Floor Statements

Mr. President, today I wish to raise the alarm about the escalating violence in the Anglophone regions of Cameroon and to urge the administration to develop

and execute a meaningful strategy to help prevent additional bloodshed.

For several years, Cameroon, a historically stable country bridging west and central Africa, has faced a significant security threat in its far north. Boko Haram combatants, originating from Nigeria, have crossed the border into Cameroon and carried out hundreds of attacks on local residents. Reports indicate Boko Haram killed more than 900 people in 2017 in Nigeria and the Lake Chad Basin subregion, which includes northern Cameroon. Boko Haram's Islamic State-aligned splinter faction, ISIS-West Africa, also poses a threat to the country. With U.S. help, Cameroon has been responding to the challenge, although some of these efforts have prompted concerns about its military's respect for human rights.

Now, Cameroon faces another challenge, one that some observers fear has already burgeoned into a civil war. A budding separatist insurgency emerged in Cameroon's Anglophone regions in 2017. Insurgent attacks and a brutal military crackdown have caused significant internal displacement and given rise to credible allegations of serious human rights abuses by both separatists and government security forces. The separatist movement grew out of longstanding grievances among Anglophones over their perceived political and economic marginalization. These tensions worsened in 2016 due to the central government's appointments of French-speakers to local schools and courts in Cameroon's Anglophone majority western provinces in 2016. The government violently suppressed a largely peaceful protest movement that arose in response, quashing demonstrations by force, arresting prominent civil society activists on what appear to be trumped up terrorism charges, cutting internet access to the region, and banning some civil society organizations.

On October 1, 2017, secessionists symbolically declared the independence of ``Ambazonia.'' According to Amnesty International, security forces responded by killing at least 20 protestors and arresting over 500. Cameroonian soldiers have reportedly killed civilians, used excessive force against peaceful demonstrators, tortured and mistreated suspected separatists and detainees, and burned hundreds of homes in several villages as violence has escalated. Some extremist Anglophone separatists, meanwhile, have burned down schools; kidnapped traditional leaders, police, and government administrators; and killed civilians. More than 220 civilians have lost their lives, according to the International Crisis Group, including an American missionary killed in October when he was caught in crossfire between armed groups. As of May, at least 160,000 people were internally displaced, 80 percent of whom are reportedly hiding in forests. At least 25,000 Cameroonians have sought refuge in Nigeria since late 2017, according to UN agencies, although some observers on the ground assess the number of refugees and internally displaced to be higher.

The separatist insurgency and the heavy handed government response has put thousands of innocent lives at risk, destabilizing an already fragile region.

There is no military solution to this problem. Immediate, strategic action by the government, the diaspora, separatist leaders, as well as the U.S, and other international partners could bring peace, but the window of opportunity to prevent widespread civil conflict is quickly closing. I therefore call on each of the aforementioned actors to take steps right away to avert the worst case scenario.

The Trump administration must develop a comprehensive strategy to prevent widespread conflict and violence. This strategy must go beyond military support. The State and Defense Departments have administered training and equipment in support of the Cameroonian military's counterterrorism efforts, as well as its peacekeeping deployment to the Central African Republic. However, disturbing reports of security force abuses in the far north and Anglophone regions merit serious attention. I trust and expect that the administration is conducting Leahy vetting on all of the individual and units with whom it is working. But we must do more. Given that security force abuses have been shown to be a major driver of extremist recruitment in Africa, the State Department should conduct a thorough policy review of our decision to partner with Cameroon on counterterrorism and in security assistance more broadly.

A critical element of the administration's approach must be support for building democratic practices, assistance aimed at opening political space, and activities to combat corruption in Cameroon. While this administration may fail to understand that democratic values, human rights, and good governance promote long-term sustainable peace, Members of this body understand that these values are and must remain a core component of U.S. foreign policy. I am pleased that the administration has finally seen fit to set aside money in Fiscal Year 2018 funds for such activities, after years of disappointing neglect for the sector. But $1 million is far too modest an amount to have an appreciable impact. Our actions must match our rhetoric. Our Ambassador in Cameroon has been outspoken, forthright, and, as perhaps a predictable result, has been unfairly criticized by the government. State Department officials at the highest levels here in Washington must support him in speaking truth to power both publicly and in private messaging, and follow that messaging with actions that will have a tangible impact.

The government of Cameroon must take urgent steps as well. President Paul Biya's administration has applied a military solution to a political problem. It must now must take critical steps to forestall a worse-case scenario by committing to a political resolution. The highest levels of government--including President Biya--must rethink the wisdom of sending the Cameroonian military to make war upon its own citizens. It should publicly and unequivocally instruct security forces to stop targeting civilians, cease abuses and excesses, and hold those responsible for human rights abuses accountable--including through military prosecutions where appropriate--in a clear, transparent manner.

The government should facilitate access to the Anglophone regions by humanitarian organizations and independent human rights investigators. I urge the government to consider neutral third party mediation to engage organizations that represent Anglophones and facilitate a dialogue without preconditions to end the violence. In January 2018, Nigerian authorities forcibly returned 47 Anglophone activists, including reported asylum seekers, to Cameroon, where they were detained as ``terrorists.'' To show its good faith support for a peaceful resolution, the government should release peaceful, moderate voices from the Anglophone region who represent those with legitimate political grievances. And the Biya administration must be willing to contemplate greater political decentralization to address legitimate grievances in peripheral regions--possibly including a return to federalism.

The government needs to open political space more broadly. In the wake of October's elections, President Biya, who has been in office since 1982, will serve a seventh term in office. October's elections are the latest in a string of elections marred by controversy, harassment of opposition, and other irregularities. A press conference broadcast on state-run television featuring people identified as international election observers from Transparency International--who in fact were in no way affiliated with that organizations endorsing the conduct of elections, was a brazen attempt to provide a veneer of legitimacy to a process that was deeply flawed due to restricted political space.

It is time for President Biya to cement his legacy by laying the groundwork for meaningful political competition in Cameroon. As Benin's then-President Mathieu Kerekou said in 2009 when he decided not to change the constitution and run for a third term, ``if you do not leave power, power will leave you.'' Future elections must take place on a level playing field. In this year's elections the field was heavily tilted in favor of the ruling party. Addressing meaningful barriers to political participation may go a long way towards addressing the root causes of discontent in the Anglophone regions.

I call upon separatist leaders and their supporters to commit to seeking a peaceful, negotiated solution to the

Anglophone crisis. The separatists too must support accountability for all actors engaged in hostilities who may have committed human rights abuses. Attacks on civilians are inexcusable. All armed and political actors must unequivocally condemn human rights abuses,

Finally, the diaspora has a critical role to play. I urge members of the diaspora to clearly and unambiguously condemn violence in the Anglophone regions of Cameroon. The inflammatory rhetoric on social media by some Cameroonians at home and abroad is unhelpful. All diaspora should scrupulously investigate the charities and organizations to which they are contributing funding, lest they unwittingly send money to organizations that have engaged in violence against the very people they are trying to help.

Mr. President, the U.S. and Cameroon have a long history of cordial relations. Peace Corps has been in Cameroon since 1962. State Department and USAID-administered bilateral funding amounted to $83 million in FY2017. And for the past decade we have partnered with Cameroon to counter terrorism and maritime piracy, with U.S. security assistance rising substantially since 2014 in response to the Boko Haram crisis. Since 2015, Cameroon has hosted hundreds of U.S. military personnel who conduct regional intelligence, reconnaissance, and surveillance operations and otherwise support counterterrorism efforts. As conditions on the ground deteriorate, the U.S. is in a position where immediate concentrated action to support a resolution of the problem might disrupt the cycle of violence and help all parties work toward a negotiated solution. Our diplomatic intervention, if well thought out, could make a difference. I urge the administration to take swift, meaningful action.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am happy to yield to the chairman.

I understand Senator Inhofe wants to speak to this issue.

No, he doesn't want to speak to this issue.

I am happy to yield to the chairman, or I am ready to go--whichever way you want.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak to S.J. Res. 54, legislation brought forward by Senators Lee, Sanders, and Murphy more than 8 months ago. The past 2 years have reminded us time and again of the urgent responsibility of Congress to perform real checks and balances and to steadfastly defend our American values both at home and abroad. I thank them for their continued efforts throughout these intervening months to shed light on the devastating humanitarian crisis in Yemen and to make sure this body fulfills its oversight duties.

Over the last 3\1/2\ years, the tragic humanitarian crisis in Yemen has continued to deteriorate. More than 10,000 people are dead and 14 million people are on the brink of starvation. We have seen the heartbreaking photos of malnourished starving children on the brink of death. We have learned from U.N. reports of the cholera outbreaks that jeopardize more than 10,000 people every week. We have come to the conclusion that the status quo cannot stand.

Back in March, I joined a majority of my colleagues in voting to table this resolution with the understanding that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee would hold hearings to fully weigh our options in Yemen and the hope that the administration would strategically leverage our limited military support for the Saudi coalition to lessen civilian casualties, to influence a potential political settlement, or at the very least prevent the situation from getting worse.

At the time, I also made clear to this body, to the President, and to the Saudi Government that our relationship and our limited military support was not and is not a blank check. I had hoped the administration would provide convincing evidence that our military support was, in fact, reducing civilian casualties--a goal we heard repeatedly emphasized by U.S. officials. I had hoped the administration would use this foreign policy tool to advocate for a meaningful political process.

Unfortunately, this administration has failed to adequately address either problem. The Saudi coalition has not provided any more confidence in its operations. Despite being reassured that our engaging with the Saudis was decreasing civilian casualties, the facts on the ground speak far more powerfully against those assertions.

On a broader scale, we are seriously evaluating our bilateral relationship with Saudi Arabia. The bombing of a schoolbus full of children and other civilian targets is not something I want America's fingerprints on.

Make no mistake--the United States and Saudi Arabia do share common security interests. Saudi Arabia faces real and imminent threats from Yemeni-originated attacks inside its territory--from ballistic and SCUD missile attacks aimed at major Saudi population centers, to cross- border attacks by Iranian-backed Houthis.

Meanwhile, Iran continues its destabilizing behavior across the Middle East, and the terrorists with al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula take advantage of the security breakdown.

I continue to believe the United States must live up to our commitments and support our partners in the face of real and imminent threats, but over the past year, I have failed to see how continued U.S. military support for the Saudi-led coalitions operations in Yemen have, in fact, promoted our interests or, indeed, the long-term interests of the Saudi population.

As I said in March, this particular resolution raises the question of how we leverage all of the foreign policy tools at our disposal to advance peace and prevent the tragic loss of more human life.

Today, it is clear to me that the status quo is not advancing these critical interests. The limited military support we are providing the Saudi coalition is not our best tool, and today I offer my support for discharging something I normally oppose--discharging a resolution from the committee.

I call on the administration again to develop a cogent strategy, in concert with the international community, to compel all the parties to the negotiating table and to ensure that the millions of Yemenis at risk of starvation receive the humanitarian support that is ready to be delivered.

I have also worked with Senators Young, Reed, Graham, Shaheen, and Collins, as well as with my colleague Senator Murphy, to introduce legislation with reference to the Saudi Arabia Accountability and Yemen Act of 2018. I had hoped the committee would have considered this legislation and that we would have had a vote on it in this Congress.

In the aftermath of the Saudi Government's murder of U.S. resident and journalist Jamal Khashoggi and of the whitewashing the Trump administration has performed to avoid real consequences for those who ordered his death, this legislation is needed now more than ever. Without a real diplomatic and political strategy, there is no end to this conflict. There is no end to the violence. There is no end to the human suffering. It is time we bring this resolution to the floor for the full consideration of the Senate.

Over the last several months, I have seen nothing to convince me that our limited military support for the Saudi coalition's efforts in Yemen continues to serve our national security interests or to reflect America's enduring values and commitment to freedom and human rights. I continue to believe that an absence of American leadership undermines our interests, our security, and the security of our allies. An American presence does not necessarily equal American leadership. America's leadership on the global stage must always be driven by a sense of purpose and moral clarity. I feel that when we lose that sense of moral clarity, that sense of purpose, then we lose who we are as a nation, and we lose sight of the very values that make America a leader of nations. That is, in fact, what we have lost sight of here.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I yield back all time.

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

Mr. President, I rise today, as I have many times before, to stand up for a free and independent Ukraine.

I come to the floor to unambiguously call out and condemn the Russian Government's escalation of aggression and the increasingly dangerous situation in Ukraine.

Over the weekend, Russian forces sharply escalated their campaign in Ukraine by attacking and seizing 3 Ukrainian vessels with 23 crew members and temporarily shutting down commercial shipping through the Kerch Strait. Ukrainian sailors were injured and required medical attention.

This was an outrageous violation of Ukraine's sovereignty, so I want to say this clearly and unequivocally: The Kremlin must immediately return the vessels and sailors to Ukraine. The Kremlin must not obstruct the free passage of shipping through the Kerch Strait moving forward.

We here in the United States must take the Kremlin's actions seriously in word and in deed, for the Russian Government's actions on Sunday marked a sharp escalation in Putin's ongoing assault on the international rules-based order, this time on the freedom of navigation in the high seas. Indeed, this was an act of war, and Sunday's attack comes in the context of ongoing Russian aggression in eastern Ukraine for the past 4 years.

For the past 4 years, Ukrainian forces have endured an unrelenting assault, rendering the Donbas economically shattered and ungovernable.

For the past 4 years, 1.5 million displaced people have lived lives of uncertainty, not sure when and if they will ever be able to return home.

For the past 4 years, Ukraine has struggled to rebuild its economy and reform its institutions while fighting a hot war and suffering regular casualties.

For the past 4 years, Ukraine has been on the frontlines of a struggle against the Kremlin's vision of a world that is not guided by Democratic values, not buttressed by fundamental freedoms, not governed by a rules-based international order but, instead, ruled by Mr. Putin and a corrupt cabal of oligarch insiders.

Despite years of aggression, Putin's latest escalation marks an even more insidious turn. Apparently, the Kremlin no longer seeks to hide behind lies of little green men or Russian-backed separatists. The Russian Government, with no pretense or obfuscation, fully admitted to directly firing on Ukrainian forces and seizing their ships.

Beyond the military component, this attack tells us that Putin is ramping up an economic war on Ukraine. Since the spring, Russian vessels have blocked Ukrainian commercial ships from sailing through the Kerch Strait, costing Ukraine millions in lost revenue from exports and blocking imports critical to the Ukrainian economy. This weekend, Moscow opened up a new front in the war, one that could ultimately do the most damage to Ukraine's viability as a state.

Russia's actions show that its leaders are emboldened, unchastened, and on the march. Clearly our response to Russian efforts to undermine our security, our fundamental democratic values, our institutions, and the rules-based international order has thus far been inadequate.

Certainly the State and Defense Departments have taken some steps to counter Russian aggression. Ambassador Kurt Volker, who has led efforts to fully implement the Minsk agreements, has shown clear-eyed leadership in calling out the Kremlin and holding Putin to account. Our Assistant Secretary of State for Europe, Wess Mitchell, has done much of the same. Secretary Jim Mattis has consistently supported a strong military presence in Europe to counter Russian aggression. Nikki Haley, our U.S. Ambassador, issued the first statement from the administration following Sunday's attack and was appropriately firm. Come to think of it, I can't think of any player within the Trump administration who is soft on Russia--except one, of course: the President himself.

Just yesterday, when asked by reporters about Russia's escalation in Ukraine, President Trump said: ``We don't like what is happening either way.'' In other words, he once again fell back on the same old both sides excuse he keeps in his back pocket whenever asked about Russia's bad behavior. This is not the kind of clear and unequivocal denouncement the people of Ukraine or the world needs to hear from an American President at a moment in which the international democratic order is under attack, but unfortunately it is what we have come to expect from President Trump, who repeatedly subverts his own administration's positions and efforts on Russia.

The work of Mattis, Volker, Mitchell, Haley, and countless others has been repeatedly undermined by a President who has abandoned America's interests and betrayed our core principles time and time again, from the fiasco in Helsinki to an exchange in Paris just weeks ago where he greeted Putin with a giant smile on his face.

The President has had many opportunities to restore confidence to the

American people and reclaim America's global leadership on Russia policy. While he has repeatedly failed to do so, yet another opportunity lies before him this week at the G20 summit in Buenos Aires, where he is scheduled to meet with Putin. If ever there were a time for this President to defend our country, our principles, and those of our allies, this would be it. If ever there were an opportunity for American leadership, this would be it. If there were ever a time for President Trump to find his spine on Russia, this would be it.

In the meantime, President Trump must use this week's opportunity in Buenos Aires to send a clear message to Putin that we will not tolerate its increasingly aggressive behavior in Ukraine. Here is what I believe the President must do:

First, the United States needs to increase assistance to our friends in Ukraine in the face of continued aggression in Donbass and now in the Kerch Strait. The Trump administration must immediately increase security assistance to Ukraine, including the provision of lethal maritime equipment and weapons. In addition, we must bolster intelligence-sharing with Kiev and assist Ukraine's efforts to improve its maritime domain awareness.

Second, NATO has a critical role and should consider increasing exercises and its presence in the Black Sea. The United States has maintained an active presence in the South China Sea to protect shipping lanes. NATO should move quickly to establish such a presence in the Black Sea.

Third, the United States should increase sanctions pressure on Russia immediately. This is long overdue. The President is required to impose sanctions on Russia under the CAATSA law. Several mandatory provisions of the law remain ignored. I would offer that now would be a good time to follow the law. But imposing sanctions alone does not constitute a real strategy.

Fourth, Sunday's events present an important opportunity for American engagement with like-minded allies across Europe. Now is the time for serious diplomacy and coalition-building in the face of this threat. Our European friends spoke out in full opposition to Russia's attack on Sunday. Now let's see if we can work together to turn words into action and deter such Kremlin attacks in the future.

Finally, as the situation in Ukraine grows more perilous, we in the Senate must also live up to our national security responsibilities. Following the President's failures in Helsinki, Senator Graham and I, along with others, introduced the Defending American Security from Kremlin Aggression Act, known as DASKAA. This legislation is more than another sanctions bill; it charts a comprehensive way forward for how the United States can better defend its interests and those of our close allies against Putin's unrelenting assault on our values, security, economic interests, and the rules-based international order.

After months of Senate hearings on the legislation, we have nothing to show for it, as both the Senate Foreign Relations and Banking Committees have refused to mark up new legislation to respond to the Kremlin threat. What are we waiting for? What are we waiting for? The alarm bells are ringing. Yet the Senate Republican leadership is sound asleep. They are asleep as Trump concedes more ground to the Kremlin in Ukraine and cyber space; asleep while Russian ships ram Ukrainian vessels in international waters and injure brave Ukrainian sailors; asleep while Vladimir Putin pounds away at our points of vulnerability.

The American people deserve a vote on DASKAA before we leave for the holidays. Anything less would be a mark of shameful abdication of our responsibility to protect and defend our national interests.

I hope this Chamber will wake up to this growing threat. Perhaps Sunday's attack will be a ringing alarm clock that compels this body and the international community to act.

Finally, the American people cannot afford a weak performance by President Trump at the G20 summit, like we saw in Helsinki--cannot afford such a performance.

President Trump, this is your opportunity to finally show American leadership in defense of our principles and our close allies across Europe.

The time is now. It is critical. We are waiting to see that in fact the President can rise to the moment.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 5 minutes with the chairman as well, the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, split between us.

Madam President, if I may, through the Chair, say to the Senator, No. 1, there was nobody on the floor when the Senator made a motion to ultimately reserve all the time in opposition to the end. Had I been on the floor, had I known such a motion was going to be made, I would have objected to that. There was a certain lack of courtesy in that regard.

I say to the Senator, an opposition now will be remembered as an opposition in the future when the Senator is seeking an opportunity. All we are asking for is 5 minutes. If the Senator needs more time to make a final comment----

I do.

I rise in opposition to the resolution. As we evaluate the resolution, we have to consider the characteristics of a specific military system and the context in which it will be used, as well as how we utilize arms sales as a foreign policy tool.

I have much in common with Senator Paul on the question of Yemen. I have moved in his direction. The Saudis had their opportunity. I am promoting legislation, with several of our colleagues, on a bipartisan basis, to deal with exactly that. If I am the one holding up arms sales to Saudi Arabia, as we speak, as the ranking member on the Foreign Relations Committee, that is why it has not come to the floor because I am not letting it go through unless the administration breaks through a hold at the end of the day, which would violate all of the existing processes we have.

This vote is not Yemen. It is not Saudi Arabia. It is not the United Arab Emirates. It is Bahrain. Bahrain is a critical ally to us. It hosts the U.S. Navy's Fifth Fleet, providing a vital naval base from which the United States protects its national security interests in the gulf and throughout the region, and its willingness to host our naval forces also places Bahrain at greater risk from attack from Iran and terrorist groups seeking to do harm to the United States. It is also a security partner as it comes to piracy, al-Qaida, ISIS, and Iran. It hosted an Israeli UNESCO delegation in late June.

I have great disagreement with the Bahranians as it relates to their human rights record. It is abhorrent. We are going to continue to fight on that issue with them. At the end of the day, halting the sale of weapons intended to defend Bahrain's security is not the solution in this particular case.

I will close and yield the balance of time to the chairman. Arms sales to foreign countries provide the United States and this body with important influence and leverage on those countries' views and activities on foreign policy. Sometimes, if used smartly, they can shift a country's actions in a positive direction.

As I said, I am currently opposing an important arms sale to Saudi Arabia due to my concern the Saudis are using these weapons in a specific context inappropriately. Civilian casualties are

on the rise, and the weapons sale is not part of a comprehensive strategy to end the Civil War in Yemen. I urge us, on this particular occasion, to oppose this particular resolution, and I probably will stand with the Senator when the moment comes as it relates to denying the Saudis arms sales, particularly in the midst of what they are doing in Yemen.

With that, I yield to the distinguished Senator of Foreign Relations.

Mr. President, today I want to once again reaffirm that the U.S. Congress stands firmly behind a strong U.S.-Israel relationship. As threats to Israel continue to increase, as her enemies continue to grow ever closer, the United States will stand firm in our commitments.

Despite partisanship interfering with so many pressing policy issues today, an overwhelming majority of members of all political parties continue to reaffirm congressional support for this relationship.

Congress continues to fully fund the unprecedented $38 billion of memorandum of understanding for military aid and will continue to do so on a bipartisan basis.

Congress continues to authorize and fund missile codevelopment programs, like Iron Dome, David's Sling, and Arrow 3, and will continue to do so on a bipartisan basis.

Congress passed the Taylor Force Act, making clear that the United States will not provide assistance that directly benefits the Palestinian Authority until it stops incentivizing violence by paying salaries to prisoners convicted of terrorism against Israeli or American citizens.

Should there be any question about where the entirety of the U.S. Senate--Democrats and Republicans--stand, all 100 Senators signed a letter calling for Israel's inclusion in the Global Entry Program.

Our relationship with Israel is rooted in this bipartisanship. We are stronger for it, and so is Israel. It is disappointing to see some try to drive a political wedge in this historical support.

Those who would try to use Israel or support for the U.S.-Israel relationship as a political football are not helping this relationship, nor are they helping promote either American or Israeli security. Along with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, I will continue to be a vocal advocate for a robust U.S.-Israel relationship rooted in strong bipartisan support.

Mr. President, I rise today to oppose Brett Kavanaugh's nomination to the Supreme Court and to ask my colleagues--Republicans and Democrats alike--to recognize exactly what is at stake here. The philosopher Nietzsche once said that if you stare long enough into the abyss, the abyss will stare back into you.

My friends, we here in the U.S. Senate are staring into the abyss. What is staring back at us is a future in which the American people's trust in the Supreme Court is being irreparably damaged.

To vote yes on Brett Kavanaugh is to send a message to every woman in America that your voice doesn't matter. If you risk everything--your security, your stability, your reputation--to come forward and speak truth to power about a sexual assault, they will call you credible. They will call you courageous. Yet they will not believe you.

It is a message that says, if you have survived a sexual assault, don't bother telling anyone because you must be mistaken. This traumatic and unforgettable moment in your life never happened. It must have been someone else.

My friends, to confirm Judge Brett Kavanaugh with what we now know would be to forever tarnish the credibility and reputation of the highest Court in our land. Here is what we know. We know Judge Kavanaugh faces multiple credible allegations of sexual assault. Yet the investigation that was conducted looks nothing like the FBI investigation that was promised--not by President Trump, not by the Senators who called for it, or by anyone else.

We know neither Dr. Ford nor Judge Kavanaugh was interviewed by law enforcement--the very essence of what the subject of the investigation is. Neither of them was interviewed. We know dozens of people with corroborating evidence were flatout ignored by investigators.

I have heard some of my colleagues call this investigation thorough. How do you call an investigation thorough when neither the accused nor the accuser was interviewed by the FBI?

How do you call an investigation thorough when 40 corroborating witnesses who volunteered information to the FBI in recent days were reportedly ignored? You can't get corroboration if you don't talk to corroborating witnesses. The answer is simple: It is not thorough, and it is not trustworthy.

This entire process, including the use of Executive privilege to deny the Senate access to hundreds of thousands of documents of Judge Kavanaugh's, has been shrouded in secrecy. And why the secrecy? Because President Trump and his team are desperate to get Judge Kavanaugh confirmed by any means necessary.

Let's remember what is going on. The President of the United States is the subject of a Federal investigation into whether his campaign accepted assistance from a hostile foreign power during the 2016 election. Already, the President's campaign chairman, Foreign Policy Advisor, and former National Security Advisor have pled guilty to Federal crimes.

He could have chosen any of the judges included on the rightwing list assembled by the Heritage Foundation and the Federalist Society. Instead, he picked the one judge with unprecedented views of Presidential power. There is no other explanation for President Trump choosing Brett Kavanaugh that I can think of other than he hopes this will be his get-out-of-jail card.

The last few weeks have been a flurry of breaking news alerts and breathless gossiping in the halls. I am thankful for Dr. Ford's courage and candor. She spoke her truth and has inspired countless others to break their silence. I believe her. I believe survivors. New Jersey is home to 1.8 million survivors. That is 1.8 million reasons to oppose Brett Kavanaugh.

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, less than a quarter of sexual assault victims reported those incidents to police in 2016. After this past week, it is all too easy to see why.

Leader McConnell has called the allegations of Dr. Ford ``unsubstantiated smears.'' What an insulting statement. When will we as a society begin to believe women, to trust women? It can't come soon enough.

I was in the midst of my first campaign for Congress when Anita Hill's allegations of sexual assault against Justice Clarence Thomas were investigated but ultimately disregarded by the Senate. I am proud to have been elected to the House in 1992, the so-called Year of the Woman.

Across the Capitol, a record four women were elected to the Senate. My colleague Patty Murray decided to run after watching what happened to Anita Hill. She is still here fighting for survivors, and I am proud to have her as my colleague.

We look back at the Clarence Thomas hearings as a moment that failed America and failed all survivors of sexual assault. Yet here we are in 2018, and it appears as though we have made little progress.

After Dr. Ford's testimony, my Republican colleagues and even conservative pundits praised her credibility. It only took Judge Kavanaugh's outrageous performance--a performance we now know was misleading at best and untruthful at worst--for these same Republicans to cast her aside. The message they have sent to survivors who are brave enough to come forward is clear: We will listen to you, but we will not believe you, and we will not trust you.

Despite having the cards stacked against her, I was shaken to the core

by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford's words last week. She answered every question with bravery, with candor, and with humility. Meanwhile, Judge Kavanaugh was evasive, belligerent, and, according to many of his acquaintances, repeatedly untruthful.

What my Republican colleagues can't seem to grasp is that you can be at the top of your wealthy prep school class and still abuse women. You can be a Yale Law School graduate and still abuse women. Unfortunately, you can even be the President of the United States and still abuse women.

Furthermore, Judge Kavanaugh's partisan outburst was downright disturbing for a potential Supreme Court Justice. How many norms did Judge Kavanaugh shatter in that hearing room? It is one thing to be emotional; it is another to call the allegations of Dr. Ford or Deborah Ramirez and others a coordinated leftwing conspiracy and an act of political retribution for the Clintons. He said the questions posed by Democratic Senators during his confirmation hearing were ``an embarrassment'' and called the process a circus--this coming from a man who pressed Ken Starr to ask President Clinton sexually explicit questions. And we all know the circus the Starr investigation turned out to be. But I guess the same standards don't apply to Brett Kavanaugh. If you are Brett Kavanaugh, you can lie under oath about things big and small and never face the consequences.

At the end of the day, Judge Kavanaugh's hysterical political rant confirmed what many of us already knew about this man: He is a political operative cloaked in judicial robes. As Kavanaugh himself said, ``What goes around, comes around.'' Do those sound like the words of an impartial, independent judge?

Never before in my life have I seen a nominee, let alone a Supreme Court nominee, behave as though he were entitled to this lifetime appointment. He is not. It is the American people who are entitled to a Justice who tells the truth, who conducts himself in a dignified manner, a Justice who doesn't face credible accusations of sexual assault.

The Supreme Court deserves better than Brett Kavanaugh, and so do the American people. More than 1,000 legal scholars--and counting--agree, coming out against Kavanaugh's nomination because his partisan and venomous rhetoric has no place on the Supreme Court.

This process has further poisoned the confirmation process. It was Senate Republicans who orchestrated the theft of a Supreme Court seat with more than 9 months left in President Obama's term. Apparently, being nominated by President Obama is more disqualifying than being accused by multiple women of sexual assault. It is clear my colleagues will stop at nothing to tip the scales of justice against women, consumers, and patients for generations to come.

For women, the stakes couldn't be higher. President Trump promised to only nominate judges who would overturn Roe v. Wade. And, yes, earlier today, a colleague of mine pointed out that the Republican National Committee platform has long included overturning Roe v. Wade. In my view, that is precisely why we cannot trust a longtime GOP political operative like Brett Kavanaugh to uphold a woman's right to choose. There is a difference between saying that precedent deserves respect and saying that it cannot be overturned. They are not the same. I think some of the things I have heard about the aspirations of some of my colleagues about Judge Kavanaugh are unlikely to be realized.

This is what is at stake here: the basic principle that women have a right to make their own private medical decisions. My daughter has grown up never knowing what it was to live in a country where women were denied reproductive rights. Now I fear my granddaughter may grow up never knowing what it was like to live in a country where women had reproductive rights.

It isn't just women's health that is at stake. The Trump administration is arguing in Federal court as we speak that the ACA's protections for preexisting conditions are unconstitutional, which makes Judge Kavanaugh's record of ruling against consumers and siding with corporate interests all the more troubling.

There are 3.8 million New Jerseyans who have preexisting conditions-- some illness during the course of their lives, heart attack, diabetes, Parkinson's, maybe some birth defect that in the past had denied them insurance coverage. We eliminated that under the Affordable Care Act. No more discrimination. There are 3.8 million New Jerseyans who have preexisting conditions. For me, those are another 3.8 million reasons to oppose Kavanaugh's confirmation.

So, yes, the stakes have never been higher. The threat to our democracy is real. The decisions coming down from a Supreme Court with Kavanaugh will change the course of America for decades to come.

The Republican majority views the Supreme Court as an instrument to force an unpopular, anti-woman, anti-worker, anti-civil rights agenda on the American people. Meanwhile, President Trump views the Court as yet another weapon to flout the rule of law.

Well, it is time we take a stand for the integrity of our democratic institutions. It is time we live up to our duty set forth by article II of the Constitution to provide advice and consent on Supreme Court nominations. In bestowing on us this responsibility, the Framers entrusted us with protecting the reputation and credibility of the highest Court in our land.

To confirm Judge Kavanaugh in the face of these allegations; in the face of the secrecy of the documents we could not obtain; in the face of the positions he took that are clearly, in the minds of many of us, untruthful before the committee, risks forever tarnishing one of the crown jewels of our democracy.

My friends, we are standing on the edge of a cliff. Should we blindly go over that edge, we risk doing irreparable damage to the reputation and credibility of the Supreme Court. I implore my colleagues in the majority to pull us back in the direction of truth and decency. This isn't about right or left; this is about right and wrong.

A vote to confirm Brett Kavanaugh is a vote against survivors of sexual violence. A vote to confirm Brett Kavanaugh is a vote to overturn Roe v. Wade and end safe and legal abortion in this country. A vote to confirm Brett Kavanaugh is a vote to overturn protections for preexisting conditions. A vote to confirm Brett Kavanaugh is a vote to roll back civil rights and voting rights. It is a vote that will take us back to a time and place none of us, I believe, wants to go to. And it is a vote the American people will not forget--not today, not tomorrow, not this November, not ever.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Hearing on Russia's role in Syria and the broader Middle East that had been scheduled for last week has been postponed; therefore, I rise today to raise awareness on the danger and urgency of the moment, given the impending humanitarian catastrophe in Idlib, Syria, and the refusal of the Trump administration to impose meaningful costs on Russia for protecting Bashar al-Assad and his regime.

On Syria, Congress again finds itself in a situation where we often hear more from the press than we do directly from the administration. Last week many of us read with interest in the Washington Post a report that President Trump agreed to a new strategy for Syria that indefinitely extends the U.S. military presence and supports a major diplomatic push to end the conflict. This same article also indicated that the administration views the military campaign against ISIS as nearly complete and that U.S. goals have now shifted to Iran's presence in Syria given the doubts that Russia is willing and capable of ejecting Iran from Syria.

Congress and the American people deserve to hear directly from the Trump administration whether in fact this is our new strategy. When this hearing is rescheduled, I expect the administration to explain in detail its proposed diplomatic engagement and the plan for U.S. forces in Syria after ISIS is defeated. I also want to know what specific tools the administration proposes to use to ensure the removal of Iran from Syria; compel the Assad regime to cease and Russia to cease support for the bombing, torture, and gassing of Syrian civilians; and hold Assad's brutal regime to account for its crimes against the Syrian people, as well as consequences for the Kremlin's support of this brutal regime.

In my view, Russia is fully culpable for perpetuating the war in Syria and rendering that country persistently unstable, a magnet for violent extremists and a direct threat to Israel.

Now more than ever, we must shine a light on Russia's role in perpetuating the conflict in Syria, as well as Russia's role in the region. And while we still await details on the disastrous and embarrassing Helsinki summit between Presidents Trump and Putin, I am deeply concerned that for the Syrian people Helsinki made a bad situation worse.

I fear that President Trump did not raise Russia's war crimes in Syria, such as Russian aircraft dropping Russian bombs in densely populated areas of Syria. I doubt that President Trump called Putin out for violating the deescalation agreement in southern Syria, agreed to last year by the United States, Russia, and Jordan. I am skeptical that President Trump pressed Putin to commit to delivering Assad to participate in good faith at the UN-led process for a negotiated settlement along the lines of Security Council Resolution 2254. I doubt that President Trump insisted that Russia break its sinister alliance with Tehran that has enabled the survival of Assad in Syria and threatened the security of Israel. And I see no indication that the administration is using any of the tools Congress has given it-- including mandatory sanctions provisions in the Countering American Adversaries Through Sanctions Act of 2017, CAATSA--to change the status quo in Syria or prevent the looming assault on Idlib province, where Russia is already engaged in a bombing campaign alongside its client Assad.

It seems to me that the administration is taking a backseat--or maybe has gotten out of the car entirely--while the Assad-Russia-Iran alliance is left unchallenged to starve, torture, and bomb the Syrian people into submission.

While the humanitarian dimensions of this tragedy are reason enough for the administration to take a different approach, there are significant strategic consequences for allowing or enabling an Assad- Russia-Iran partnership to solidify as a salient feature of the landscape of the Middle East. But instead of U.S. leadership shaping the region, we have instead Vladimir Putin--the man who has long ensured Bashar al-Assad's survival--flying around the Middle East completing deals for base access and weapons sales. And rather than utilize the threat of CAATSA sanctions to compel U.S. partners in the Arab world to cease significant purchases from the Russian defense and intelligence sectors, the administration instead sought a national security waiver for this provision of the law.

While the United States has backed away from its key leadership role in addressing the region's conflicts, governments in the Middle East rolled out the red carpet for Putin and flocked to Russia during the World Cup to sit by his side and sign agreements for increased cooperation.

Putin can only take away one message from this posture by the Trump administration: Russian activities and influence in the Middle East will not be challenged in any meaningful way by the United States.

With so many vital U.S. national security interests at stake in the region--including the safety and effectiveness of our troops fighting ISIS--this leadership vacuum risks outcomes that serve only Russia's interests, not our own.

While President Trump may believe that Russian hegemony in the Middle East and Russian partnership with Iran is not a cause for concern, I am deeply alarmed that we are on the road to a series of outcomes in Syria that will be as catastrophic in human terms as they will be strategically ruinous for U.S. interests and values for years to come.

Mr. President, I rise today to oppose President Trump's nominee for Commissioner of the IRS, Mr. Charles Rettig. Now more than ever, the American people need government officials who are willing to stand up and speak truth to power. Unfortunately, Mr. Rettig failed to convince me that he is up for that part of the job.

During his time before the Senate Finance Committee, on which I serve, Mr. Rettig gave me no indication that he would protect New Jerseyans facing the threat of double taxation under the tax bill passed by this Congress and signed into law by President Trump late last year, nor did Mr. Rettig express any respect for the rights of States to administer their own constitutionally upheld charitable contribution tax credit programs. Instead, Mr. Rettig left me all but certain that he would be a rubberstamp for this administration's politically motivated tax policies and would allow a backdoor tax increase on countless middle-class families. At a time when we need independence and impartiality at the IRS, that is absolutely unacceptable.

As we speak, the Treasury Department and the IRS are trying to make sense of the deficit-exploding corporate tax cuts rushed through Congress by the Republican majority last December--tax cuts that, according to the Congressional Budget Office, will drive us toward trillion-dollar annual deficits by 2020 and by undermining the Affordable Care Act, eventually will strip 13 million Americans of their healthcare coverage.

As the IRS attempts to implement these misguided policies, corporations are pulling every string to rig the Tax Code in their favor. Apparently, it wasn't enough for them to get a massive trillion- dollar tax windfall from President Trump. So now they are amassing armies of accountants and legions of lobbyists to get even more out of the IRS. That is why drug companies are rushing to reclassify their cash stocked overseas as assets so they can pay a fraction of what they would otherwise owe. That is why oil companies are drilling into the law to find new loopholes in the way we tax foreign profits. CEOs want no stone left unturned, no loophole left unopened.

But there is one group that is not getting any special access or sweetheart deals, and that is middle-class families like those in my home State of New Jersey. I have said before and I will say again that the Trump tax bill was one giant hit job on New Jersey's middle class and that of States similarly situated.

You would think that with $1.5 trillion in tax cuts, Republicans could have cut taxes for everyone. Yet, under the Trump tax plan, 40 percent of New Jersey taxpayers will either face an average tax increase of $2,100 or get no tax cut at all. That is because Republicans gutted the State and local tax deduction, which 1.8 million homeowners across my State alone depend on to avoid being taxed twice on the same money. These people aren't high rollers. They weren't born into multimillion dollar trust funds. They are middle-class families who work hard for everything they have.

As you can see, 83 percent of New Jerseyans who deduct their property taxes make under $200,000 a year. Nationwide, half of all taxpayers who claim these deductions make under $100,000. In New Jersey, the average deduction totals about $18,000 per filer--far above the arbitrary cap imposed by Donald Trump and his corporate-sponsored Republican Congress. It means the average New Jersey taxpayer who itemizes their returns could lose $8,000 in deductions this year alone.

Even the President's own top economic adviser agrees. Larry Kudlow made this quote before he was Director of the National Economic Council, which means the quote is really clear and unvarnished in its truthfulness. He said:

When you end the state and local deduction, because rates

are still relatively high, you are going to hurt a lot of

different people. So the internal logic was not good and this

is not a true tax-reform bill.

Only in Washington could Republicans borrow $2 trillion from China to cut taxes for big corporations and still need to hike taxes on New Jersey families and families like New Jersey families in other States in order to pay for it. That is exactly what Republicans did by capping the State and local tax deduction and hitting our middle class with an even higher property tax burden.

But we New Jerseyans aren't known for being pushovers. That is why, last December, several mayors across our State allowed homeowners to prepay their 2018 property taxes before Trump's harmful policies took effect in January. That is why, back in May, I proudly joined Governor Phil Murphy as he signed a new law to shield homeowners from higher property tax burdens.

Under this program, homeowners who contribute to a State-approved charity may receive a property tax credit worth up to 85 percent of those donations. In this regard, New Jersey didn't reinvent the wheel with this new law. It was modeled after existing tax credit programs on the books for at least 32 other States. All of those here in red offer tax credits to residents who contribute to certain charities.

In our case, we are not shielding families from higher property tax bills but making sure New Jersey has the resources needed to keep cops on the beat, firefighters on the job, and New Jersey schools on the cutting edge.

The IRS has consistently respected these programs. Back in 2011, the Chief Counsel of the IRS released an advisory memo clarifying that State tax credits do not--I repeat--do not prohibit taxpayers from writing off the full value of their charitable donations from their Federal taxes. In other words, getting a tax credit doesn't mean you made more money, and thus you shouldn't be taxed more as a result. That is what is happening across the land in all of these 32 States.

It is not just the IRS that upheld these programs. This issue has gone before the U.S. Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court ruled that these tax credits are not considered things of value but rather amount to ``the government declin[ing] to impose a tax.''

So let's review. The IRS never had a problem with the 32 other States who had charitable deduction tax credit programs on the books--never. The IRS never had a problem; that is, until New Jersey and States like New Jersey decided to create one--until New Jersey and similar States decided to create one. As soon as New Jersey and other States established this perfectly legal tax credit program, the IRS suddenly decided to reverse course. All of a sudden, they are willing to go to court over this and challenge a well-established precedent.

Apparently, the Trump administration is so intent on sticking it to New Jersey and States like New Jersey that they are willing to jeopardize all of these programs in all of these States--all of them, all of them.

Let me give a few examples of these programs that will be endangered if Mr. Rettig fails to stand up for the rights of States. In Alabama, there is a program that offers families a 100-percent tax credit for contributing to private school scholarship funds. In Missouri, there are several very worthy programs that offer tax credits for contributions--one for shelters for domestic abuse survivors, another for donations for campuses focused on the STEM fields. There are tax credits for donating to State colleges in Indiana, water conservation in Colorado, and public road construction in Arkansas. There are similar programs in Missouri, Kansas, and Georgia.

I could go on and on, but here is the bottom line: At least 30 State tax credit programs are now in jeopardy because the Trump administration changed the rules in the middle of the game--changed their previous counsel's decision, changed course from what the Supreme Court said.

I have heard a lot of lip service from my colleagues about States' rights over the years. They are all about States' rights--until it comes to States like New Jersey and their rights.

Some say that President Trump and the Republican Congress capped the property tax deduction because they have it out for so-called blue States. But at the end of the day, the States most affected by this foolish policy aren't red States or blue States; they are America's blue-chip States, America's innovation States, America's economic powerhouse States.

New Jersey didn't become an economic powerhouse by accident. Our success wasn't born overnight. It is the result of the priorities we set and the investments we make.

Take it from Kathryn, a constituent of mine from New Jersey. She wrote to me after she saw what happened with the tax bill:

My husband and I pay nearly $13,000 a year in property

taxes to the town of Oradell. For this, we receive excellent

services and have reputable public schools. I pay taxes to

the state of NJ which support our infrastructure, other

cities, and necessary programs.

I am fine paying what I already pay. That being said, I

feel very strongly that it is unacceptable to be taxed on

taxes that I already pay.

Kathryn is right. She is right. It is no coincidence that New Jersey claims more in State and local tax deductions than other States in the Nation and also has some of the best schools in the Nation. We pay for them. Yet, with the Trump tax scam, Republicans want us to pay for them twice.

The Federal income tax system has historically allowed taxpayers to deduct the taxes they pay at the local level. This is one of the longest standing deductions in the Nation's history--to deduct from their Federal returns--and for good reasons. States

that invest in education, infrastructure, and opportunity for all have higher per capita incomes, enjoy more prosperity, and rely less on Federal handouts. These are the types of investments that make New Jersey a great place to live, work, and raise a family.

You don't have to take my word for it. Earlier this year, Save the Children named New Jersey the No. 1 place in America to raise a child. I want it to stay that way.

In New Jersey, we invest in public schools because we know that they prepare students to compete in high-paying fields like biotechnology, sustainable agriculture, and medicine. In New Jersey, we invest in public health and law enforcement because we know we are all better off when our streets are safe and our families are healthy. In New Jersey, we invest in mass transit and infrastructure because we know it connects workers with opportunities to climb the income ladder.

We do these things for a reason. New Jersey is stronger when we open the doors of opportunity for as many people as possible. We see it here: State investments, better education, higher wages, a stronger middle class, top three States by SALT deduction. They also do incredibly well in educational achievement and income. There is a clear correlation.

But the Republican Congress has put these job-creating, economy- growing, opportunity-expanding investments in the crosshairs by gutting the property tax deduction. In the process, they are threatening the validity of legitimate programs operating in 30 other States.

The Federal Tax Code has always worked to ensure that Americans don't pay taxes twice on their hard-earned money; that was until Donald Trump came along. Then Republicans abandoned their so-called fiscal conservatism, and together they passed a tax scam that subjects hundreds of thousands of New Jerseyans, and many more in other States, to double taxation.

For as long as I can remember, I have heard my Republican colleagues preach about protecting, not punishing, success. But the Republican tax law is a tax on New Jersey's success, slamming hundreds of thousands of families with higher property tax burdens, not in a few years, not in a decade--no, right now--now. It is not fair, and it is not right. It is wrong to force New Jersey families to pay more just so that big corporations and wealthy CEOs can pay less.

In the end, I can't in good conscience support this nominee. He will not protect New Jersey's middle class--and those in other States like it--from higher property tax bills. He will not respect perfectly legal State-based programs like those 32 other States that offer tax credits in return for contributions to nonprofits that do critical work in their communities. He will be nothing more than a Republican rubberstamp for President Trump's politically motivated tax policies. The last thing we need is an IRS that is politically weaponized.

Whether you want to take a stand against double taxation or you don't agree with the Trump administration's politically motivated assault on the rights of States to set their own tax policies, I hope Republicans and Democrats alike will join me in voting down this nomination. Taxpayers in New Jersey and across the Nation deserve better than tax policies that knock the knees out from underneath them and an IRS Commissioner who kicks them while they are down.

I yield the floor.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I come to the floor to today to pay tribute to an American hero, a beloved colleague, and a friend, a man who lived a life that embodied service, sacrifice, and statesmanship, a patriot whose presence here in the U.S. Senate will be sorely missed for years to come but whose legacy will last for generations.

As so many of my colleagues have said in recent days, you never forget your first time meeting Senator John McCain. For me, it was early 2006, when I was appointed to the U.S. Senate and in the midst of my campaign for a full term that November. Naturally, I wanted to establish a record that could show I was an effective Senator. I had submitted an amendment to the budget aimed at reducing the burden on New Jersey taxpayers, and while the Republican majority wasn't thrilled I was the one putting it forward at the time, it had strong bipartisan support. It could have easily passed with a voice vote but I wanted to get my colleagues on the record. I wanted a rollcall vote, so that is what I requested.

Shortly thereafter, Senator John McCain came barreling towards me on the floor, calling me out. ``Bob, you are a jerk!'' he said.

I was taken aback. We weren't on a first-name basis back then. ``Senator,'' I said, ``what is the problem?''

``This didn't need a roll call vote. That makes you a jerk!''

Well, at that point, the Hudson County in me kicked in, and I fired back with some language I think is best left out of the Congressional Record.

Senator McCain stormed off, leaving me bewildered. Wasn't this supposed to be the world's greatest deliberative body?

I walked over to minority leader Harry Reid to ask what that was all about. ``Welcome to the Senate, that's John McCain,'' he said.

Apparently, John had a foreign trip scheduled, and he was anxious to leave Washington, so my rollcall vote was a kink in his schedule.

Later, when I retold the story to my friend Senator Lindsey Graham, he said, ``Good for you for standing up to him, Bob. You earned his respect.''

I share this story today not as an example of John McCain's temper-- which he was well known for, along with his biting wit, of course--I share it for two reasons. First, it is a reminder that John admired people willing to stand their ground, not out of stubbornness or rigid partisanship but out of principle. He respected people for the strength of their convictions.

The second reason I tell this story is because it is a reminder that, to John McCain, being a U.S. Senator was about more than passing laws. It was about championing American values around the world. Whether he was traveling abroad to meet with our troops or foreign heads of state, Senator McCain never hesitated to stand up for American ideals of democracy, human rights, and freedom on the global stage.

Yes, he was a relentless advocate for the American military, but he ultimately believed that our Nation's strength came not just from the might of our military but the power of our ideals. I saw Senator McCain's commitment to those ideals up close back when I served as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, during which he was a member.

Russia, which had opposed Ukranian independence from the moment it was declared in 1991, had invaded the sovereign nation of Ukraine and illegally annexed Crimea. John and I both understood then that Putin's annexation of Crimea wasn't about a territorial dispute. It was a about exerting Russia's geopolitical power and undermining the liberal international order the United States helped build in the aftermath of World War II and worked to strengthen throughout the challenges of the Cold War.

John was instrumental in crafting and passing the package of sanctions we put forward to counter Russian aggression and promote the interests of the Ukrainian people in their ongoing struggle for sovereignty and freedom. He understood better than anyone that we had to stand on the side of the Ukrainian people, not just because of Russia's hostile takeover of Crimea, but for the Kremlin's years of interference in Ukraine, from its cyberattacks on Ukrainian infrastructure to its deliberate efforts to manipulate and corrupt its democratic process.

I will never forget his support and counsel as we worked to pass the Ukraine Freedom Support Act in the months that followed, a piece of legislation that made crystal clear America's unwavering support for the people of Ukraine and their right to sovereign self-determination, democracy, territorial integrity, and freedom.

Senator McCain believed that, as Americans, we have a responsibility to support all people in their struggle against tyranny, to stand up for human dignity against those who deny it, and to share American ideals like freedom, democracy, and human rights around the world, bringing hope to the hopeless and light to the darkest corners of the Earth. Perhaps that is because John himself spent so many years in one of the Earth's darkest corners, as a prisoner of war in Vietnam. His commitment to country was tested in ways that few of us can imagine-- the pain he suffered, the torture he endured, the faith he kept. There is no question in my mind that John's time spent as a prisoner of war shaped him as a legislator and not just with respect to foreign policy. He may have been a staunch Republican, but he never treated his Democratic colleagues as if they were evil, perhaps because he had seen real evil. Disagreeing on the issues didn't make us enemies, because we were all Americans.

Some have accused Senator McCain of abandoning his conservatism whenever he sought common ground. Those accusations are foolish. Take it from me as a Member of the bipartisan Gang of 8 who worked on historic immigration reforms back in 2013. When I entered those negotiations, I did so with a healthy dose of skepticism towards Senator McCain, and I imagine he did so with me same way. After all, I was the Hispanic Democrat from New Jersey who never hesitated to voice my problems with the McCain-Kennedy immigration negotiations of 2007 loudly and clearly.

It is easy to demonize the other side from afar, but when you sit in a room with someone for probably 100 hours of negotiations, as I did with Senator McCain, you begin to lift, ever slowly, the veil of distrust between you. You soon realize there is far more that unites you as Americans than divides you as partisans.

John never relented in his commitment to border security, just as I never relented in my commitment to bringing the undocumented out of the shadows and towards a path to citizenship. We disagreed pretty much constantly; yet we built trust. We engaged in the give-and-take of compromise, and we emerged from the Gang of 8 negotiations with a compassionate and comprehensive immigration reform bill that ultimately passed the Senate with a bipartisan supermajority.

That historic legislation never received a vote in the House of Representatives, but I remain as committed as ever to the cause of comprehensive immigration reform; reform built on mutual trust and good-faith compromise, on both pragmatism and idealism, and on a shared commitment to solving the greatest challenges of our time.

John McCain wasn't perfect. No one is. John McCain made mistakes. We all do. But what made him a giant of the Senate, in my opinion, was his willingness to put country over party and patriotism over partisanship.

In recent days, there has been a lot of discussion about what would be a fitting tribute to Senator John McCain. I would certainly name a building in his honor and hope we do, but I don't think we should stop there. I believe it would be a great tribute to Senator John McCain if all of us here in this body strived to look at each other through his lens. We are humble servants for something far greater and bigger than ourselves. We are bestowed by the American people an opportunity to make an imperfect nation even better, and we are far more likely to succeed at that mission when we can rise above the politics of division, look beyond the news cycle, and work relentlessly toward common cause.

Madam President, I come to the floor because President Trump, his administration, and this Republican Congress are engaged in a heartless and deliberate plot to rip healthcare away from millions of Americans, and it is only going to get worse.

It was a little over a year ago when Americans rose, made their voices heard, and stopped Republicans from passing TrumpCare. Ever since they were able to repeal the Affordable Care Act on the Senate floor, this administration has pursued a cynical campaign to sabotage the Affordable Care Act from behind closed doors. The Trump administration slashed the open enrollment period, leaving Americans with less time to get covered, and, to confuse consumers, they cut advertising and outreach funding. They abruptly eliminated cost-sharing payments, raising out-of-pocket expenses for many struggling families.

Earlier this summer, they rolled back consumer protections and gave insurers permission to sell more junk health plans to consumers--plans that leave people more vulnerable to massive medical bills that bankrupt their families. They even intervened in a court case to have protections for preexisting conditions struck down, jeopardizing coverage for 3.8 million New Jerseyans who have a preexisting condition.

Every act of sabotage has contributed to soaring healthcare premiums, fewer choices for consumers, and millions of Americans losing their healthcare coverage under this President's watch. Now we face President Trump's greatest act of sabotage yet--the nomination of a judge to the Supreme Court who has decried the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act at the very same time this administration is arguing in court that protections for preexisting conditions are unconstitutional-- unconstitutional.

As a candidate and as President, Donald Trump repeatedly pledged to

protect people with preexisting conditions, saying on ``60 Minutes'' that he would ``take care of everybody.''

Before the Affordable Care Act, insurance companies could discriminate against any American who had a preexisting condition. What is that? That is some illness you acquired in your life. It is that heart attack or the Parkinson's disease or the birth defect you had when you were born that allowed an insurance company to discriminate against you and either deny you healthcare coverage or make the cost so exorbitant, it was impossible to afford. The Affordable Care Act I helped write ultimately eliminated that discrimination and the ability of insurance companies to do that.

In New Jersey alone, which has a little over 9 million people in the State, 3.8 million New Jerseyans have a preexisting condition.

The President also said he replaced the Affordable Care Act with ``something terrific.'' There is nothing terrific about breaking a promise that threatens the lives and livelihoods of millions of families.

I remember when President Trump promised to stand up for the so- called forgotten men. I guess he forgot about them when he signed a Republican tax scam into law, handing trillion-dollar tax cuts to big corporations at the expense of working families and New Jersey's middle class, taking away or limiting significantly our State and local property tax deduction. He definitely forgot about the forgotten when he reversed his position on preexisting condition protections.

The administration's plot to derail the Affordable Care Act and the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh has implications for every family in America, no matter whether they are covered by an employer or by their own insurance on the marketplace.

People remember what it was like before we passed the Affordable Care Act. It wasn't so long ago that healthcare insurance companies could pick and choose who got covered and drop their customers the moment they got sick. Before the Affordable Care Act, women could be denied coverage for maternity care. Women in many parts of the country ultimately were discriminated against by being charged more than their male counterparts in the same age group, in the same geography, simply because they were women.

Today, women no longer are considered to have a preexisting condition under the law simply because they are a woman.

Before the Affordable Care Act, babies born with heart deformities could hit lifetime limits within days of being born. Today, families don't have to worry about lifetime caps.

Before the Affordable Care Act, cancer survivors and Americans with chronic conditions like diabetes or asthma could be charged exorbitant premiums and priced out of coverage altogether. Today, those patients are protected from discrimination.

This guaranteed coverage for preexisting conditions formed the very heart of the Affordable Care Act. But if confirmed, Judge Kavanaugh could drive a stake right through it. That is because this judge has a long history of ruling against consumers and for big corporations, and that doesn't bode well for the 133 million Americans who live with preexisting conditions in this country. That includes those 3.8 million people in New Jersey. For me, that is 3.8 million reasons to oppose Kavanaugh's nomination, and that is before we even get to his hostile views with respect to Roe v. Wade.

Make no mistake, the anti-choice, anti-Affordable Care Act, and anti- everyday American views of Judge Kavanaugh are not up for debate. President Trump has been crystal clear about nominating only judges opposed to Roe v. Wade and a woman's right to choose.

So when I read reports about Judge Kavanaugh telling my colleagues here in the Senate that Roe v. Wade is ``settled law,'' I have to chuckle because, let's be clear, his hollow words mean absolutely nothing. The Supreme Court has the power to unsettle so-called settled law whenever they make a ruling, and we have seen in the Court's recent decisions, such as in the Janus case, where years of settled law all of a sudden became unsettled.

I don't question Judge Kavanaugh's experience or his intelligence, but I do question his history of partisanship and impartiality. I question his ability to put aside his decades of work in Republican politics. I question his connections to far-right groups that have spent decades rolling back women's constitutional rights and rigging our courts in favor of the rich and powerful.

The American people deserve a Supreme Court Justice who will defend their rights and strive for a legal system in which workers, consumers, patients, and families go to court on a level playing field at a time when powerful special interests are too often holding all the cards.

Instead, they have been given a nominee groomed by rightwing organizations like the Heritage Foundation and the Federalist Society to do the bidding of their big corporate donors.

If confirmed, Donald Trump will have replaced the only swing vote on the Supreme Court with a partisan who swings only to the far right, and Brett Kavanaugh will be in a position to cast a deciding vote, should the Trump administration's assault on the Affordable Care Act end up in the Supreme Court. That is frightening, and it is frustrating, especially because any one of my Republican colleagues has the power to make a real difference. Any one of my colleagues in the majority could demand we don't confirm a Supreme Court nominee until this administration stops its assault on the rights of patients with preexisting conditions. Republicans claim they support these protections, but this is not a time for halfhearted statements. This is a time for action. If Republicans truly believed in preventing insurance companies from discriminating against patients who have endured complicated pregnancies or survived cancer or have a chronic disease, they would do something about it.

Instead, as the Trump administration carries out this campaign of sabotage against the Affordable Care Act, my Republican colleagues are engaged in a campaign of silence and complicity. When you have the power to use your voice and your vote to protect millions of patients and families across this Nation and you choose not to do so, you are indeed complicit. It is sad and shameful that not a single Republican in this body has put their foot down and stood up for the rights of patients, stood up for all of those millions of Americans who have a preexisting condition.

Failing to speak up means you are part of the problem. You are destabilizing our insurance markets and kicking millions off of their coverage. You are driving higher out-of-pocket costs for families and skyrocketing healthcare premiums. You are leaving Americans who have struggled with opioid addiction or endured a sexual assault vulnerable to discrimination. You are enabling President Trump's worst instincts, which is to do whatever he pleases whenever he pleases, with no regard for the rule of law or the role of Congress or the havoc he is wreaking on people's lives.

Most Americans can't believe we have to refight the healthcare battles of the past. They want their leaders to work on building them a brighter future.

There are so many ways we could be working to improve our healthcare system and making a real difference in the lives of our constituents. We could be passing legislation that ensures that women have access to reproductive healthcare and the right to control their own bodies, no matter which State they live in, like the Women's Health Protection Act. We could be holding powerful drug companies accountable for price gouging consumers and playing fast and loose with the rules by passing commonsense bills like the CREATES Act and the SPIKE Act. We could be pursuing reforms to reduce healthcare costs, not by reducing access to care but by encouraging efficiency and becoming better at preventing and managing costly chronic disease. We could be creating more transparency so that patients headed to surgery can shop around before going under the knife with a wish and a prayer that they don't wake up to a massive medical bill. We could be pursuing solutions to reduce risk in the private marketplace and lower premiums for younger consumers, not by inflicting a punishing age tax but by letting Americans 55 years and older buy into Medicare.

Before we make our healthcare system better, we have to stop President Trump from making it worse. It is time we do the responsible thing: Put the brake on Brett Kavanaugh's nomination. Tell the President his nominee will not get a hearing until he drops his legal assault on patients with preexisting conditions. Demand that the administration stop playing games with American lives and stand up for the right of every man, woman, and child across America to quality, affordable healthcare. We have that opportunity in this Senate.

I don't hear any of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle raising their voice in the midst of an attack against the essence of the protections under the Affordable Care Act that we supposedly all collectively embraced, that the President heralded, but now the President is directing the Justice Department to attack.

It is time to speak up. And if not, then one is complicit. If that ultimate attack against the Affordable Care Act is successful, then for 130 million Americans across this country who will no longer have those protections, I think they will remember on election day.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, last August, the world watched in horror as Burma's military launched an ethnic cleansing campaign of rape, arson, and mass murder against the Rohingya.

Despite the Burmese military's claims that their operations were in response to attacks on police outposts by extremists, the evidence is clear that the Burmese military had made extensive preparations to carry out these operations. Their preparations included systematically disarming Rohingya civilians, training and arming non-Rohingya communities, and building up an unusually large military and security presence in Rakhine, all in anticipation of attacks that included extrajudicial executions, rape, expulsions, and mass burning of Rohingya villages throughout Rakhine state.

The military's campaign of ethnic cleansing has forced more than 720,000 Rohingya--roughly 80 percent of the entire Rohingya population in Burma--to flee for safety in Bangladesh, creating the world's worst refugee crisis in recent history. The government and people of Bangladesh have shown extraordinary generosity by providing safe harbor to those fleeing violence in Burma and continuing to keep its border open.

Bangladesh is at a tipping point. Already the world's most populous country, there simply isn't enough space or capacity to house this new population. Camp conditions for the Rohingya population are miserable. Refugees are living in plastic and bamboo shelters dangerously perched on the side of clay hills. Children have limited access to education. While many would prefer not to rely on limited humanitarian aid, work is tough to come by.

The day-to-day reality for the Rohingya people in Bangladesh is bleak, and while many 1 day wish to return home to Burma, they rightfully ask for their government to guarantee their safety and to recognize their civil and political rights; yet so far, even these basic demands are unmet.

Equally troubling, conditions for the Rohingya who stayed behind in Burma remain perilous. Andrew Gilmour, UN Assistant Secretary-General for Human Rights, recently declared that while the nature of their persecution has changed, there persists a ``lower intensity campaign of terror and forced starvation.''

Burmese officials continue to reject UN and other international findings of ethnic cleansing, crimes against humanity, and, potentially, genocide. In fact, the Burmese Government has relentlessly blocked access to Rakhine state by many humanitarian groups, independent media workers, and UN observers, in an attempt to prevent the international community from assessing the very violations they deny are happening. A New York Times journalist recently gained access to Rakhine state and met Rohingya who described living in a constant state of fear and repression. She also saw the burnt remnants of what used to be Rohingya villages and visited repatriation centers that appeared more like ``concentration camps.''

The horrific and ongoing human rights abuses committed against the Rohingya demand a strong response from the United States and the international community. I support the U.S. State Department's Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, DRL, and other offices in conducting fact-finding efforts analyzing over 1,000 interviews with Rohingya civilians and documenting the scope and nature of the atrocities committed. I urge Secretary Pompeo to publicly release the entire report including any findings of crimes against humanity and genocide.

Furthermore, I strongly urge this administration to lead the international community in fully using all appropriate mechanisms to secure accountability for the ethnic cleansing, mass atrocities, and other potential grave crimes the Burmese military has committed against the Rohingya. Accountability is essential if Burma is to continue on a path of democratic reform and genuine national and ethnic reconciliation.

This pathway for accountability includes calling for an international, impartial, and independent investigation to gather evidence on perpetrators, as well as working towards their eventual prosecution. I sincerely hope that robust and legitimate investigations will ensure that those who orchestrated and perpetrated these brutal crimes are brought to justice and that all the people of Burma, including the Rohingya, will one day be able to enjoy the fruits of an inclusive and pluralistic democratic nation.

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

Madam President, I rise today to call on my colleagues to vote in favor of the Menendez-Murkowski amendment No. 3705, which I understand we will be shortly voting on on the floor, to provide implementation funding for the Firefighter Cancer Registry Act. Many of our colleagues supported the authorizing bill when it was before the Senate earlier this year, and it was subsequently passed and signed into law by President Trump.

There are many words that come to mind when we think of firefighters--``courage,'' ``heroism,'' and ``compassion''--but tragically there is another word all too often associated with firefighters, and that word is ``cancer.''

According to the International Association of Firefighters, cancer is now the leading cause of death among firefighters. We know that firefighters confront more than smoke and flames while on the job; they also encounter dangerous fumes and toxins and known carcinogens that pose serious health risks.

The Firefighter Cancer Registry Act we created is the first ever national cancer registry for firefighters, and the law directs the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to study the relationship between career-long exposure to dangerous fumes and toxins and cancer. Our Nation's first responders put their lives on the line every day, whether it was charging into a burning building on September 11 or fighting wildfires out West today. Every day, our firefighters strive to protect us. This is the least we can do as a nation to protect them.

I hope all of us can unite in support of this amendment, which will enable the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to carry out its mission in the Firefighter Cancer Registry Act.

I thank my colleague from Alaska, Senator Murkowski, for her stalwart commitment to this effort, both on the legislation that became law and in the process of trying to get this appropriation.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Madam President, tomorrow marks 1 year since President Trump signed into law the Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act of 2017, CAATSA, which passed with overwhelming bipartisan majorities in both the House and the Senate. He did so with strenuous objections to what he called an encroachment on the Executive's ability to negotiate, and claimed that, ``As President, I can make far better deals with foreign countries than Congress.''

Unfortunately, despite his claims, the President has made no such deal. Russia continues its attacks on our country, with reports this week of another concerted effort on Facebook to influence the 2018 midterm elections. Despite this, the President has repeatedly cast aside the facts of the Russian Government's interference in our democracy and inspires little confidence in this body that he will take seriously the duty to prevent it going forward.

So I remind my colleagues today, we must take on the duty to protect our democracy from foreign interference, and we must continue to work in a bipartisan fashion to ensure appropriate legislative guard rails are in place on the U.S. policy toward Russia, to ensure that the Kremlin's aggression is punished, not excused, and to build resilience so that it will not happen again. The sanctions we enacted in CAATSA, including related to the Russian defense and intelligence sectors that were the source of past attacks against us, are part of this effort.

I strongly oppose language in the conference version of the Fiscal Year 2019 NDAA which expands the scope of a waiver on CAATSA section 231, which requires sanctions on significant transactions with Russian defense and intelligence sector entities. We targeted these sectors specifically because they attacked our 2016 election and imposed sanctions on them to dissuade anyone from doing business with them. The State Department argues that billions of dollars' worth of deals have been turned off as a result of the leverage created by section 231. I fear that these new waiver provisions severely undermine that leverage.

Moreover, CAATSA includes a very important provision, the Russia Review Act codified in section 216, which requires the President to submit a report to the Congress before taking any action to terminate or waive sanctions or issuing a license that significantly alters the U.S. Russia policy. Section 216 imposes a reasonable and necessary limitation on President Trump's ability to precipitously lift sanctions or otherwise alter U.S. policy toward Russia without input from the Congress. This NDAA says that the Russia Review Act no longer applies to defense and intelligence sector sanctions. Without the Russia Review Act, Congress loses its voice and ability to ensure that section 231 has teeth.

It is our ongoing responsibility to hold the executive branch to account in fully implementing the laws we pass, including all of the mandatory provisions in CAATSA and its provision enabling us to review the President's decisions to lift or waive sanctions. This is all the more important given President Trump's inclination to act as a supplicant toward Vladimir Putin and his regime, even as that regime has and continues to attack our country. I strongly oppose the language in the Fiscal Year 2019 NDAA that weakens CAATSA and will oppose any effort in the future toward that end. I will continue to work through other legislative vehicles to continue to go after Russia's most egregious offenders and continue to hold the administration accountable for protecting Americans and American interests.

Mr. President, I rise today because Senate Republicans have blocked a vote on my amendment, No. 3532. My amendment is really quite simple. It would have struck language in the underlying bill that prohibits

the Securities and Exchange Commission from requiring corporations to tell their investors and the public how they spend money in politics.

It has been 8 years since the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision, a decision which gave corporations the right to spend unlimited, unchecked, and--more often than not--undisclosed money on our elections.

For 8 long years, more and more money has flowed from corporate coffers into campaign ads and political expenditures, and Republicans have defended the dark money poisoning our politics every step of the way.

In the 2016 elections alone, outside groups spent more than $1.4 billion, much of it funneled through trade associations and nonprofits, and much of it undisclosed to the public.

This is elementary; shareholders don't invest in political agendas or candidates. They invest in companies, and they deserve to know whether the corporate executives of those companies are using their money to grow their businesses or to advance political outcomes that are contrary to investors' values.

With no requirement to disclose how this money is being spent, shareholders and the public are left in the dark with no way to know if corporations are spending their money to defund Social Security and Medicare, keep the cost of prescription drugs high, dismantle environmental protections, undermine education programs, or eviscerate rules on Wall Street.

This information is material to how shareholders decide to invest their money and vote in corporate elections. Even setting aside the case for this disclosure as a matter of corporate governance and investor protection, this issue gets to the very core of our democracy.

Corporations can secretly funnel money to organizations that have no requirement to report on their contributions, and then the American public is left with no way of knowing who is advancing what causes.

All of this secret cash and dark money undermines the ability of the American people to hold their government accountable.

Disclosing corporate spending in our elections is the least we can do to help ensure that voters and not dollars set the agenda in Washington.

That is what Americans want. The Securities and Exchange Commission has received a record 1.2 million comments from investors and members of the public in support of requiring corporations to disclose how they spend money in politics.

Moreover, a May 2018 University of Maryland study found that Americans, both liberal and conservative, overwhelmingly support a constitutional amendment that would overturn Citizens United. Seventy- five percent of those surveyed support such an amendment. Even more, 88 percent of those surveyed want to reduce the outsized influence of corporations in our politics.

But Republicans in the Senate wouldn't even let us have a vote on this amendment. What was behind their refusal? After passing trillion- dollar tax cuts for big corporations, Republicans are hoping some of that money trickles down into their reelection efforts. The Republican Congress and this President depend upon this influence being kept in the shadows. It makes you wonder, what are they hiding? What would happen if the American people knew who was really funding their agenda?

That is why they slipped this language into a must-pass spending bill a few years ago, and why they are holding on to it with all of their might today. As long as the American people are kept in the dark, Republicans are better able to hold onto power.

That is why just 2 weeks ago, President Trump's Treasury Department announced that it would no longer certain nonprofit organizations that engage in political activity to disclose their donors to the IRS.

They want to make it easier for big corporations, billionaires, special interests--and even illegal foreign money--to influence our elections.

They don't want the American people to know that behind every bill, amendment, and Executive order is a corporate benefactor. A corporate benefactor that knows so long as the money keeps flowing, there is someone in Congress to do their bidding.

They are so afraid of what these disclosures will reveal that they would not even allow the Senate to vote on my amendment, which does not nothing more than restore the status quo allowing the SEC to move forward with a rule-making requiring corporations to disclose how they spend money in politics.

The fight is not over. We must remain steadfast in our commitment to shining a light on dark money in our politics. I will continue pushing to end Republicans' toxic prohibition on the SEC, which only serves to silence the voices of hard-working American families in favor of amplifying the speech and magnifying the influence of corporations.

In our democracy, the size of your wallet should not determine the power of your voice. I urge my colleagues to listen to the American people who have been loud and clear: They want disclosure, they want to reduce corporate influence in our politics, and they want this government to work for them.