign policy, including qualified and capable staff, more than I do. We cannot promote our foreign policy, protect American citizens, advocate for American businesses, or advance American values without a robust diplomatic core.

I want all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to know that each time the Senate Foreign Relations Committee has received nominations, I have dedicated my time and staff resources to efficiently and diligently vet and advance these nominations. In the last Congress, the committee reported 169 nominations. So I reject the assertion that we have not done our part to ensure that the State Department is appropriately staffed.

Now let me speak to General Abizaid because no one can honestly claim that the Foreign Relations Committee has been anything but extremely diligent and expeditious with this nomination.

With my full support, General Abizaid appeared in the very first committee nominations hearing of this Congress, and I very much look forward to voting in favor of his nomination as soon as our chairman-- our Republican chairman--exercises his prerogative and puts him before the committee for a vote.

As with all nominees, the timing of his consideration by the full Senate is under the control of the majority leader.

It is clear that President Trump has an inaccurate or dishonest view of the nominations situation in the Senate and particularly in the Foreign Relations Committee.

We cannot confirm diplomats we do not have. All too often, the committee has received nominations late or not at all. The Trump administration took nearly 2 years before it even bothered to nominate General Abizaid, leaving a gaping hole in our diplomatic posture to Saudi Arabia and the region.

To go nearly 2 years without putting forward a nominee is a failure of leadership, pure and simple. Saudi Arabia's actions over the past 2 years highlight the fact that we need an adult on the ground, which is why I wholeheartedly support General Abizaid and look forward to what I hope is his speedy confirmation.

Sadly, Saudi Arabia is not an isolated example. It took even longer-- more than 2 years--for the Trump administration to nominate a candidate to be U.S. Ambassador to Turkey. Astonishingly enough, it was only this week that the President sent up an ambassadorial nominee for Mexico. We are now 26 months into the Trump administration, and we still lack ambassadorial nominees to critical countries such as Egypt, Pakistan, and our close ally, Jordan.

Let's be clear. This is the President's reckless abdication of a constitutional responsibility essential to projecting American power abroad. When you don't nominate someone, President Trump has only himself to blame.

Furthermore, there is unfortunately another severe problem that we cannot ignore with regard to the administration's nominees. When the Trump administration repeatedly fails to appropriately vet political nominations, Congress must exercise appropriate oversight. The President has nominated and renominated individuals with restraining orders for threats of violence; people who made material omissions, sometimes on a repeated basis, in their nomination materials; people who tweeted and retweeted vile things about Senators and their families and who have engaged in incidents that should, frankly, mean they should never have been nominated.

One nominee attacked my late colleague and good friend Senator John

McCain, claiming that John McCain, an American hero, was rolling ``out the welcome mat for ISIS on America's southern border.'' But unfortunately we know that attacking McCain does not cross any redlines for this President.

Another nominee has claimed, with no evidence, that Senator Cruz's wife is part of a sinister cabal seeking to combine the Governments of Canada, Mexico, and the United States. This nominee called Hillary Clinton a ``terrorist with amnesia'' and retweeted someone calling Senator Romney a ``dumbass.''

You can't make this stuff up.

Senator Sasse's office said that nominee should ``put on his tinfoil hat and visit our office with evidence for his salacious conspiracy theories and cuckoo allegations'' and went on to observe that ``People who want to serve Americans as our diplomats and spokespersons abroad should know that words and truth matter, even during campaigns. Cynics and nuts are probably going to have a hard time securing Senate confirmation.'' I couldn't agree with him more.

Yet the President thought highly enough of this individual and lowly enough of the U.S. Senate that he nominated him for an ambassadorship in two successive Congresses.

Another ambassadorial nominee was the subject of a temporary restraining order after she left a bullet-ridden target practice sheet on her doctor's chair.

Again, you cannot make this up.

As for being unresponsive to committee requirements for all nominees, I can understand that nominees may accidentally leave off a few businesses they were involved in, but we had one nominee who failed to inform the committee of dozens of businesses and another nominee who, even more egregiously, failed to mention multiple lawsuits he was involved in, including one in which he was alleged to have fired a female employee who complained of sexual harassment. Given the nature and frequency of these omissions, it is hard to believe they were unintentional.

So when the White House, either through negligence or incompetence, sends us unvetted, unqualified nominees--incapable and oftentimes offensive--my staff and I exercise due diligence on behalf of the American people.

To make this crystal clear, the President can speed up this process. All he has to do is start nominating Americans with appropriate credentials and honorable conduct in their careers. It is not rocket science.

The United States and our allies continue to face tremendous challenges around the world. We must continue to lead on the international stage and work in collaboration with international partners to achieve our shared security goals. But to have our diplomats in place, they must be nominated in a timely fashion and vetted properly. That is what the real holdup here is--not Senate Democrats. And I refuse to let the President point the finger at us when he should be pointing the finger at himself.

I yield the floor.

(Mr. SCOTT of Florida assumed the Chair.)

Mr. President, I come to the floor to correct the record concerning statements the Senate majority leader made yesterday morning,

in which he claimed that GEN John Abizaid's nomination to be Ambassador to Saudi Arabia ``is being held up.''

Allow me to ease the majority leader's concerns. Far from being ``held up,'' the Foreign Relations Committee, with my full support, has been extremely diligent in taking up General Abizaid's nomination; he appeared on the very first committee nominations hearing of the 116th Congress, and his nomination is advancing through the regular committee process expeditiously. I look forward to his approval by the committee and, hopefully, a speedy confirmation. As with all nominees, his final confirmation is under the control of the majority leader.

I am concerned that the majority leader has an inaccurate view of the nominations situation facing the Foreign Relations Committee. He stated yesterday that ``if we want to solve problems in the Middle East, through diplomacy, we'll need to confirm diplomats.'' Unfortunately, we cannot confirm diplomats that we do not have.

It took 23 months before the Trump administration bothered to nominate General Abizaid, leaving a gaping hole in our diplomatic posture to Saudi Arabia and the region. It is possible that this failure of leadership is the result of the President believing that his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, is capable of doing this job from the White House.

Regardless of the reason, Saudi Arabia is not an isolated example. It took even longer, over 2 years, before the Trump administration nominated a candidate to be U.S. Ambassador to Turkey. We are now 26 months into the Trump administration, and we still lack ambassadorial nominees to critical countries like Egypt, Pakistan, and our close ally, Jordan. This failure is a reckless abdication of a constitutional responsibility that is essential to projecting American power abroad. There is only one person responsible for this failure: President Trump; yet the majority leader appears to be curiously oblivious to that fact.

Let me be clear: When the committee has received nominations, we have worked with efficiency and diligence to vet and advance those nominations. I have devoted my time and staff resources to ensure this because of my strong belief that the State Department, USAID, and other foreign affairs agencies must be appropriately staffed. We cannot promote our foreign policy, protect American citizens, and advocate for American businesses without a robust diplomatic corps. In the 115th Congress, the committee reported 169 nominations. I reject any assertion that we have not done our part to ensure that the State Department is appropriately staffed.

All too often, however, the committee has received nominations late or not at all.

There is, unfortunately, there is another severe problem that we cannot ignore with regard to this administration's nominees. Delays in advancing Trump political nominees is largely due to poor vetting by this administration. When the President nominates and renominates individuals with restraining orders for threats of violence, who engaged in incidents that should, frankly, mean they never should have been nominated, or made material omissions, sometimes on a repeated basis, in their nomination materials, the Foreign Relations Committee must do our due diligence on behalf of the American people. Someone has to. My staff and I have had to spend significant additional time on vetting because of the White House's negligence or incompetence.

The United States and our allies continue to face tremendous challenges around the world. We must continue to lead on the international stage and work in collaboration with international partners to achieve our shared security goals, but to have our diplomats in place, they must be nominated in a timely fashion and vetted properly. Despite the majority leader's confusion on this issue, that is the real hold-up here.

Mr. President, I rise to express a concern over the Rubio amendment to the Sanders-Lee joint resolution, S.J. Res. 7, which was passed by voice vote in yesterday's debate.

The Rubio amendment attempts to make clear that nothing in the joint resolution is intended or may be interpreted to affect any intelligence or counterintelligence activity or investigations relating to threats in or from Yemen, which involves the collection, analysis, or sharing of intelligence with any coalition partner.

I do not believe that it was the intention of the authors of S.J. Res. 7 to restrict these intelligence activities per se. I believe it was Senator Rubio's intention to make sure that that legitimate intelligence activities, as specified, were not affected.

However, my concern springs from the full implications of what ``sharing intelligence'' means. I assume it is meant to share useful intelligence the United States may acquire about the intentions, activities, characteristics, and other information about, for example, the Houthis or Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. That is entirely appropriate.

But if the intelligence being shared is actually information that allows Saudi Arabia or other members of the Saudi-led coalition to specifically target and conduct military operations, such as airstrikes, against specific sites in Yemen, then that would get perilously close to the U.S. being directly involved in hostilities in Yemen, including under the War Powers Resolution.

Section 8 of the War Powers Resolution considers U.S. Armed Forces to be ``introduced into hostilities'' if, among other activities, members of the U.S. Armed Forces ``coordinate'' the activities of foreign forces. Arguably, enabling Saudi forces to target specific sites in Yemen could constitute ``coordination'' under the War Powers definition.

Why is this important? It is important, first, to preserve the scope of application of the War Powers Resolution, which the Congress enacted to rein in the power of the executive branch to make war anywhere under any circumstances.

Second, the more direct assistance U.S. Armed Forces provide to the Saudi-led coalition, the closer they are associated with the actions of those countries. That could lead to shared liability in those activities if and when those activities lead, inadvertently or otherwise, to atrocities on the ground in Yemen.

Again, I do not believe that it was the intention of the author of this amendment to create the legal space for this to occur. I would advise the Department of Defense and the appropriate intelligence agencies to be mindful of this issue and be cautious about what intelligence information is shared and for what purposes it is used.

Mr. President, I rise to again support efforts to stop U.S. direct military support for the Saudi-led coalition efforts in Yemen.

I do not need to remind my colleagues what is at stake. Each time we have considered this resolution, the situation for Yemenis is even more dire.

Now in its fourth year, this conflict has put nearly 16 million people on the brink of starvation, including 400,000 children who are severely malnourished, displaced more than 3 million people, and done nothing to increase stability or prosperity for the people of Yemen. In fact, the longer this conflict goes on, the larger Iran's foothold in Yemen grows and the more entrenched opposing political factions become.

In addition to the horrifying humanitarian crisis, we have also learned that U.S. coalition partners may be transferring U.S.-origin weapons to known--underline known--terrorist organizations. We have read alarming reports about torture and abuse in prisons throughout Yemen--both Houthi and coalition controlled.

I will simply repeat what I have said before. It is in the interest of the United States to put as much political pressure on the parties to end this conflict as we can. Yes, we have strategic partnerships with Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, but we must find a way forward to get those relationships on a path that truly serves U.S. interests.

To be clear, the Houthis bear significant responsibility in the deterioration of the state of affairs in Yemen, and that is without a doubt. We do not have diplomatic relations with the Houthis, and we certainly don't sell them arms or provide active military support. This resolution is a good first step, but what we really need is a comprehensive approach to address our interests in the gulf.

Along with Senators Young, Reed, Graham, Shaheen, Collins, and Murphy, I introduced the comprehensive Saudi Arabia Accountability and Yemen Act. The bill calls for a suspension of offensive weapons sales to Saudi Arabia, sanctions all persons responsible for blocking humanitarian access in Yemen or supporting the Houthis in Yemen, and urges accountability for all actors in Yemen guilty of war crimes.

Finally, it also addresses some of the most reckless Saudi actions by calling for true accountability for those responsible for the murder of American resident and journalist, Jamal Khashoggi, and a report on human rights in Saudi Arabia.

I support this resolution and encourage us to continue to debate. We must evaluate our relationship with these partners and find a path forward not just in Yemen but indeed in the entire gulf region that truly promotes American interests and American values.

Today is a day we can make a clear and unequivocal statement that we do not support this continuing conflict and humanitarian disaster. There is a consequence for acting in the way the coalition has--in many cases, clearly, irresponsibly, with the reckless loss of human life. I hope we can continue to work to go beyond that so we can deal with the entire region's challenges.

I look forward to whatever is the agreement on amendments that may be considered here. I personally would like to see us get an up-or-down vote as a resolution. I understand there may be some amendments.

Depending upon what amendments are made in order, I may seek a second-degree amendment at the end of the day. I am concerned that one of these amendments that are contemplated may be well-intentioned but also may very well be used in such a way to actually undermine the very essence of the underlying vote we are taking.

I will reserve my judgment until that time on that, but in the interim, I urge all of my colleagues to continue to support it, as they did in the last vote on this question of this resolution.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Brandon Jacobsen, a fellow from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, be granted floor privileges while he serves on the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations through August 15, 2019.

Mr. President, I rise today having just voted no on the motion invoking cloture on Paul Matey's nomination to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

Now, I know speeches on procedure rarely make headlines, but I cannot be silent as the majority shreds long-held norms for political gain. Once again, the Republican majority has ignored the blue-slip process that allows Senators to either green light or prevent hearings on judicial nominees from their home States.

Some Americans may wonder, why does this matter? Well, the blue-slip process gives the people a voice through their elected representatives on who ultimately renders justice in their State. Neither Senator Booker nor I have returned blue slips for Mr. Matey. In fact, Mr. Matey's confirmation hearing took place before Senator Booker--our State's voice on the Judiciary Committee--was even extended the common courtesy of meeting with Mr. Matey. It wasn't for lack of trying. Senator Booker requested time with Mr. Matey, but when he didn't receive it, the Judiciary Committee proceeded anyway.

To add insult to injury, committee Republicans falsely claimed the White House had meaningfully consulted with myself and Senator Booker, the home State Senators, and that is simply not the case. There never was meaningful consultation between the White House and Senator Booker or me to identify a highly qualified consensus nominee--rather, we were informed about the decision to nominate Mr. Matey--nor did I receive any offer to meet with Mr. Matey, not before his nomination, not after his nomination, not even to date as we are voting on the Senate floor.

Look, I have come to expect this behavior from the Trump White House, but in the Senate, Democrats always--always--respected the blue-slip process during our time in the majority. That is undeniable.

Before President Trump took office, only five judges in the past century were confirmed with only one blue slip, much less no blue slips. Never has a Democratic-led Senate ever held a hearing or confirmed a judicial nominee without a blue slip from a Republican Senator. It is shameful.

As long as the President keeps packing our courts with corporate- friendly Federalist Society judges, the Republican majority is willing to destroy a process that Senator Orrin Hatch--former chairman of the Judiciary Committee--once called ``the last remaining check on the President's judicial appointment power.''

President Trump's nominees are now being confirmed at record speed, despite objections from home State Senators.

My Republican friends claim to be the party of conservatism. Yet there is nothing conservative about sweeping aside century-old norms for political gain. They have put their party before country and show no fidelity to the institutions that have made this country great.

Aside from the degradation of Senate norms surrounding Mr. Matey's nomination, I have real concerns with his record. The people of New Jersey have no appetite for a judge who served in Gov. Chris Christie's administration and was once even called a protege of our esteemed former Governor.

As deputy chief counsel for Governor Christie, Mr. Matey said he tried to ensure that that administration followed ``the highest standards of propriety, ethics, and legality.''

Somehow I question that. Consider what the people of New Jersey had to go through during Governor Christie's tenure: the Bridgegate scandal, the defunding of a Rutgers institute that was run by a Federal nominee, the spiteful removal of a security detail from former Governor Codey, and the rampant mismanagement of Superstorm Sandy relief contracts, which forced too many families to live in trailers for years on end. That is quite a list--quite a list.

I struggle to believe that Mr. Matey, the second most senior attorney in the Christie administration, had no knowledge of this behavior.

During his confirmation hearing, Mr. Matey could not detail any of the steps he took to ensure ethics rules were followed and declined to offer any description of his supposed ``rigorous system'' of monitoring and oversight at his confirmation hearing.

Apparently, Mr. Matey's system wasn't so rigorous, considering that Bridgegate--for those of my colleagues who may not know, although I think everybody knows, is when the operatives of the Christie administration closed access to the George Washington Bridge from the New Jersey side, which caused massive--massive--tieups on the New Jersey side, all to politically punish the mayor of the community where the George Washington Bridge leads from on the New Jersey side.

Bridgegate amounted to one of the most egregious abuses of political power against everyday New Jersey families in our history. He was supposedly the guy who was making sure there was a rigorous system of monitoring and oversight. Well, I don't know how that happened.

I also have concerns about Mr. Matey's career after working for Governor Christie.

During his time as the senior vice president of University Hospital in Newark, a nationwide investigation gave the hospital an F--F, failure--for patient safety standards. Mr. Matey has acknowledged that while these issues were medical in nature, he did have some personal responsibility to mitigate risks to patients.

Likewise, some of Mr. Matey's writings suggest a hostility toward plaintiff attorneys who help everyday Americans take on powerful corporate interests in class action lawsuits.

In 2005, he authored an article with now-Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch that lamented how the Supreme Court's ruling in Dura Pharmaceuticals was a missed opportunity to ``curb frivolous fraud claims'' and dismissed plaintiff attorneys as seeking ``free rides to fast riches.'' In other words, Paul Matey saw a very narrow question in the Dura Pharmaceuticals case as an opening for the Court to make a sweeping ruling on all securities class actions. Now, that is what you call an activist judge.

Matey then goes on to decry the ``enormous toll on the economy'' securities fraud litigation takes on corporations but with little concern for the actual victims of security fraud.

Most troubling to me is how Mr. Matey has done zero--I repeat, zero-- pro bono work throughout his legal career. His Senate Judiciary questionnaire lacks any record of pro bono representation. When he was asked about it, Mr. Matey claimed his work on behalf of the State of New Jersey satisfied the requirement. I couldn't disagree more. That is not pro bono work. You were paid for it.

Cannon 2 of the American Bar Association's Code of Professional Responsibility explicitly emphasizes the importance of pro bono work. For many corporate lawyers, representing the underserved is the only way to witness firsthand how the scales of justice in this country are too often tipped in favor of the wealthy and well connected. Pro bono work helps lawyers cultivate sound judgment and is especially important to those seeking to become Federal judges.

Mr. Matey has done nothing to serve the disadvantaged, and that does not bode well for the fair administration of justice, nor does the Republican majority's disregard for procedures like blue slips bode well for the Senate's constitutional role to provide advice and consent or our responsibility to help build a judiciary that is responsive to the needs of the American people in the courtroom.

For all of these reasons, I urge my colleagues to oppose confirmation of Paul Matey to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. We are better than this.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, on International Women's Day, we reflect on the enormous contributions women make worldwide to their communities and their countries across every aspect of society including justice, politics, culture, peacebuilding, the economy, and national security. On this day, we also recognize and recommit to fighting on behalf of the many women whose voices governments seek to silence. Around the world, women take enormous risks to advance the rights of their fellow citizens and to promote the principles of freedom of expression, religion, and assembly. They fight for rights to access education and healthcare, and they fight discrimination, corruption, and violence. For their words and for their actions, all too often, governments turn these women into political prisoners.

Today, I want to highlight just a tiny fraction of the countless number of women and girls held behind bars unjustly. Similarly, unfortunately, the repressive governments detaining these women are just a small fraction of the governments around the world that lock up women for exercising their fundamental freedoms.

Just last week, the government of Saudi Arabia announced that it would put on trial its country's leading women's rights activists who have been in prison without charges since May 2018. The crackdown on these activists began just weeks ahead of the much-anticipated lifting of the ban on women driving, one of the very causes for which many of the detained activists had campaigned. While some were quickly released, others remain imprisoned. They include Loujain al-Hathloul, Aziza al-Yousef, Eman al-Nafjan, Nouf Abdelaziz, Mayaa al-Zahrani, Samar Badawi, Nassima al-Saada, Hatoon al-Fassi, Shadan al-Onezi, and Amal al-Harbi. Credible reports indicate that Saudi interrogators tortured at least four of the women, including with electric shocks and whippings and sexual harassment and assault.

In the Philippines, Senator Leila de Lima, a brave champion of human rights, launched an investigation into extrajudicial executions that began shortly after President Duterte took office in 2016. As one of the only leaders bold enough to oppose President Duterte's ``war on drugs,'' she has faced prolonged arbitrary detention, according to Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International. President Duterte has sought to silence her courageous voice as she spoke out against widespread human rights violations, including thousands of extrajudicial executions of mostly poor and marginalized people.

In Egypt, Hanan Badr el-Din, a human rights defender and cofounder of the Families of the Forcibly Disappeared Association, was detained on May 6, 2017, at Qanatar prison while visiting an individual who had been forcibly disappeared. She started her activism following the forced disappearance of her husband in 2013. She suffers from a serious genetic disorder, and her health is rapidly deteriorating.

China is responsible for some of the most grave human rights abuses, including of women. China has imprisoned hundreds of thousands of Uighur women in detention camps across its northwest region. These women are forced to renounce their Muslim religion and Uighur language and memorize Chinese propaganda. Forced labor, torture, and death are common. Thousands of children have been separated from their mothers and fathers and placed in a separate network of orphanages. One husband of a Uighur woman told Human Rights Watch: ``My wife was about to go back overseas but they took her passport. And when she went to ask to get her passport back, they told her she needs to be subjected to political education for 10 days, and then they would let her go. That was on July 20, 2017. Since then, she's been in a political education camp.'' The family of Guligeina Tashimaimaiti, a Uighur PhD student who was last seen in December 2017 when she returned from studying in Malaysia, for example, fears she is in detention and at risk of torture and other ill treatment.

China has also targeted Tibetan Buddhist nuns. The government expelled hundreds of nuns in 2017 from Larung Gar in Sichuan, the world's largest Tibetan Buddhist center. Their homes were demolished; they were barred from entering other monasteries, and faced detention, harassment, and abuse.

In Eritrea, Aster Fissehatsion has been held incommunicado without charge or trial since September 2001. Her whereabouts, 17 years later, are still not known. Aster Fissehatsion was arrested together with 10 other members of a group of political dissidents known as the Group of 15, or G-15, including her former husband, former Vice President and foreign minister of Eritrea, Mahmoud Ahmed Sheriffo.

Perhaps, most tragically, this is just a snapshot of some of the brave women who dare to speak up for fundamental rights and values.

So on this International Women's Day, as we reflect on the achievements of women and reflect on the work that remains to be done, I call on all of us to redouble our efforts to free women political prisoners. Governments have the responsibility to promote the safety, well-being, and fundamental rights of their citizens. I call on governments who are unjustly detaining, harassing, and torturing women for exercising their fundamental rights to immediately release these politically motivated detentions. As they continue to struggle, let us all take up the mantle of their cause.

Mr. President, today I rise to oppose the nomination of Chad Readler to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.

I remember the 2018 campaign season, when so many Republicans suddenly became the world's most passionate defenders of patients with preexisting conditions. They told voters that never ever could they even imagine doing anything that would weaken the protections that stop health insurance companies from discriminating against people with preexisting conditions.

Whether they be breast cancer survivors or children born with birth defects or any of the tens of millions of Americans who manage chronic conditions like diabetes or depression or high blood pressure, well, Americans are about to find out whether my American colleagues meant a word of what they said on the campaign trail. Americans will soon see whether Republicans stand up for patients with preexisting conditions or vote to confirm Chad Readler to the Ohio Sixth Circuit Court.

This nominee's record of threatening patients with preexisting conditions is not up for debate. Chad Readler was the mastermind behind the Trump administration's effort to strip away the core of the Affordable Care Act--the principle that health insurance companies cannot deny coverage or kick a patient off their policy just because of their medical history.

On the campaign trail, President Trump spoke of protecting Americans with preexisting conditions, but we now know that was just another lie.

Apparently, it wasn't enough for this administration to stop defending the Affordable Care Act in court; the President sought to attack it in court. Initially, the Trump administration struggled to find someone at the Department of Justice willing to take on this cause. In fact, three separate career attorneys at the Justice Department refused to argue the administration's position in court. One employee even resigned.

Chad Readler, the nominee we are voting on today, was more than happy to take on this cruel and unjust cause. He became the chief architect of the Trump administration's legal brief, challenging the very constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act's protections for people with preexisting conditions. In other words, Chad Readler's legal brief took the administration's effort to sabotage the Affordable Care Act to a whole new level, threatening to bring us back to a time when health insurance companies didn't have to cover cancer survivors, or individuals with substance abuse disorder, or anyone who has ever faced, ever confronted a health challenge in their life. How does President Trump reward Chad Readler for leading this assault on patients and their families? Well, the day after he filed this reckless and morally repugnant legal brief, the President nominated him to serve on the Sixth Circuit.

Now, let me tell you, I spent a lot of time crisscrossing New Jersey over the past year, and I don't think I met a single constituent who came up to me and said: Senator, what my family really needs you to do is once again let health insurance companies deny us care. On the contrary, I heard from and continue to hear from New Jerseyans who depend on these protections. They can't even believe this is still an issue.

Last summer, I spoke with a woman from Highland Park named Ann Vardeman who told me she was diagnosed with PTSD after surviving a sexual assault. Ann told me that health insurers shouldn't be able to ``charge me more for something that is a horrible thing that happens to millions of people in this country through absolutely no fault of their own.'' Indeed, without the Affordable Care Act, there would be no Federal health protections for survivors of sexual violence like her.

Perhaps one of my constituents--Anne Zavalick of Middlesex, NJ--said it best when she wrote about her battle against bladder cancer. She wrote:

It is crucial that I continue to receive scans to make sure

there is no recurrence of the cancer. . . . If I don't have

coverage for preexisting conditions, I will go bankrupt. . .

. Then I will probably die. So, yeah, this is kinda super

important to me, personally.

It should be personal to all of us. Everyone in this body should take it personally when this administration attacks protections that 130 million Americans rely on for their health and financial security.

People remember what it was like before the Affordable Care Act, and they don't want to go backward. They remember how a woman could be denied coverage for maternity care or charged higher premiums simply for being a woman. Today, being a woman is no longer a preexisting condition. They remember how infants born with heart deformities could hit lifetime caps within days of being born. Today, families don't have to worry about lifetime caps. They remember how cancer survivors and Americans with chronic conditions like diabetes or asthma lived in fear of being denied coverage or dropped from their policies at a moment's notice.

Today, patients are protected from discrimination, but they will not be if the courts side with Chad Readler's shameful arguments on behalf of this administration.

This issue is personal for millions of Americans across our country-- from 3.8 million in New Jersey, to 4.3 million in Georgia, to 4.8 million in Ohio, Mr. Readler's home State. All told, 130 million Americans with preexisting conditions may suffer the consequences of Mr. Readler's assault on the Affordable Care Act. These Americans are not Democrats or Republicans or Independents; they are human beings with a right to access affordable, quality healthcare.

Does this Senate really want to reward someone largely responsible for endangering the coverage our constituents depend on with a lifetime appointment to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals? I sure hope not. That is not the kind of judgement we want on any court.

Last fall, we heard a lot of talk from Republicans about protecting people with preexisting conditions. We know that actions speak louder than words, and it is action that we need right now. We need every Member of this body to stand up for the right of all Americans to get quality healthcare coverage. We need every Member of this body to stand up for the proposition that Americans cannot be discriminated against in their healthcare coverage because of a preexisting condition. We need every Member of this body to vote against the nomination of Chad Readler for the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to President Trump's nominee for Chief Counsel of the Internal Revenue Service, Michael Desmond.

This nominee comes before us just a week into this year's filing season, when our need for an IRS that treats all taxpayers fairly is clearer than ever.

Already, thousands of taxpayers across America are grappling with the fallout of the Trump tax bill and its capping of the State and local tax, or SALT, deduction. Already, the IRS has reported an average 17 percent drop in the size of tax refunds this year. Already, the broken promises made by President Trump and his Republican allies are being laid bare.

They promised middle-class families thousands of dollars of tax relief and a $4,000 raise in their salaries. Instead, they got $1.5 trillion in more debt and an economy that is even more rigged for big corporations and wealthy CEOs.

As bad as the Trump tax scam is for the whole country, it is worse for New Jersey families. That is because Republicans paid for a big chunk of their corporate giveaways by gutting the State and local tax deduction that New Jersey and other States' middle-class families depend on to write off their property taxes. In 2016, 1.8 million people--about 40 percent of New Jersey taxpayers--deducted their property and State income taxes. More than 80 percent of them earned less than $200,000, and the average deduction totaled $18,000--far above the arbitrary cap imposed by the Trump tax bill.

With tax season under way, many homeowners are just now realizing how badly their President ripped them off. To add insult to injury, the IRS issued haphazard guidance for the Trump tax bill that unfairly targets States like New Jersey, trying to simply lessen the burden heaped on them by the GOP.

In the final days of 2017, just days after President Trump signed the tax bill, New Jerseyans rushed to prepay their 2018 local property taxes and preserve their deductions before the new cap on the SALT deductions took effect. But then came Trump's IRS, which issued guidance to try to limit their ability to deduct property tax payments made in 2017 on their Federal returns--a stunning backdoor attempt to retroactively apply the cap on property tax deductions without cleared legislative tax to warrant doing so.

Months later, the IRS again changed the rules on us by attacking New Jersey's new charitable deduction tax credit program. The IRS never had a problem when 32 other States offered tax credits for charitable donations. Only when New Jersey and other similarly situated States created a similar program did the IRS decide to change the rules.

Mr. Desmond would be the Chief Counsel of the IRS, the position directly overseeing the IRS's interpretation of these rule changes. Throughout his nomination, I was given no indication that Mr. Desmond would give fair treatment on these important issues affecting New Jersey and other States.

The full deductibility of State and local taxes has been a bedrock principle of our Tax Code since the income tax's creation in 1913, and that concept stretches all the way back to Alexander Hamilton's writings about the autonomy of States under the U.S. Constitution.

This commonsense policy allows States to invest in things like public safety, education, and infrastructure--the very things that make New Jersey a great place to live, work, and raise a family.

Make no mistake, the property tax deduction isn't just important for homeowners. It matters to all New Jersey families. It is why our public schools rank among the best in the Nation. It is why Save the Children named us the No. 1 State in America to raise a child. I want it to stay that way.

We must protect the investments that make New Jersey a place where families thrive. That is why last month I introduced bipartisan legislation to fully restore the State and local tax deduction. It is called the SALT Act, which stands for ``Stop the Attack on Local Taxpayers.'' It is no secret that in New Jersey and in many of the Nation's most economically productive States, families face high property tax bills and a higher cost of living. Our bill is designed to provide some relief. Simply put, the more you pay in property and State taxes, the more relief you get from our bill, and we help pay for it by repealing some of Trump's most unnecessary tax breaks for the superwealthy. It is the exact opposite of what the Trump tax bill says, which is, basically that the higher the cost of living is in your State, the more you pay in State and local taxes and the more you will owe to the Federal Government. That makes no sense.

Make no mistake, President Trump and his administration and the IRS have it out for States like New Jersey. Mr. Desmond would be the arbiter of how the IRS would interpret important tax issues affecting these States. That is why I oppose his nomination.

I yield back my time.

Mr. President, over the last 2 years, many of us have grappled with a very difficult question about our President. It is a question that never before could we even imagine thinking about an American President, let alone saying it out loud on the floor of the Senate. I am talking about the entirely legitimate question of whether Donald Trump could be compromised by the Russian Government. It is more than a legitimate question; it is the natural question that comes to mind every time we learn more about the links between President Trump, his associates, and the Russian Government.

With the Mueller investigation possibly coming to a close in the near future, we may be forced to deal with--both Congress and the American public--some very stark facts about the President's ties to Russia. Just think about the reported revelations over the last month or so.

We have learned that President Trump took unprecedented steps to conceal the contents of his conversations with Putin from his own advisers.

We have learned that following one of the meetings with Putin, Trump phoned a New York Times reporter to argue that Russia did not interfere in the 2016 election--once again carrying the Kremlin's water in direct conflict with the entire U.S. intelligence community.

We have learned that over the past year, President Trump repeatedly argued for pulling the United States out of NATO--something that Putin desires.

We continue to learn new details about Paul Manafort's--President Trump's campaign chairman--meetings with Konstantin Kilimnik, a Russian national with suspected ties to Russian intelligence and an associate of Oleg Deripaska's. We know that Manafort met with Kilimnik repeatedly, provided him with polling data, and discussed ending U.S. sanctions and adopting a Russia-friendly peace plan for Ukraine. This is perhaps the most significant indication that Trump's inner circle was discussing pro-Kremlin policies in the months before the election.

Tellingly, just last night, we learned that Manafort has lied again and again about the truth of his contacts and his conversations. Did Manafort determine that lying to prosecutors was a better alternative to telling the truth?

Finally, let's not forget the revelation from just a few weeks ago that the Nation's top law enforcement agency reportedly opened a counterintelligence investigation into the President, in part for firing the FBI Director because of ``this Russia thing.''

You can't make this stuff up. Not even in your wildest dreams, not even on the TV set of ``Homeland'' could you make this stuff up. The news of a possible counterintelligence investigation against a sitting President should shake us all to the core. Instead, we are barely even surprised.

For the rightwing pundits who spoon-feed a warped reality to President Trump every hour of the day, it is just one more excuse to paint him--the most powerful man in the world--as a victim, but for the rest of us, these revelations only sharpen the dread that gnaws at us as we search our minds for any explanation for President Trump's perplexing posture toward Russia.

Look, I may have my differences with the President on tax policy, on immigration policy, on healthcare policy, and more, but let me assure you, every time he was set to meet with Putin, I, for one, hoped and prayed that our President would prove our suspicions wrong.

I hoped that the President of the United States would stand up to Putin and demand accountability for Russia's interference in the 2016 elections--the cyber attacks, the stolen data, the malign social influence campaigns designed to stoke division and doubt in the American people. I hoped President Trump would make clear to Putin that legal aggression against Ukraine and the continual denial of Ukrainian sovereignty is unacceptable and will result in consequences. I hoped President Trump would not congratulate Putin on another sham election victory but operate from a position of truth about his grip on power-- that it comes from the oppression of the Russian people, the seizure of their assets, the torture and murder of dissenters, the building of a chemical weapons arsenal, and the denial of a free press and basic human rights. And of course I hoped President Trump would not budge an inch on sanctions on the Kremlin.

But time and again, our President has let us down. He has let our country down. He has left Americans to lie awake at night asking themselves: What does Putin have on our President? Why won't he hold Russia accountable? Why won't he champion the values of democracy, freedom, and human rights that transcend political parties and define our greatest ideals as a nation?

Instead, our President champions talking points that could have only come out of the Kremlin. Let me provide just a few examples.

He told the leaders of the G7 that Crimea should be a part of Russia. He told the President of France to leave the EU. He said that Montenegro, a NATO member, could start World War III because they are ``very aggressive people.'' He said that the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan because ``terrorists were going into Russia'' and Russia was ``right to be there.''

The Wall Street Journal rightly said that ``we cannot recall a more absurd misstatement of history by an American President.''

I challenge anyone to find one person--one person in the State Department, the Defense Department, the National Security Council--who believes these statements and would have put them in the President's ear. So who does he get these ideas from? I can think of only one person--his good friend Vladimir Putin.

Thus far, our greatest insights into what may be driving President Trump's peculiar behavior toward Russia have come out of Special Counsel Mueller's investigation and the additional investigations spawned by it. With every new court filing, we learn that the tentacles of Russian influence over the President and his associates are wrapped tighter than we previously thought.

Meanwhile, the President and his cheerleaders on FOX News continue to discredit the Mueller probe as some kind of partisan witch hunt, when the truth is that it has already resulted in 4 individual sentences, 7 guilty pleas, and a total of more than 30 people and 3 Russian entities charged.

But all of this still begs the question why. Why does President Trump behave as though he has been compromised by the Russian Government? Why is he so deferential to Putin? We saw that at the Helsinki summit. Why have those around the President gone to such great lengths to cover up and lie about the extent of their interactions with Russia and with Russians?

Of course, if we can consider the possibility that the President is an asset of the Russian Government, we then have to wonder whether he is a witting or an unwitting asset.

On the one hand, it seems as though most of what President Trump does is unwitting. Perhaps his refusal to take Russian interference in 2016 seriously is merely an outgrowth of his narcissism, a symptom of a fragile ego that cannot accept that maybe, just maybe the unprecedented malign influence campaign orchestrated by the Kremlin did indeed sway some votes on election day.

On the other hand, the more I learn about President Trump's strange behavior toward Russia, the more I wonder if he knows exactly what is going on; the more I wonder if he knows that his campaign was making promises about pro-Kremlin positions and rolling back sanctions; the more I wonder if Trump knows that he is indebted to Russia and cannot allow the truth of

his business dealings to come to light, for the truth may tell us that Trump's overtures to Putin, his disparaging of NATO, his refusal to fully apply congressionally mandated sanctions, and his mixed messages on Ukraine are actually instances of conspiracy with the Kremlin in real time.

Perhaps it is because I am from New Jersey and I have lived through decades of Donald Trump's questionable business dealings, but I cannot understand why anyone would flat out reject the proposition that he is indebted to Russia. He is the first Presidential candidate in decades to refuse to disclose his tax returns. He is the first President in modern history to refuse to divest from his business interests, leaving us wondering whether he and his family are profiting from his position in the Oval Office.

Beyond the myth of the man, Trump is no business genius. He was a millionaire by age 8, thanks to his father. He ran the business into the ground. He defaulted on debt, refused to pay workers, and declared multiple corporate bankruptcies. Eventually, American banks saw through him and refused to lend him money, so Trump had to look elsewhere for cash. When you have been essentially blacklisted from the U.S. banking system, where do you turn? You turn to less savory sources.

The fact that the Trump Organization courted and sold real estate to wealthy Russian buyers and financiers is no secret, nor is the reality that to be wealthy in Putin's Russia means to have close ties to the Kremlin. Much of the stolen wealth amassed by Putin and his cronies must be hidden from the global financial system, so where do you turn? Real estate.

After a string of bankruptcies and racking up debt for years, the Trump Organization suddenly began making a spate of large, unexplainable cash purchases, totaling $400 million over 9 years. Giant, mysterious, inexplicable cash transactions are the hallmark of money laundering. So where did they get the cash? Well, if we are to believe the words of the President and his sons, much of it came from Russia. In fact, it was Donald Junior who said in 2008 that ``we see a lot of money pouring in from Russia'' and Eric Trump who reportedly said in 2014 that ``we don't rely on American banks. We have all the funding we need out of Russia.''

We know that several Trump projects, like Trump SoHo and Trump Toronto, received significant funding from Kremlin-linked financiers. In fact, Trump Toronto was funded by an asset sale by the Russian bank VTB--a transaction that would have likely needed approval from Putin himself. We now know that the Trump Organization pursued the Trump Moscow project for far longer than he led on, including well into his campaign for President.

The President has unequivocally said that he has ``zero investments in Russia.'' Well, here is the problem: Donald Trump may not have investments in Russia, but it is quite possible that the Kremlin has an investment in him.

That is what keeps me up at night.

That is why I believe the time is now to pass legislation requiring all Presidential candidates to disclose their tax returns and why I am the sponsor of such legislation.

So many of my colleagues decried Trump's shattering of this norm, but since he arrived at White House, the Republicans have done nothing to stop it from becoming the new normal.

We still don't know who is behind the vast majority of the Trump organization projects around the world, many of which continue to this day. We have to follow the money to get to the truth. How else will we ever know why our President is either unable or unwilling to publicly stand up to Putin?

What too many of my Republican colleagues seem to forget is that at the end of the day, this is not about Donald Trump; it is about the American people. It is about whether an American President may be beholden to foreign interests and how those interests fare against our own.

When the President embraces our greatest adversaries and gives the back of the hand to our closest allies; when he continually denies Russia's interference in 2016 and belittles the findings of our entire intelligence community; when, in spite of those findings, he suggests lifting sanctions on the Russians; when he backs down from challenging Putin after Russia commits an unacceptable act of aggression against Ukraine in the Sea of Azov, an international border, then we need a Congress willing to live up to its role as a coequal branch of government.

We cannot blindly follow a potentially compromised President down this dangerous path in which our alliances are suffering, our leadership on the global stage is waning, and our competitors are seeking to fill the void.

We need to know the facts--not the latest spin dropped by Rudy Giuliani--the facts. The American people deserve to know whom they elected to be their President. They deserve to know if he is, in fact, putting America's interests first. They deserve to know if Donald Trump is wittingly or unwittingly an agent for the Russian Federation.

Congress must carry out its constitutional duty to fully and thoroughly investigate where the facts lead. That is why we must protect the integrity of all oversight efforts including the objective, sober investigation still being conducted by Robert Mueller, and that is why we must push for his final report to be made public to the American people.

At the same time, this administration's deference to the Kremlin demands Congress be proactive in shaping U.S. foreign policy toward Russia, especially with respect to sanctions. We saw that with the Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions or CAATSA law passed in 2017 with the support of 98 Senators.

Given the circumstances we face today, we need additional legislation to protect American interests. That is why Senator Graham and I introduced just yesterday the Defending America's Security from Kremlin Aggression Act or DASKA, a bipartisan piece of legislation that is joined by several of our Republican colleagues.

This comprehensive legislation will ensure our diplomats have the tools to advance our interests and stand up to the bully in the Kremlin. It includes new sanctions, as well as provisions designed to harden our democratic institutions and make us less vulnerable to attack. Perhaps most urgently, DASKA requires Senate consent, should the President act on his desire to pull the United States out of NATO. To risk letting this President pull our Nation out of a military alliance so vital to America's security would be a tragedy fit for the ages.

The collapse of NATO is No. 1 on Mr. Putin's wish list, and with leaders like Secretary Mattis no longer around to babysit this President, Congress has a responsibility to act. This bipartisan bill is essential to giving the United States a more solid footing against the Kremlin moving forward.

We should treat DASKA with urgency. The time to pass this legislation is now. We need hearings, a vote on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and swift consideration on the floor of the Senate.

Likewise, we must finally pass legislation to protect the Mueller investigation and to require that all Presidential candidates release their tax returns.

I know, deep down, that many of my Republican colleagues share my concerns. I have talked with them, a fair number of them, yet they are afraid of angering the Party of Trump. Well, I believe that they would be seen as American heroes.

Should the facts confirm our greatest fears to be true, I ask my colleagues to consider what the history books will say about those who knew the President of the United States might very well be compromised by a foreign power, yet still did nothing. I am talking about my Republican colleagues who seem to have numbed themselves to the latest bombshell revelations about the President's posture on Russia. Apparently, they don't want to know why Russia interfered in 2016 to help Trump win. They don't want to know why the Republican platform's strong language on Russia was watered down by the Trump team. They don't want to know how someone deeply indebted to Russian oligarchs and later caught giving polling data to Russian intelligence contacts became chairman of the campaign. They don't want to know why Russia began hacking Hillary Clinton's emails the same day that Candidate Trump asked them to do so.

They don't want to know why the President undermines our intelligence community and attacks law enforcement for investigating Russian interference. They don't want to know why he seeks to dismantle NATO, a pillar of security, prosperity, and the defense of western democratic ideals. They don't want to know why he shares Putin's joy when discord unfolds in Europe. They don't want to know why Trump forbade his interpreter from disclosing the contents of his conversations with Putin and took his notes. In short, they don't want to know the truth.

Well, now is not the time to ignore the facts or avoid the truth. We are living in a time of unthinkable questions, and should the facts reveal the most unthinkable of answers, we must do what is necessary to protect the interests of the United States of America.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, today I wish to express my deep concerns regarding President Trump's suspension of U.S. participation in the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces--INF--Treaty and decision to withdraw from the treaty in 6 months.

Before diving into the substance of this misguided decision, I am compelled, as the ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, to object to the process.

The President is pulling out of this treaty, a treaty that was approved by the U.S. Senate by a vote of 93-5 and that has been in force for three decades, without official notice or any meaningful consultation with the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, the congressional committee charged with responsibility and jurisdiction over treaties and without the approval of the Senate.

This was despite multiple opportunities to explain the rationale for this decision, including a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on arms control and Russia. In that hearing, senior officials from the Department of State and the Department of Defense provided no indication that a decision to withdraw was even imminent, nor that U.S. forces envisioned any military operational benefit from near-term withdrawal.

Article 2 of the Constitution endows the President and the Senate with shared power over treaties, including an exceptionally high bar for advice and consent. This President's unilateral decision to withdraw from the INF, without any meaningful engagement with the Senate, much less the approval of this body, is impossible to square with this shared constitutional power.

In that vein, I urge all of my colleagues to focus not just on the substance of the President's decision but also on the process. INF is not alone; it is one of several treaties that the President has jettisoned without any input from the Senate. He is eroding the constitutional powers and institutional prerogatives of this body, and we cannot be silent.

Even if the President had followed a sound process, this decision is misguided on substance. It is another example of the President and his team's apparent belief that destroying international agreements, with little or no thought given to how to address the underlying problem, is the solution to a complex security issues.

In this case, there is no doubt, what the problem is and where it comes from.

Russia, and Russia alone, bears the responsibility for the degradation of the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty. It has brazenly violated the treaty and has been unwilling to take the steps necessary to come back into compliance.

Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats has succinctly laid out Russia's efforts to undermine the INF treaty. He stated ``the Intelligence Community assesses Russia has flight-tested, produced, and deployed cruise missiles with a range capability prohibited by the Treaty.''

Why is Russia doing this? Again, according to Director Coats: Russia is developing missiles to ``target critical European military and economic infrastructure'' with both conventional and nuclear capabilities. Russia is seeking the means to coerce our European and Asian allies by ``posing a direct conventional and nuclear threat'' to them.

Russia's violation of its INF treaty obligations and its nuclear threats against Europe are not particularly surprising. It fits within a pattern of malign behavior that seeks to undermine the security framework that contributed to the peaceful end to the Cold War. Russia has suspended its participation in the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe and of course

violated the core principles of the Helsinki accord by annexing Crimea and invading Ukraine.

The question has never been whether Russia is violating the INF treaty. It is and has been in violation. The question is how the United States should respond.

Throughout the process of trying to bring Russia back into compliance, I have raised serious concerns about the Trump administration's approach. As is the case with most major foreign policy challenges facing the United States, the Trump administration lacks a coherent strategy. In this case, they do not appear to have any realistic plan to address the threat that new Russian missile capabilities pose to the interests of the United States and those of our allies.

By withdrawing from INF at this time, the United States is providing Russia with a pass on its obligations and giving them the unfettered and unconstrained opportunity to expand the deployment of their new missile system. The U.S. does not have the assets in place to defend against Russia's new missile, nor is it anywhere close to developing, manufacturing, and deploying a similar system that would operate as a counter to it.

So the President is shredding the INF treaty without any credible alternative. It is not just bad policy; it is dangerous to European security. The path the administration has chosen leaves our allies vulnerable to Russian aggression, and at this moment, there is no recourse for the United States or our allies.

It is within this vein of poor foreign policy planning that I want to discuss a second issue related to INF. In 2021, the United States will face the decision whether to extend New START. I am extremely concerned that President Trump has no appreciation or understating of the importance of arms control treaties and that this deficiency will lead him to abandon all limitations on U.S-Russian nuclear forces.

We have historically negotiated and entered into agreements with our adversaries recognizing that we are dealing with hostile powers that cannot be trusted. We build in metrics that account for a probability of efforts to deceive and dodge. In high stakes agreements, provisions outlining U.S. intelligence verification and compliance are essential. In the universe of arms control agreements with Russia, we conduct on- site inspections of military bases and facilities, and we require data exchanges in order track the status and makeup of their nuclear forces.

In assessing the value of an arms control agreement, we consider whether our participation in the agreement advances our national security interests.

Let's be clear: The New START treaty clearly advances vital U.S. national security interests. Through our inspection regime, we are able to verify that Russia is adhering to the limitations the treaty places on the size of Russia's strategic nuclear arsenal. Through our data exchanges and our verification regimes, we gain extremely valuable insights into the size and location of their nuclear forces.

At a time when Russia is engaged in malign behavior all over the world and Putin is pressing to reassert Russian power, it is critical we maintain key leverage points to protect against a revisionist Russia. New START is one of those points, and I urge my colleagues and the administration that, in light of ongoing Russian compliance with New START, we must extend the treaty for an additional 5 years.

I strongly urge the administration try a new approach and develop a coherent strategy to stabilize our arms control regime. The relationship with the Russian Federation remains a challenge, but we must address these arms control issues and negotiate a durable agreement that ensures stability in our nuclear forces.

Neither an unconstrained nuclear arms race nor blind faith in arms control agreements serve U.S. national security interest. American security is best served through a strong, credible deterrent that operates within a legally binding, stable, and constrained arms control environment.

Mr. President, I call up an amendment numbered 98 to amendment No. 97.

I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be waived.