Floor Statements

Mr. President, today I would like to raise concerns about violence perpetrated against religious minorities in Afghanistan, particularly the Sikh and Hindu communities.

One month ago today, on July 1, a suicide bomber attacked a crowd of Afghan Sikhs and Hindus as they gathered to meet with Afghan President Ashraf Ghani on his visit to Jalalabad. At least 19 innocent civilians lost their lives, and 10 more were wounded. The attack also claimed the life of Awtar Singh Khalsa, the only Sikh candidate running in Afghanistan's upcoming Parliamentary elections, and Rawail Singh, a prominent community activist.

Of the 19 killed, 17 belonged to the minority Sikh and Hindu religious groups.

I condemn this cowardly and heinous attack and all those like it in the strongest possible terms. The Islamic State in Afghanistan claimed responsibility for the July 1 attack and multiple attacks on civilian targets since then. It is impossible to overstate the depravity of this group that resorts to killing innocent people when it fails to otherwise advance its cause.

We cannot allow attacks such as this on civilians to pass unremarked, nor can we ignore violence specifically targeted toward Afghanistan's diverse religious minorities. Sikhs and Hindus in Afghanistan have long faced systemic discrimination, economic marginalization, and, as this latest attack only serves to further illustrate, unspeakable violence. Members of Sikh and Hindu communities report facing prejudice, harassment, bullying of children, and attacks from militant groups; disproportionate denial of their rights in Afghan courts; and even interference in their efforts to cremate the remains of their dead and peacefully adhere to other tenets of their faiths. Only a few places of worship remain available to Sikhs and Hindus in Afghanistan, many of whom face discrimination so severe that they choose to leave the country.

For his part, Mr. Khalsa's candidacy was a testament to the strength and resiliency of Afghan Sikhs who, even in the face of unrelenting hardship, remain dedicated to their country's democratic future. After last month's attack in Jalalabad, that kind of political engagement has been dealt a terrible blow.

The recent and ongoing attacks against Sikhs and Hindus come against a broader backdrop of sustained violence in Afghanistan. According to recent figures from the U.N. Assistance Mission in Afghanistan, more Afghan civilians were killed in the first 6 months of 2018--1,692 deaths--than in any other 6-month period over the last 10 years. This figure demonstrates the continuing devastation caused by the past 17 years of war in Afghanistan and the need for the United States and our partners in the international community to redouble efforts toward reaching a negotiated political settlement that can bring this long war to an end. Without peace in Afghanistan, the scourges of terrorist and insurgent violence, illegal narcotics trafficking, corruption, and limited government capacity to deliver justice and other public services will remain, and the Afghan people will continue to suffer.

All Afghans, of all beliefs, stand to benefit from the end of bloodshed. Cowardly attacks against religious minorities such as the one that took place in Jalalabad only serve to damage prospects for a peace that can benefit all.

The Jalalabad attack is also a stark reminder of the sectarian violence facing religious minorities in many parts of South Asia. Across the region, members of minority religious groups are being denied their basic human rights and the ability to live free from discrimination or violence. Attacks like the one in Jalalabad underscore the urgent need for governments in the region to hold perpetrators accountable and to enact laws and policies that foster tolerance, protect minorities' rights, and respect individual freedoms.

America is also home to many Sikh and Hindu communities living in every U.S. State, who, like so many minority groups in our diverse country, have played a positive role in the social, cultural, and economic development of the United States. In my home State of New Jersey, I am reminded every day of how much better off we all are for the contributions of Sikh and Hindu communities to our great State and Nation. This is despite the fact that individuals in the United States of South Asian heritage and representing diverse faiths have faced attacks on account of their identity, including harassment, discrimination in employment and schooling, or even violent

hate crimes, such as the devastating mass shooting in Oak Creek, Wisconsin Sikh Gurdwara in 2012.

Just as we as a country will not stand for religious intolerance at home, we must not fail to speak out against it abroad. Respect for religious and other basic human freedoms worldwide is a core American value, one that bears repeating whenever and wherever those freedoms are threatened.

In closing, I will say it again: I condemn the July 1 attack against Afghan Sikh and Hindu civilians and any individual or group that would harm innocent people based on their peaceful religious beliefs. We stand in solidarity with religious minorities in Afghanistan, in South Asia, and around the world.

Mr. President, I join my colleagues on the floor, and I salute both Senator Nelson and Senator Blumenthal, who represent

States whose citizens have felt the scourge of gun violence--in Newtown, in Parkland, and in the Pulse nightclub. I don't know how many more Parklands we need, but I certainly know that my colleague from Utah, who only read a part about what alarms him--that it shall not be possible to publish what? To publish the information to create a gun--a gun that is undetectable and untraceable.

Why are we spending billions to secure ourselves as we go through the airports of our country? We saw it after September 11. Now we are going to undermine all of those billions and all of that security by allowing anyone here or in the world to get access to the IP address. You download it, and all of a sudden, you can create a three-dimensional plastic gun that is as deadly as any other gun.

What draws us to the floor to ask the unusual effort of unanimous consent to ultimately bring this legislation to the floor is the failure of the administration to not allow this to happen in the first place. We won't need legislation if the President turns back the decisions of his Secretary of State and others in his administration and says: Wait. This is not in our national security interests. It is not in the national interests of the United States to allow our citizens to be exposed to an undetectable, untraceable gun that is as deadly as any other. It is not in the national interests and security interests of the United States to have our soldiers halfway around the world face terrorists who have access to a new design that will be cheaper for them and at the end of the day will allow them to attack our soldiers.

It is unconscionable. But since the administration, if anything, has acted the opposite way, we come to the floor. If the government has any specific role that rises above all others, it is to protect its citizens. That is what we are trying to do here. It should be a bipartisan request.

What is so difficult about the legislation? Nothing much. One of the two pieces of legislation simply says that you cannot permit an IP address to be published on the internet because, globally, anybody can get that, download it, and create a gun. That is the simple part of it. The other one is that any gun has to be traceable and identifiable and therefore has to have a number on it.

Even when our colleagues who are the most ardent advocates of the Second Amendment say they want to keep guns out of the hands of criminals--well, how do you keep a gun out of the hands of criminals when it isn't detectable and isn't traceable? It is pretty amazing. I have been in the Congress 26 years between the House and the Senate, and it is one of the most amazing moments for me.

Look, this country has a gun violence problem. It has a mass-shooting problem. But a do-it-yourself, downloadable gun will supercharge this crisis, leading to more senseless tragedies. It is already too easy for criminals, extremists, and terrorists to get their hands on a gun. Now we are going to add a new concern: terrorists packing the plans for new, plastic, printable firearms. I don't care if a gun is made out of metal or plastic--if it can fire a bullet and take someone's life, then it should be regulated.

It is beyond irresponsible for the Trump administration to roll over and allow a self-described anarchist to post directions for do-it- yourself guns on a website available to anyone with an internet connection. That is what we are saying. Already, according to some news reports, the blueprints for an AR-15--the weapon used in the massacre at Parkland--were downloaded more than 2,500 times. That is 2,500 unknown individuals in an unregulated space.

As the ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I was appalled to find out that the State Department carried this out without notifying Congress. Last Wednesday, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was before our committee, and he looked us in the eye and said that he was unaware of the issue and that he would look into it. That was on Wednesday. On Friday, the State Department had suspended arms export regulations specifically to allow these 3D gun blueprints to be posted on the internet--so much for looking into it.

This is a case that was proceeding through the courts where the government had won at every round. In this morning's tweet, the President made it pretty clear that instead of listening to the concerns of the American people when he has a gun question--which I would submit is not even a gun question; it is a national security question--he listens to the NRA.

The NRA may be concerned in this particular case. Why? Because plastic guns don't get built by the gun manufacturers and dealers that they represent and that fund their causes.

The posting of a 3D gun shows just how dangerous the Trump administration's regulatory effort to loosen export controls on firearms--including assault-style rifles and even sniper rifles-- actually is to the safety of Americans at home, abroad, and innocent civilians across the globe.

All you have to do is go to this company's website to see it for yourself. They are proclaiming that ``the era of the downloadable gun'' is here. That is what they say on the website. ``The era of the downloadable gun'' is here. Well, we should make sure that era doesn't happen.

These are two simple but powerful commonsense pieces of legislation that can protect us. I call upon the President to stop it dead in its tracks so we don't have to wait for the legislation, but if not, we call upon this institution to protect the American people.

I hope my colleagues will consider coming back later in the day and making another unanimous consent request so that we can actually protect the American people against the ability of anyone--anyone--with a 3D printer to create a gun that can kill a human being and ultimately defy all of our security procedures at airports and elsewhere. And it lets any terrorist in the world who wishes us harm to manufacture it in quantity. That is pretty outrageous. That is what we are talking about. I hope the administration will see the light and change their course.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I join my Democratic colleagues to condemn the Trump administration's efforts to sabotage the Affordable Care Act.

Not so long ago, Donald Trump ran for President, promising better, cheaper healthcare for everyone. But instead of making anything better, President Trump is making everything in this regard worse.

Big corporations are raking in trillion-dollar tax cuts while the forgotten Americans the President promised to protect are drowning in higher premiums, higher deductibles, and higher prescription drug costs. It is time to call out who is responsible for those soaring healthcare costs.

Make no mistake, while the media is riveted on the President's every tweet and the Russia investigation's every turn, the Trump administration is doing everything it can to make healthcare less affordable and less accessible to the American people.

When you turn on the news, you don't hear about the millions of Americans who have lost their coverage under President Trump's watch. You don't hear about how prices for the top 10 diabetes drugs have spiked over 25 percent, despite the President's wild claims that drug companies will voluntarily lower their prices. You will not hear about the administration's cynical efforts to destabilize our insurance markets and send premiums skyrocketing, like the Health and Human Services Department's recent freezing of the risk adjustment program.

Look, healthcare policy may be complicated, but there is nothing complicated about the idea that healthcare is a human right. There is nothing controversial about the idea that cancer patients shouldn't be price gouged as they battle the worst illness of their life. There is nothing radical about the idea that in the most prosperous country on Earth, every American deserves quality, affordable healthcare.

I know my Republican colleagues have no desire to remind voters how they spent the past year, but the American people aren't going to forget it. They aren't going to forget how many times Republicans spent in a year pushing policies that would have left 32 million people uninsured, with vote after vote after vote to repeal the Affordable Care Act. They aren't going to forget how Republicans tried to defund Planned Parenthood and deny millions of lower income women access to basic care.

They aren't going to forget how TrumpCare would have slapped older consumers with a punishing age tax and eliminated the Affordable Care Act's essential health benefits provision, which requires all health plans to cover basic things like prescription drugs, maternity care, and visits to specialists. They aren't going to forget how TrumpCare slashed tax credits that helped middle-class families purchase coverage or how it would have ended Medicaid as we know it, abandoning seniors in nursing homes, pregnant women, disabled Americans, and the most vulnerable.

Nor will Americans forget how President Trump turned his back on patients with preexisting conditions--which basically means someone had an illness in their life or was born with a birth defect and, therefore, had what insurance companies considered to be a preexisting condition that they could discriminate against and either not provide insurance coverage or have skyrocketing costs in order to get the coverage.

As a candidate, and then as President, Trump promised again and again that he would uphold protections for preexisting conditions. He went so far as to say that TrumpCare would be ``every bit as good on pre- existing conditions as Obamacare.'' So much for that. The Trump administration is now, as we speak, arguing in a Federal court that these protections are unconstitutional, and you can guess what Republican colleagues in Congress are doing about it--absolutely nothing.

Instead of working to make healthcare more affordable, they are cheerleading efforts by the Trump administration to push junk insurance plans on consumers, ignoring the attacks on our health insurance markets that have sent premiums skyrocketing, and standing in silence as the Trump administration makes the case that the Affordable Care Act's protections for preexisting conditions are unconstitutional.

Republicans' reckless abandonment of families with preexisting conditions is even more concerning, given President Trump's nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. This is a judge with a long history of ruling against consumers, siding with corporate interests, and assailing the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act. If Republicans were really concerned about protecting patients with preexisting conditions, they would put the brakes on this nomination. Instead, they have left the health and financial security of millions of patients with preexisting conditions in the President's hands.

There are nearly 3.8 million people in my home State of New Jersey with preexisting conditions. I have had the opportunity to meet with some of them in recent months. They are outraged that we are even having this debate. They are afraid this President could take us back to a time when having a

history of asthma or diabetes meant being denied coverage or dropping your plan at any moment.

Let me tell you about the folks I met with recently in Belleville, NJ. I heard from Ann, who is a survivor of sexual assault and today suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder. If President Trump gets his way, insurers could once again charge her more for coverage. I can't think of a clearer instance of victim-blaming than charging victims of sexual assault higher premiums because of the trauma they endured.

Then there is Mirnaly, who was 7 months pregnant when she suffered her first stroke. Years later, she suffered another stroke while caring for her autistic son. Without the Affordable Care Act, insurance companies could deny coverage to moms like her who have had complicated pregnancies.

And of course there is 4-year-old Ethan, who is more concerned about which dinosaur to play with than the pacemaker that is keeping him alive. Before the Affordable Care Act, children like Ethan were blacklisted from insurance companies for life. How do you tell a 4- year-old that his President no longer believes in protecting children like him? I wish my Republican colleagues could answer that question for Ann, Mirnaly, and for Ethan--as a matter of fact, for all of us.

Fortunately, the American people are smarter than the majority gives them credit for. They know what is at stake. They know who is responsible for soaring prescription drug costs, for sky-high deductibles, for shrinking paychecks, and for soaring insurance premiums. It is the people in charge.

The Republican Congress has had ample time to deliver better, cheaper health coverage to all Americans. Instead, they have used every moment to try to force consumers to pay more for less care. They have refused to protect patients with preexisting conditions. They have shown zero interest in helping struggling families pay their bills.

They have handed trillion-dollar tax cuts to big corporations and wealthy CEOs. Big old corporations aren't using this windfall to raise wages. Health insurance companies aren't using this money to reduce premiums. Drug companies aren't using this money to lower prices.

Republicans said the Trump tax cuts would grow paychecks and solve all of our economic problems. Thus far, corporations have spent $650 billion buying back their own stock while workers' wages shrink in the face of soaring costs. Republicans promised the Sun and the Moon with these tax cuts, but here on planet Earth, we know that trickle-down economics doesn't work. In all my years serving the people of New Jersey, I have never seen a corporate tax cut pay for a colonoscopy or cover a cancer patient's prescription drugs.

Americans deserve real solutions that will protect their families from rising premiums, deductibles, and prescription drug bills. Democrats are committed to delivering on those solutions. We have always been crystal clear about what motivates our work on healthcare. We believe that all Americans deserve affordable healthcare, no matter where they live, how much money they make, or what healthcare conditions they face. That is what I have spent my life fighting for, and I won't stop until we achieve universal coverage for every man, woman, and child across this great Nation. In 2018, voters are going to remember who fought to protect affordable healthcare and who worked relentlessly to undermine it.

With that, I yield the floor.

Madam President, I am very pleased to join with the distinguished Democratic leader in coauthoring this resolution.

Madam President, before I speak to it, I do want to speak to the Flake-Coons resolution.

Certainly, I would have supported it; although, I believe it is the minimum of what this body should be expressing after what we saw in Helsinki. This is a moment for bipartisanship and for patriotism because what I saw in Helsinki speaks to the opposite of standing up to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.

In the majority whip's objection to the resolution coming to a vote, I find it interesting that, among other things, he was talking about our having more sanctions against Russia, which I will speak to shortly. We are in the midst of developing a new, strong package of sanctions as it relates to Russia. So I embrace and welcome him to that effort if he seeks to actually see real sanctions against Russia.

We have sanctions. There are sanctions that passed by 98 to 2 in this institution and that passed overwhelmingly in the House of Representatives, which forced the President to sign it as a result of there having been overwhelming votes. These were sanctions that were largely mandatory but have not been fulfilled. So we could start off by having a robust engagement of the existing sanctions.

I am not quite sure how we start being tough on Russia. One of the elements of those sanctions was to go after Russia's sales of defense weapons. Yet here we are, and we are already looking for waivers. There is a difference between a country that, maybe, has a long history of buying Russian military equipment, but the S-400--a new anti-defense system--is a new version. That is not a legacy issue. I am not sure how we are going to tell one country it can buy the S-400 but tell another country it can't. It doesn't work. That is how sanctions begin to crumble at the end of the day. Yet I welcome the response that we should be having new sanctions.

Mr. President, I rise to urge this body to uphold our solemn responsibility to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States and to protect the Nation from all enemies, foreign and domestic.

I have long believed the President's words and actions have undermined our national interests and our values, but yesterday felt different.

As someone who has sat for 26 years on the House and Senate Foreign Relations Committee, it was a day of infamy in the history of our foreign policy.

Yesterday, the American people witnessed a supplicant President of the United States capitulate to a brutal foreign leader on the world stage. Far from standing up to Putin, President Trump was unable to even acknowledge Russia's attack in 2016 and the continued threat it poses today. Instead, the President reverted to his own insecurities about his electoral victory and disturbingly subverted the work of the men and women who lead our intelligence community.

I shouldn't have to repeat this, but I will, and I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle are as unequivocal as well. Seventeen-- seventeen--U.S. intelligence agencies together assessed that Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered a sophisticated influence campaign aimed at the 2016 Presidential election. Yet the President said he had ``no reason to believe'' Russia interfered, and I have no reason to believe what he tried to clean up today.

Those statements directly contradicted statements from then-CIA Director Mike Pompeo--who is now the Secretary of State--the U.S. Vice President, Michael Pence, and the Director of U.S. National Intelligence.

The President said:

I have great confidence in my intelligence people, but I

will tell you that President Putin was extremely strong and

powerful in his denial today. And what he did is an

incredible offer; he offered to have the people working on

the case come and work with their investigators--

With respect to the 12 military intelligence officers that the special counsel indicted--

I think that is an incredible offer.

The only incredible thing about that offer is that the President of the United States would invite the perpetrator of the crime to help with the investigation. That is incredible.

Every time President Trump failed to stand up to Vladimir Putin felt like a collective punch in the gut of the American people. It was disturbing and saddening to see the leader of the free world shrink in the face of a dictator.

Just as disturbing is, we have no idea what transpired between President Trump and Putin during their secretive, lengthy meeting. What could the President need to discuss with President Putin for 2 hours with no other advisers present? If President Trump said such appalling things in public, Lord knows what he would have said to Putin in private. We deserve to know what was said and what was agreed to. We can't afford to be blindsided or outmaneuvered.

Just today, the Russian Ministry of Defense publicly stated it is preparing to start implementing an agreement that the President apparently struck in Helsinki with President Putin--an agreement that neither Congress nor the American people have been informed about.

President Trump, to adequately protect America's interests, we need to know what commitments you made to Putin. What specific topics did you discuss? What were the suggestions President Putin made to you? Did you discuss any changes to international security agreements, and, if so, what were they? Did you advocate for the extradition of the 12 Russian intelligence officers indicted last Friday? Did you make any commitments to the U.S. role regarding Syria? Did you press Russia to return to compliance with the INF Treaty and halt its nuclear threats against Europe? Did you discuss U.S. sanctions on Russia, including CAATSA sanctions that this body passed 98 to 2? If so, did you commit to any action?

Did you call upon President Putin to withdraw from Crimea and eastern Ukraine so both areas can be returned to the sovereign Government of Ukraine or did you ultimately give up on Crimea?

Did you discuss NATO military exercises scheduled for this fall? Did you agree to roll back or change the nature of those exercises? Did you discuss U.S. security assistance to Ukraine and make any concessions regarding their continuation?

Did you raise the issue of political prisoners with President Putin, including that of Oleg Sentsov, the Ukrainian filmmaker who has been detained for 4 years on a hunger strike?

What, if anything, did you commit to? We need to know.

The President keeps saying having a good relationship with Russia would be a good thing. Of course, having good relationships with countries, in general, is a good thing, but those relationships must be grounded in trust, in cooperation, in the values we share--values like human rights, democracies, self-governance, and individual freedom.

We do not share values with a country that attacks our elections and, by doing so, seeks to undermine our democracy. We do not share values with a country that invades its sovereign neighbors and engages in a brutal war with Ukraine. We do not share values with a country that bolsters the Butcher of Damascus and is complicit in war crimes in Syria. We do not share values with a country that assassinates political opponents and jails journalists. We do not share values with a country that continuously violates the international order. We do not share values with Russia under Putin.

We take oaths when we are sworn into office. President Trump did as well. Yesterday's behavior, from my view, was an abdication of that oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.

We have reached a terrible and historic low point in the United States. An American President, it seems, has teamed up with Russian intelligence against our democracy, our FBI, our Justice Department, and our intelligence community.

Our President is more closely aligned with Vladimir Putin than he is with his own government. It is unfortunate we have come to expect this behavior. President Trump has made his fixation on Putin and his affinity for authoritarians crystal clear, and America is weaker because of it. The question is, Are Senate Republicans OK with this? Except for the Presiding Officer and one or two other colleagues, from the silence of many or the feeble comments of others, I would say so.

Are they willing to concede Russian policy to President Trump? Is the price of letting this President surrender to a brutal dictator in Moscow some corporate tax cuts and a Supreme Court seat?

Tweeting about being ``troubled''--troubled--is shamefully inappropriate. Signing on to symbolic measures that carry no force of law is a joke, and remaining silent in the face of betrayal is nothing less than complicity.

It is time the Republican-led Congress live up to its constitutional responsibilities. If this Senate is to respond appropriately, here is what we must immediately do, starting this week:

First, the Foreign Relations Committee; the Armed Services Committee, of which my distinguished colleague is the ranking Democrat; and the Intelligence Committee, of which my distinguished colleague is a member, must hold hearings on what happened in Helsinki. We have a right and a responsibility to know what transpired between Trump and Putin and how it affects American citizens. We have the power to compel the administration to provide that information; we just need to use it.

Second, the Senate must protect the Mueller investigation and prevent interference by President Trump. The President is laying the groundwork to fire the special counsel. We can't let that happen. It is our responsibility to protect the integrity of our institutions.

Third, the Senate must conduct real oversight of the Russia sanctions that were signed into law last August. As I have said repeatedly on this floor, the Trump administration is ignoring several mandatory provisions of the law--mandatory. In all of the sanctions that I have helped write, this is one of the first times the Congress came together and didn't give the President waivers because they were concerned about what he would do vis-a-vis Russia, and look at this--maybe that foresight was very clairvoyant.

I and other Democrats have spoken out. We have sent several letters. We continuously urged administration officials to implement the sanctions. Where are the Senate Republicans, including all of those who voted for this bill, except for one? Silent.

If you want to stand up to Putin, if you want to stand up against Trump's capitulation in Helsinki, then we need to press the administration to finally implement what is already in the law--what is already in the law. We should do so today.

Fourth, we need to protect ourselves here at home, since it is clear we have a President who will not. The Senate needs to take up and pass the Protecting the Right to Independent and Democratic Elections Act I introduced last month. There are also measures by Senators Warner, Klobuchar, and others that would bolster our electoral defenses.

President Trump's intelligence community has repeatedly warned that the Kremlin's dangerous interference in U.S. democracy is continuing. Just days ago, the Director of National Intelligence, Dan Coats, said the warning signs are ``blinking red'' of further Russian cyber attacks. He noted that we are under literal attack. Yet instead of marshaling a whole-of-government response, President Trump remains fixated on protecting his fragile ego.

Today is the fourth anniversary of the shooting down of Malaysia Airlines flight 17 over eastern Ukraine by Russian-supported separatists, which killed all 298 people on board--a devastating reminder of the real dangers of the Kremlin's brutal targeting of civilians and why our relations with Russia have been strained.

Yesterday, Putin said the ball is in America's court. Well, it is time we take our shot. It is time we show the American people and the world what it means to put country over party. It is time to show the American people that we can be patriots and not just partisans; that we will stand by our allies and stand up to our adversaries; that we will defend our democracy, our institutions, and the values that truly make America great.

Our President has proven too weak, too egotistical, too feckless, or maybe too compromised to do it. It is up to us.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I want to start by thanking my colleagues who will be joining me shortly on the floor to voice their support for the NATO alliance. Once again, we find ourselves facing a crisis of President Trump's own creation.

For nearly 70 years, NATO has served as a pillar of stability and security for the United States and our democratic allies across Europe. It was there as Europe rebuilt after World War II. It was there to win the Cold War. It was there to defend the United States after September 11. Yet today, for the first

time since World War II, an American President has given our closest allies in Europe reason to question the trustworthiness of the United States and our reliability as a NATO partner.

President Trump's slapdash approach to foreign policy, borne out of heated campaign rallies instead of thoughtful Cabinet meetings, has real implications for our national security. Such reckless behavior by President Trump has weakened the United States on the global stage and has created a more dangerous world for our citizens and our troops serving abroad.

Today the President is on his way to Europe, and his intentions are clear. President Trump will use every opportunity that comes his way to admonish our allies, alienate our closest friends, and degrade the post-World War II international order in the hopes of winning favor with the dictator from Moscow.

In fact, this morning the President said his easiest meeting during this trip would probably be with Vladimir Putin. Is it easy because they share common values? Is it easy because he wants to be Putin's friend? Is it easy because Trump would rather deal with an autocrat than negotiate with democratically elected leaders?

Let's be clear. Meeting with a thug intent on undermining American democratic values should not be easy, and it should not be chummy. Yet as National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster reportedly said in the past:

The president thinks he can be friends with Putin. I don't

know why, or why he would want to be.

I agree with those comments of the former National Security Advisor, General McMaster. It makes no sense. Attacking American democracy is not exactly an act of friendship.

We know the circumstances are dire. The leaders of our intelligence community and the entire Senate Intelligence Committee, on a bipartisan basis, have concluded that Russia not only attacked the United States in 2016 through its cyber efforts but continues to sow discord and destabilize institutions that are at the very heart of American democracy.

Yet to this day, President Trump continues to take Putin at his word. With his warm embrace of the Russian dictator, many of us find ourselves questioning the President's true loyalties, and it is no surprise that our allies in Europe are questioning the loyalty and commitment of the United States to the post-World War II international order.

In the absence of U.S. Presidential leadership, I want to make clear to our allies abroad, as well as our adversaries in the Kremlin, where Members of the U.S. Senate stand. We stand for the rule of law and an international order based on liberal democratic values; we stand for security alliances among democracies based on mutual defense against our enemies; we stand against dictators who invade our neighbors with soldiers and cyber attacks; and we stand with our friends through thick and thin.

Tomorrow, on the Foreign Relations Committee, we expect to make such a declaration explicit with a bipartisan resolution affirming that the U.S. national security is inextricably linked to the security of Europe. We are not schmucks, Mr. President, for leading an alliance that has brought peace and security for decades in the wake of two devastating World Wars.

The Foreign Relations Committee will reaffirm a commitment to article 5 of the NATO charter, which says that an attack on one is an attack on all.

We recognize that since article 5 took effect, it has only been triggered once--only once--by and in support of the United States following the September 11 attack. To this day, nearly 17 years later, NATO troops still serve in Afghanistan in support of the American effort.

These countries have all sent their sons and daughters to fight and die alongside ours. They stand with us--and we with them--against extremism, terrorism, authoritarianism, and proudly in support of democracy, human rights, and the rule of law.

Members of the NATO alliance had been steadily increasing their defense spending for the past 4 years in reaction to Putin's invasion of Crimea and the implications for regional security, not Trump's bluster.

Our allies understand the threat posed by a dictator who tears away territory from its neighbors. The question is, Does President Trump? Is there more work to be done to meet the 2-percent commitment in countries across the alliance? Of course, but we need to acknowledge the progress that has been made and the trend lines that are headed in the right direction. Let's not jeopardize those trends by insulting the very leaders we need by our side.

This week in Brussels, the President should do something he has proven completely incapable of thus far--he should thank our allies for their steadfastness, for their resilience, and for their commitment to working with us to counter the threat posed by Russia.

President Trump should work with our allies to collectively increase sanctions on Moscow. He should work with NATO to build our collective cyber defenses against the onslaught of Russian cyber attacks and disinformation. These are all things he should do--things a normal American President would do--but based on the tweets and his past actions, I have little hope he will choose such a path.

The President should also work with our allies to continue the fight against ISIS. NATO countries form the core of the Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS. NATO governments host working groups, contribute resources, participate in airstrikes, provide stabilization assistance, and face serious challenges in addressing the plight of foreign fighters.

In Iraq, NATO is working to share more responsibility in training the Iraqi security forces. This is exactly how strategic partnerships are supposed to work. We identify challenges, cooperate on solutions, share the burden of funding, troop deployments, and assistance in support of a shared objective--in this case, a stable, unified Iraq that can stand up to Iran.

In Syria, NATO should be a natural ally in countering Russian and Iranian aggression. Despite regular, irrefutable evidence of war crimes and crimes against humanity committed by Bashar al-Assad, Putin continues to bolster the Butcher of Damascus.

In fact, Russian forces are directly complicit in targeting civilians and civilian structures in Syria. These are facts that cannot be ignored. Russian forces are actively working with Assad's regime to bomb opposition in southern Syria into submission. These military operations are taking place today inside the very deescalation zone President Trump touted last year with Putin in Vietnam.

These developments have led to the largest displacement of civilians in southern Syria since the beginning of this war. The President must make clear, once and for all, that Russia is not a constructive partner on Syria; that it is a willing accomplice and a perpetrator of war crimes.

Our friends in Ukraine are fighting for their country on a daily basis, battling Russian troops. As the globe focuses on the World Cup in Russia, at least 17 Ukrainian troops have been killed or injured in their own country by Russian forces--killed or injured in their own country. We are helping our Ukrainian friends with training and equipment. Under no circumstances, can this aid be diminished in any way. President Trump needs to understand that any attempt to do so will be met with strong and unified opposition in the Senate. President Trump can never lose sight of the importance of eastern Ukraine, nor can he forget the plight of so many Crimeans who suffer under Russian repression to this day.

Today I submitted a resolution with Senator Portman calling for the United States to declare a policy of nonrecognition of Russia's illegal annexation of Crimea. This idea is modeled under the Welles Declaration, which said the United States would never recognize the Soviet annexation of the Baltic States. The Welles Declaration meant something to the beleaguered people of Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia, all who yearned to be free of Moscow's repression, and today they are free.

It represented the U.S. commitment to the territorial integrity of independent countries. Today we have the same opportunity to send the same message to those courageous Ukrainian citizens living in Crimea.

President Trump was reported to have said the people of Crimea want to be part of Russia because they speak

Russian. Instead of misinformed judgments from the President, we and the world need clear leadership that says definitively to President Putin that we will not stand for his illegal occupation of Crimea; we will not stand by in the face of ongoing attacks in eastern Ukraine by Russian forces; we will not stand by while President Putin participates in the commission of war crimes in Syria; and we will not stand by while Russia attacks democratic institutions in the United States and those of our closest allies.

I hope our President will meet with Putin in Helsinki and express these simple but powerful statements. Yet nothing in his track record gives me much hope that he will do so.

We have a President who is so enamored of Putin that to this day, he still refuses to criticize the Russian leader, a President who sought early in his term to lift sanctions on Russia, a President who has questioned Ukraine's sovereignty over Crimea, and a President who routinely trashes partners in the strongest military alliance the world has ever seen. This behavior is bizarre, it is erratic, and it is no reflection of who we are as a country or a people.

In closing, I would remind the President that the Russia sanctions law, CAATSA, restricts his ability to unilaterally lift sanctions on Russia. Such a move would be subject to approval. So as he embarks on his ``easiest meeting'' with Vladimir Putin, he is constrained by a law that was supported by 98 Senators.

We know Putin seeks sanction relief. We must make clear that such relief will only come when he withdraws from Ukraine, returns Crimea, ends his support for Bashar al-Assad, and stops interfering in our elections.

As someone who is personally sanctioned by Vladimir Putin, I will not stop working to ensure that the CAATSA law is fully implemented by this administration.

The hallmark struggle of our time is between those who champion democracy and autocrats who use oppression, military evasions, and disinformation to achieve their nefarious ends, and this week this battle comes into sharp contrast.

Will our President side with our democratic allies in Brussels or will he side with an autocrat in the Kremlin? Either way, the world needs to know the U.S. Senate has made its view clear. We stand with NATO. We stand with our allies. We stand for democracy and the rule of law. We stand for the international liberal order that has kept the peace for decades. We stand on these values today, and we will never shy away from their defense.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to bring attention to the ongoing conflict in South Sudan, and call on the administration to take further action to help find a sustainable diplomatic solution.

Today, July 9, is South Sudan's Independence Day. Instead of celebrating the seventh birthday of the world's newest nation, we find ourselves lamenting the human costs of South Sudan's 4-and-a-half year old civil war. The situation has created the largest refugee crisis in Africa. An estimated 4.5 million people have been forcibly displaced. An estimated 300,000 people may have been killed since 2013, but the death toll could be far, far greater.

The humanitarian situation is dire. Seven million people--60 percent of the population--require humanitarian assistance. Insecurity has disrupted farming cycles, grazing patterns, and trade routes; local markets have collapsed. Food prices have skyrocketed. Over 1 million South Sudanese children are facing acute malnutrition, and parts of South Sudan may be experiencing famine. While the United States, along with other donors, has taken measures to help those in need, our efforts have been thwarted on a variety of fronts. Relief supplies have been repeatedly looted. Government restrictions and insecurity hinder relief efforts.

The war has been characterized by horrific human rights violations. The U.N. Mission in South Sudan reports that, from the outset of the conflict, ``Civilians were not only caught up in the violence, they were directly targeted, often along ethnic lines.'' The U.N. Commission on Human Rights in South Sudan suggests that ethnic cleansing has occurred. Forces on both sides have reportedly engaged in widespread sexual violence. An attack on a residence for aid workers in Juba in July 2016, during which Americans were assaulted and a local journalist killed, highlighted the dangers facing aid workers and other expatriates. According to the U.N., over 100 aid workers have been killed since the war began. Hundreds of attacks on humanitarian workers were reported in 2017. U.N. officials assert that targeted attacks against civilians, humanitarians, and U.N. personnel in South Sudan by government and oppositions forces may constitute war crimes or crimes against humanity.

Just last month, Reuters reported that the ceasefire monitoring group set up as part of the 2015 Agreement on the Resolution of the Conflict in South Sudan known as the ARCSS has evidence that South Sudan's army has massacred civilians, burned children alive, and gang-raped women since the ceasefire agreement reached in December 2017.

In the worst incident detailed in the reports, a group of 200 government soldiers attacked the village of Nyatot in Upper Nile state on February 12. Civilian survivors interviewed said they were ``shooting randomly at everything and everybody.'' Twenty-two civilians were killed and 72 wounded. South Sudan has denied targeting civilians and called the reports, compiled in the last 3 months, exaggerated. Despite pressure from the international community, the reports have yet to be released publicly. If these reports are true, perpetrators must be held accountable.

The U.N. Security Council ramped up its threats to impose sanctions against six key individuals in South Sudan if the fighting continued and no compromise was reached by the end of June. Under this most recent threat of sanctions, President Salva Kiir and rival leader Riek Machar held their first meeting since the 2015 deal collapsed in mid- 2016. They have signed yet another agreement and imposed a ceasefire, but before the ink was dry, there were allegations that government forces violated the ceasefire and reports that Machar's group --the Sudan People's Liberation Movement-in-Opposition --was opposed to key elements contained therein, putting the agreement at risk.

The Intergovernmental Authority on Development, IGAD, also said it was developing punitive measures against violators of the ceasefire agreement, although it is uncertain whether this will materialize in a region that has been reticent to impose sanctions.

The United States played a key role in helping create the 2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement that laid the groundwork for the 2011 referendum on self-determination, through which the people of South Sudan overwhelmingly voted for independence. We have a role to play in helping the people of South Sudan secure their future and find peace. The administration has taken some steps, including imposing targeted sanctions on individuals who threaten the peace, security, or stability of South Sudan, a bilateral arms embargo, and Commerce Department actions against South Sudanese companies in the oil sector. USAID Administrator Mark Green traveled to the country in September 2017 and pressed for a ceasefire and humanitarian access. U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley visited Juba and Sudanese refugees in October 2017 and has pursued Security Council sanctions on those who are obstacles to peace. Undersecretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, Sigal Mandelker, was in east Africa last month, where she urged countries to stop illicit money flows from South Sudan into neighboring countries. These actions are welcome. However, such engagements have been too sporadic to generate sustained diplomatic momentum. Millions of South Sudanese continue to suffer.

Despite what seem like positive developments in recent weeks, if past is prologue, we should all be very concerned about whether the agreement will hold. We must position ourselves to support it if it does not collapse, but we must also be prepared to help find a way to a sustainable peace if it does. High-level U.S. engagement has proven decisive in achieving peace in the past; it could make all the difference now, either in helping support this latest agreement or in forging a new diplomatic solution.

I urge the administration to redouble its efforts on South Sudan by taking the following steps: Consider the appointment of a special envoy for Sudan and South Sudan. Addressing the conflict in South Sudan will take concerted time effort and attention. If the Democratic Republic of Congo, northeastern Nigeria, the Central African Republic, and Mali weren't all in some form of crisis or another, our newly confirmed Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs might be able to devote the necessary time and resources towards the shuttle diplomacy and intense negotiations required to end the conflict in South Sudan, but time is a luxury that we don't have. During his confirmation hearing to be Secretary of State in April, Mike Pompeo committed to reviewing the utility of assigning a special envoy to South Sudan. When he appeared before the committee to defend the administration's Fiscal Year 2019 budget request in May, Secretary Pompeo indicated that he had not yet reviewed the issue. Mr. Secretary, the people of South Sudan have suffered long enough. It is time for a decision.

Develop a strategy, in coordination with partners and allies, for incentivizing each of the member states of IGAD, the east African regional body leading negotiations, to take constructive and decisive actions aimed at ending the conflict. IGAD's efforts to date have been commendable, but it is clear that, when it comes to developing and implementing meaningful consequences for nonadherence to past agreements, competing bilateral interests of member states have overtaken effective collective action by the body. Unless member states are willing to place peace in South Sudan above narrow parochial interests, IGAD will continue to fail, and the people of South Sudan will continue to pay the price. IGAD should lead the international community in imposing an arms embargo and targeted sanctions, including a travel ban and an asset freeze if this last initiative fails. Member states should stop any and all material support they may be providing to the government in Juba, and we must make clear that failure to do so will affect our bilateral relationship with each of the countries in

Mr. President, I rise to call attention to the trend of increasing restrictions on basic freedoms in Tanzania, a country that appeared to be on a path toward greater democracy and political openness. I am deeply concerned about reports of Tanzanian security forces' use of repressive laws, decrees, and actions to harass those who disagree with the current regime and unattributed attacks on democratically elected opposition party officials. I call upon the Trump administration to increase its efforts to encourage the government of Tanzania to support individual and collective freedoms, freedom of expression, and civil liberties. Such norms are the hallmarks of a healthy democracy and are among the basic rights and duties guaranteed to Tanzania's citizens under their constitution.

These reports are troubling because, on the whole, Tanzania is among the most stable and peaceful countries in the region. Tanzania is a top African

contributor of personnel to international peacekeeping operations, and we honor the sacrifice of the Tanzanian people, who have lost nearly 50 peacekeepers during these vital missions, including 14 killed in the Democratic Republic of Congo. It is one of the leading African economies and had the sixth largest GDP in Africa, according to IMF data published in April.

U.S.-Tanzanian ties have, for many years, been cordial, and U.S. bilateral aid expanded significantly under the previous two U.S. administrations. The U.S. has had a robust development relationship with Tanzania, including investments in some of our premier development programs, such as Feed the Future, the Global Health Initiative, the Global Climate Change Initiative, Power Africa, the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief--PEPFAR--and Trade Africa. Since 1962, Tanzania has hosted a Peace Corps program. In 2013, Tanzania also successfully completed a Millennium Challenge Corporation, MCC, funded Compact.

Upon taking office in October 2015, President John Pombe Magufuli pledged to stamp out public corruption and make his government accountable to ordinary citizens, and he has taken some steps to do so. He made an unannounced visit to the Ministry of Finance to see civil servants at work on his first day as President and redirected funds from Independence Day celebrations toward anticholera operations. He initiated corruption reviews of the Tanzanian Port Authority and Tanzanian Revenue authority, resulting in the dissolution of an ineffective board and purging of civil servant rolls of ``phantom staff.'' According to AfroBarometer surveys, the government's handling of corruption in public office has had a positive impact, reducing citizens' perceptions of institutional corruption in key public agencies.

By many measures, Tanzania is doing fairly well. My purpose is not to offer gratuitous criticisms of Tanzania or its people, but to register my strong concern that the progress of the last decade and a half in the areas of democracy and respect for civil liberties may be undergoing a reversal right before our eyes. Tanzania's success in advancing economically and politically is what makes the current political backsliding so troubling. I fear that while we are all rightly focused on the resolving the many crises on the continent and around the globe, the gradual downward spiral of respect for civil liberties in Tanzania is proceeding unnoticed, unremarked, and unchallenged by its friends and partners. As we address crises throughout the region and the world, we must also be mindful of the maintenance of strong democratic institutions, good governance, and accountability which ultimately secure resilient communities.

The Magufuli Presidency has been marked by three troubling trends.

First is the rise in recent years in the harassment of opposition political figures and restrictions on their activities. In September 2017, Tundu Lissu, a Member of Parliament--MP--and Parliamentary chief whip of the opposition Chadema party was shot by unknown assailants and seriously wounded. Lissu, who is also the president of the Tanganyika Law Society, is a fierce critic of President Magufuli and his government, but also a longstanding critic of corruption who may face hostility from many quarters. Lissu has often been arrested for his longstanding criticism of the government.

Other opposition Parliamentarians face police harassment. In late September 2017, police arrested a Chadema MP after a party event, and at least two other MPs complained that police were prohibiting meetings with constituents.

In February of this year, the U.S. Embassy released a statement of concern about the rise in politically related confrontations after reports of kidnapping and violence in Tanzania that resulted in the death of Daniel John, who was a leader of a local opposition party, and the injury of opposition supporter Reginald Mallya.

Second is closing media space. According to the 2017 World Press Freedom Index, published by Reporters Without Borders, RSF, Tanzania dropped 12 places between 2016 to 2017 to 83 out of 180. While this is the best score in east Africa, RSF stated that the climate for journalism ``has not improved since John Magufuli's election.'' Tanzania was ranked alongside Turkey, which indicates just how significantly Tanzania's democratic space has shrunk under the Magufuli regime. Newspapers have faced suspension or other sanction for coverage deemed critical of the government. In September 2017, the government banned the publication of two newspapers, in one case for 90 days and in another for 2 years, and 3 months after another publication was also shuttered for 2 years. In January 2018, the Committee to Protect Journalists reported that Tanzania's regulatory commission imposed fines on five television stations for ostensibly ``broadcasting seditious and unbalanced content.'' The stations were fined after reporting on human rights abuses by security personnel and unidentified assailants during a November 2017 ward by-election.

President Magufuli signed the controversial media services bill just a month into his tenure. The bill replaced independent media oversight mechanisms with a government-controlled one, and requires all journalists to get accreditation from a government-appointed board. This leaves them vulnerable to manipulation and undue pressure to provide coverage favorable to the state and majority party.

In April 2016, then-Information Minister Nape Nnauye ordered a halt to live broadcasts of Tanzania's Parliamentary proceedings, denying journalists the ability to report accurate information and denying the public the right to transparency from their government. In November, President Magufuli signed in to law the Media Service Act 2016, which, among other measures, requires media houses to ``broadcast or publish news or issues of national importance as the government may direct,'' effectively giving the government outsize influence in controlling media messaging. The government then moved to restrict online content when, in September 2017, Tanzania's National Assembly passed the Electronic and Postal Communications (Online Content) Regulations. The regulations empower the Tanzanian Communications Regulatory Authority to monitor and surveil online blogs and internet cafes and ban ``offensive, morally improper'' content. This restricts debate and has a chilling effect on the expression of views critical of government.

If there is any doubt as to whether the government seeks to control the media, we have only to look at what President Magufuli himself said in March 2017: ``I would like to tell media owners--be careful, watch it. If you think you have that kind of freedom, (it is) not to that extent.'' A day later, a rap musician was arrested after he released a song deemed insulting to the government. Magufuli's 2017 warning followed the late 2016 arrest of a founder of a corruption-reporting and whistle-blowing website, Jamii Forums, and a police demand that the site reveal its users' names. The website's cofounder was charged on several counts of obstructing justice and running an unregistered website.

These and other actions clearly demonstrate a disturbing deliberate government effort to censor the press and curtail the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of expression of Tanzania's citizens. I was pleased to see the announcement that the U.S. Agency for International Development or USAID, which supports good governance projects around the world, is funding a civil society and media-strengthening project that will work with media houses and radio stations in Dar es Salaam, Zanzibar, and other areas of the country. I am unconvinced, however, that this well justified effort alone will be adequate to address the broad range of worrying trends that I have outlined. I would welcome additional efforts of a similar nature by USAID and other organizations, such as the National Endowment for Democracy.

The third troubling trend is the closing space for civil society. In March, the President promised to crack down on anyone who participates in demonstrations deemed illegal by the government, vowing not to let his economic reforms be derailed by street protests. The reforms, some of which are not endorsed by the International Monetary Fund's most recent economic review, include reducing tax evasion,

halting copper concentrate exports, and banning imports of coal and gypsum. Prior to planned antigovernment demonstrations on April 26, a senior law enforcement official stated that ``Those who plan to demonstrate tomorrow will seriously suffer . . . they will be beaten like stray dogs.'' Because the Tanzanian authorities deployed a heavy police presence and threatened to use force, the protests failed to move forward.

Magufuli's repression extends to sexual orientation and HIV policies. Homosexuality is illegal in Tanzania, and homosexuals and transgender persons have repeatedly faced threatening comments by government officials, as well as police harassment. Under previous Tanzanian governments, the country's HIV policies called for dedicated outreach to key populations. Such efforts have been halted under Magufuli's government. In 2016, the government raided and closed drop-in centers and private clinics that provide services to those in the LGBTI community, sex workers, and people who use drugs. Several organizations reported that the crackdown has resulted in HIV-positive men failing to access their antiretroviral treatment, while others no longer access testing and preventive services.

Young women also find themselves under attack, for reasons which remain unclear. President Magufuli forcefully endorsed a law dating back to the 1960s that allows all state schools in Tanzania to ban young mothers from attending, saying in June 2017, ``As long as I am president . . . no pregnant student will be allowed to return to school . . . After getting pregnant, you are done.'' He said that young mothers could opt for vocational training or become entrepreneurs, but should not be permitted to pursue formal education in public schools. Critics say the ban lacks public support, is misogynistic, and breaks international human rights conventions. It also contradicts a promise set out in the ruling party's 2015 election manifesto, which pledged to allow pregnant school girls to continue with their studies. According to the Tanzania Bureau of Statistics, about 21 percent of Tanzanian girls aged 15 to 19 have given birth. This troubling pattern of discouraging women from completing their education inhibits Tanzania's potential for economic growth and undermines women's potential to contribute to Tanzania's workforce. It also is counter to Tanzania's commitments under the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women.

Finally, Tanzania has, for decades, hosted refugees from various conflicts and political crises in the conflict-afflicted and densely inhabited countries in the Great Lakes region of central Africa--some for extended periods--and has played a mediating role in attempts to resolve such crises. In 2014, Tanzania also naturalized a large number of long-term Burundian refugees. Instability in Burundi has led to hundreds of thousands of Burundians to seek refuge and safety in Tanzania. In fact, Tanzania very generously hosts 245,584 Burundian refugees and asylum seekers, more than any other country, according to the latest statistics from the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees.

In July of 2017, however, President Magufuli ordered the suspension of the registration and naturalization of thousands of Burundian refugees. He said, ``It's not that I am expelling Burundian refugees. I am just advising them to voluntarily return home . . . I urge Burundians to remain in their country, I have been assured, the place is now calm.'' During the same month, the Commission of Inquiry on Burundi, deployed by the U.N. Human Rights Council, reported the ``persistence of serious human rights violations in a climate of widespread fear.'' Such violations included ``extrajudicial executions, acts of torture and other inhuman and degrading treatment, sexual and gender-based violence, arbitrary arrests and detention and enforced disappearances.'' With peace talks stalled in Burundi--and the May 2018 constitutional referendum accompanied by widespread violence and intimidation, including 15 killings--Tanzania risks pushing refugees back to unstable and unsafe communities.

The pattern of crackdowns on civil society, media, refugee, and public health providers under the Magufuli administration are contrary to the values that the United States has long supported both at home and abroad and are cause for concern. It is essential that the United States take a strong and proactive stance on these matters. Toward that end, I recommend that the administration take several actions.

Immediately nominate an ambassador to lead our diplomatic efforts to push back against the tide of antidemocratic actions. The post has been vacant for well over a year.

Conduct a review of assistance aimed at ensuring that the democracy, human rights and governance components of our bilateral assistance programs, which are an essential complement to sustainability in other areas of development that we support, are robustly funded and adequately address current challenges.

Increase assistance to build the capacity of civil society and media stakeholders in Tanzania.

Join with likeminded partners in the diplomatic community in Tanzania and in multilateral fora to jointly condemn President Magufuli's war on democratic freedoms and civil liberties and urge the Tanzanian Government to take concerted action to ensure that all political and civic rights guaranteed under the Tanzanian Constitution are fully respected.

It seems to me that, at the same time President Magufuli is waging a war against poor governance, there is in fact another more pernicious effort being undertaken to roll back democratic freedoms and civil liberties. It is imperative that the United States, as a champion of democracy and freedom, raise its voice in support of Tanzanians who are pushing back against growing oppression. The Tanzanian Constitution states that ``the civic rights, duties and interests of every person and community shall be protected.'' Let us stand with those who are fighting to see that those guarantees are protected.

Mr. President, today I would like to raise concerns about efforts to erode the effectiveness of the Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act, or CAATSA. This law requires the administration to impose a host of costs on the government of the Russian Federation for its interference in democratic processes around the world, its support for the brutal regime of Bashar Al-Assad, and its active role in destabilizing Ukraine. Ninety-eight Senators voted in favor of this legislation and should expect the administration to fully implement it.

Of particular concern to me today is section 231, which requires the imposition of sanctions on those who conduct significant transactions with specific entities in the Russian defense and intelligence sectors. We targeted those sectors because our intelligence community deemed them responsible for the attack on our election in 2016. The law is meant to cut financial income for these sectors.

Using the model implemented in the CISADA sanctions regime on Iran, section 231 includes a provision to delay sanctions if the individual in question can show that they are substantially reducing significant transactions from these Russian entities. This model was extremely effective in diminishing the volume of energy products that Iran was able to sell to the rest of the world and ultimately helped to drive them to the negotiating table. This model allows for some flexibility while maintaining appropriate pressure to wind down business with these sectors in Russia. It can work if we allow it to.

The State Department reports that the law is actually already having an impact. Billions of dollars' worth of deals around the world with the Russian defense sector have been turned off due to leverage created by this law. That means billions of dollars less for Russia to interfere in elections and sow discord in democratic societies, billions of dollars less to support war crimes in Syria, billions of dollars less to kill Ukrainians and violate the sovereignty of that country. If the administration fully allows the law to work, the Russian Government will have less money for all of these things.

The leverage CAATSA provides is critically necessary. In Turkey, this leverage is vital in our efforts to ensure that the Erdogan government does not purchase the Russian S400 air defense system. Such a purchase would be a win for Putin in a strategically important part of the world and could pose a security and intelligence threat to U.S. and NATO personnel and equipment already in the country. CAATSA gives our negotiators an important tool which we hope can leverage the right policy decisions in Ankara.

Over the course of the debate on the NDAA, voices in the administration want to weaken section 231 and have called for blanket waiver authority. I opposed these efforts, not because I want sanctions on our close friends who continue to do business with Russian defense sector, but because such a move would gut CAATSA and render this key provision of the law toothless. We need to remain true to the principles laid out in in the law. Either we want to increasingly maintain pressure on the Russian defense and intelligence sectors--or we don't. Either we want to send a strong message to the Kremlin that interfering in our elections and those of our allies is unacceptable-- or we don't. Either we want to defend our democracy--or we don't.

No one wants to impose sanctions on our close friends, especially as defense relationships with those countries are improving. We should continue building on the positive momentum around our defense cooperation with several countries around the world. It is precisely for this reason that countries should begin to make a choice. Either they want a strong and growing defense partnership with the United States--or they don't. Either they want access to the best defense technology that the U.S. has to offer--or they don't. Either they believe that standing up for democratic institutions matters--or they don't.

The choice seems pretty clear to me.

We built flexibility into CAATSA that allows them to avoid sanctions if they can show a substantial reduction in purchases over time.

I would also stress to my colleagues here: CAATSA is the only significant bipartisan piece of foreign policy legislation passed since Donald Trump came into office. We should be proud of this brief moment of bipartisanship in support of our collective national security. Our responsibility did not end with one vote. Stringent oversight matters now more than ever. Will you stand by the law or buckle to attempts by the administration to fundamentally weaken it?

A central challenge in the administration's implementation of section 231 is its refusal to make formal determinations that individuals have in fact conducted significant transactions with specific Russian Federation entities. Without such a baseline of information, it is impossible to determine whether individuals are substantially reducing significant transactions with the Russian defense and intelligence sectors. I sought to remedy this shortcoming with an amendment to the NDAA which would require the administration to regularly report on whether such transactions have taken place. While the amendment did not make it into the bill, I will continue to urge such reporting moving forward and more transparency from the administration on how this law is being implemented.

I want to acknowledge the work of those at the State and Treasury Departments, especially the Office of Foreign Assets Control, who have done the

hard work of preparing sanctions packages related to the executive orders and the Magnitsky laws. More than 200 designations of Russian entities and individuals have been made, constraining their ability to carry out a Kremlin agenda of aggression around the globe. I want to acknowledge the leadership of people like Assistant Secretary of State Wess Mitchell in working to advance a realistic policy with respect to President Putin's actions and intentions. There is no denying that our government is populated with career civil servants and some political appointees who are clear-eyed about the threat posed by the Kremlin and are working every day to counter it. I just wish that our President had their back.

Time and again, this President insists on making statements that serve to hinder the good work done by our diplomats and civil servants.

He insisted that Russia rejoin the G7 though Moscow has done nothing to remedy the reason for its suspension in the first place: the invasion of Ukraine and illegal occupation of Crimea.

He insisted that most people in Crimea speak Russian so therefore want to be part of Russia. This is wrong and an insult to thousands of dead Ukrainians and their families.

He insisted on trashing our oldest allies while seeking to curry favor with Putin.

Given the scale and nature of this threat, we need a fully aligned policy apparatus where the President and bureaucracy are on the same page. With this President, I am not sure that can be achieved, but it is incumbent upon us, in this oversight body, Republican and Democrat, to indeed insist that the President end his irrational affection for the Kremlin. He must finally marshal all the resources of our government to address this threat to our security and to our democracy.

It starts with the NATO summit next month. The President must be rock solid in his commitment to article 5 of the alliance charter. He should be firm about allies meeting their commitment of 2 percent of GDP to defense, but not allow that issue to crowd out a real conversation and coordination on addressing the threat posed by Russia. Our allies take this threat seriously and want a President, in the tradition of Kennedy and Reagan, who will show leadership and clarity of purpose at a NATO summit. The President should use the summit to build common cause on sanctions with those members of the EU present at the meeting. Specifically, he should work with Europe to impose cyber sanctions on Russian actors who threaten our democracies.

In closing, despite some progress in designating some key Russian actors, I remain concerned that seven mandatory provisions of CAATSA have not been implemented. This is simply unacceptable. Secretary Pompeo committed during a recent Foreign Relations Committee hearing that he would pursue the mandatory provisions under the law. To make sure everyone is on the same page, let me run through the mandatory provisions that have not been implemented under CAATSA authorities: section 225, mandatory sanctions related to special Russian crude oil products; section 226, mandatory sanctions with respect to Russian and other foreign financial institutions; section 227, mandatory imposition of sanctions with respect to significant corruption in the Russian Federation; section 228, mandatory sanctions with respect to certain transactions with foreign sanctions evaders and serious human rights abusers in the Russian Federation; section 231, mandatory sanctions with respect to persons engaging in transactions with the intelligence and defense sectors of the Government of the Russian Federation; section 233, mandatory sanctions with respect to investment in or facilitation of privatization of state-owned assets by the Russian Federation; and section 234, mandatory sanctions with respect to the transfer of arms and related materiel to Syria.

I again implore the administration to follow the law and impose these sanctions with urgency.

Let us recapture the bipartisan spirit we found to collectively confront threats to our national security when this body passed CAATSA nearly a year ago. I urge my colleagues to again join together and now ensure implementation of this law. I urge my colleagues to stand firm in support of our democracy against all forms of aggression, especially from Moscow. There is still time before the 2018 election to make crystal clear to the Kremlin that their days of unfettered cyber hacking, bots, trolls, and lies are over.

Mr. President, I rise today in honor of World Refugee Day and to express my deep concern over the Trump administration's systematic assault on refugees, asylum seekers, and the United States' refugee resettlement program.

Manmade conflict, natural disasters, poverty, and violence have left the world in the midst of the largest refugee crisis in recorded history with over 25 million refugees worldwide. Tragically, less than 1 percent of these individuals will ever be resettled to a third country.

The United States was built on the hopes and dreams of those fleeing persecution and oppression, those seeking better lives for themselves and their families. The values and moral compass that embraced these individuals and shone as a beacon of freedom have made this country great. In times of crisis, the United States traditionally asserted global leadership through these values that have made this country so successful. That leadership served as an important uniting and motivating voice in the face of tremendous international challenges.

Unfortunately, instead of asserting moral and strategic leadership, the Trump administration has chosen to retreat. The President has traded in our proud tradition of lifting up the most vulnerable for an agenda of degrading and insulting those who seek our support. Starting with his assertion that Mexicans are ``rapists'' and ``drug dealers,'' this President has spent his tenure as our Nation's leader attacking America's immigrant and refugee communities. The President said he wanted to protect Dreamers; yet he abruptly ended the DACA program throwing the lives of 800,000 people into great uncertainty. He imposed a slap-dash Muslim ban that has been repeatedly struck down by the courts. He has slowed refugee admissions to a trickle, closing America's doors to some of the most vulnerable people on the planet, reducing America's global leadership standing.

Driven by vitriolic voices, the President and the Attorney General together have worked to effectively destroy the refugee resettlement program, which traditionally received broad bipartisan support. Last September, the President decreed that the number of refugees to be admitted in

fiscal year 2018 should be 45,000--half of the historic average. Even more concerning, it is now clear that this administration is further rigging the admissions program to ensure that only a fraction of that number of people will be allowed in. In the first quarter of 2018, just 6,704 refugees were resettled, compared to 25,671 in 2017 and 13,791 in 2016.

The U.S. Refugee Resettlement Program--and the faith groups, organizations, families and individuals that assist it--supports the most vulnerable. These are the victims of torture, people with urgent medical needs, and desperate women and children. They are not safe in their home country. They have gone through extensive multiagency vetting before even reaching the United States. We are witnessing the intentional dismantling of a program that has helped the world's most defenseless, built our leadership abroad and here at home helped create thriving, diverse communities across the country, including in places like Camden and Elizabeth in my home State of New Jersey.

Despite its effort to prove the opposite by commissioning a study by the Department of Health and Human Services, the administration's own report found that refugees have had a net positive economic impact in the United States over the past decade. The study concluded that between 2005 and 2014, refugees ``contributed an estimated $269.1 billion in revenues to all levels of government'' and estimated the net positive fiscal impact of refugees over the 10-year period to be $63 billion.

Alarming and horrifically, we have witnessed the administration's callous and misguided approach to migrants and refugees most recently on our southern border. American citizens and people around the world have watched in horror as U.S. officials are forcibly pulling babies and children out of their parents' arms, tearing families apart, and using preposterous defenses for their actions. This is not the United States I know. This is not the United States that has stood as a champion for the rule of law and human rights.

The President has blamed those fleeing persecution. He has blamed Democrats. He has taken no responsibility. His tweets have only gotten more hysterical. His repeated demands for a ridiculous wall are not a solution and only further fuel negative perceptions of the United States.

The party of ``family values'' has become the part of ``family separation.'' This ``policy'' is not required by U.S. law. This is a choice that this administration has made. It was a policy choice to charge asylum seekers in criminal court with illegal entry. In essence, it seems that President Trump and Attorney General Sessions want to turn every asylum seeker into a criminal and every child into a foster child.

It is easy to be distracted by the President's tweets and outlandish statements. The palace intrigue coming from the White House provide endless fodder for the talking heads on TV, but we cannot lose focus on the real harms being done to our fellow human beings and to our global standing.

On this World Refugee Day, let us come together and remember that part what makes America great is our open doors that have welcomed people from all over the world. We have been a shining city on a hill; a beacon of light and hope. Since 2001, the United States has settled nearly a million refugees. They are our friends, our neighbors, our coworkers. They sit next to your kid in school, and someday, they may grow up to be a Secretary of State like Madeleine Albright.

What kind of a country do we want to be? A country where we rip children from their parents? A country that keeps out refugees because of their religion? I have seen a quote posted on Twitter, pasted on signs at rallies, even on a church bulletin board--I don't know who said it first--but it bears repeating here: ``Rather than a wall, America needs to build a giant mirror to reflect on what we've become.''

Mr. President, today I rise in condemnation of the Trump administration's heartless, cruel, and inhumane policy of separating children from their parents when they seek asylum at our southern border.

I do so as the son of refugees who fled their homeland and came to this country because they longed to be free. I do so as a Catholic appalled by what is being done in the name of my Christian faith. I do so out of concern, as the ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, that the cruelty being conducted in the name of the U.S. Government may cause lasting damage to America's reputation in the

world. I do so as a parent who knows that there is no love more powerful, no love more universal than love for your child, and it is love that has driven these families to seek asylum in the United States.

Seeking asylum is not a crime. It is a cry for mercy, an act of desperation. The trauma being inflicted on these children and the anguish being inflicted on these parents is a direct result of the Trump administration's decision to criminalize asylum seekers and persecute families fleeing for their very lives.

President Trump is lying to the American people when he says that family separation is the law of the land. He is lying when he says that Democrats put a law on the books mandating that children be terrorized in this way.

Under the policies of previous administrations, families remained together while waiting for their asylum claims to proceed through our immigration courts. But this President has broken with the basic standards of decency that have guided past administrations, Republican and Democrat alike.

The criminalizing of asylum seekers is in fact a newly unveiled policy. Attorney General Jeff Sessions calls it a zero tolerance policy. I say it is a zero humanity policy, a zero compassion policy.

This policy of persecuting families fleeing for their lives comes straight from the White nationalist fringe. It has been in the works for over a year, going all the way back to when Chief of Staff John Kelly was Secretary of Homeland Security. Back in March of 2017, then- Secretary John Kelly said that the ``name of the game is deterrence.'' He said that if the administration began separating kids from their parents, they could deter migrants from traveling to our southern border.

We have since heard Attorney General Jeff Sessions double down on this theme of deterrence. He said:

If people don't want to be separated from their children,

they should not bring them with them. . . . If you bring

children, you'll still be prosecuted.

To those who spout this perverse notion of deterrence, I ask: How do you deter a mother trying to protect her child from the brutality of forced servitude? How do you deter a father trying to protect his daughter from being raped and tortured? How do you deter a family so fearful for their safety that they are willing to embark on a perilous journey and travel thousands of miles--thousands of miles--to reach the United States?

The answer is that you can't, not without addressing the root causes of this forced migration.

Most of these families come from Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras--the countries collectively known as the Northern Triangle. It is a region plagued by transnational gang violence, weak institutions, and poverty. Young boys are forced into servitude by gangs. Young girls are beaten and raped. Any parent who resists is killed. These countries suffer from some of the highest homicide rates in the world, and the violence against women is particularly appalling.

In El Salvador, a woman is murdered every 19 hours, and in Honduras-- the country with the highest homicide rate for women in the world--a woman is killed every 16 hours.

To be blunt, these families face a stark choice. It is either stay and die or flee for a chance to live.

The facts show this policy of deterrence isn't deterring anyone. That is because it is hard to deter people who are fleeing for their lives. In recent months, we have seen the number of people seeking safety in record droves. There were 36,682 apprehensions at the border in February. By April, that number jumped to 50,924. In May, the number rose again to nearly 52,000.

If we aim to reduce forced migration, we must improve the conditions in the region. Our only hope of doing so is by working with the governments of the Northern Triangle by exercising smart diplomacy, by working together to find solutions to promote the rule of law, provide public safety, and free communities of terror from transnational gang violence. Yet, just a few hours ago, President Trump threatened to cut off aid to Central America and Mexico because ``they are not sending their best.''

In other words, he would have the policy of the United States be to make the dire conditions in Central America even worse--driving even more families to flee their homes in search of asylum. Let's be clear. These individuals are fleeing of their own accord. They are not being sent. They are fleeing. Their choice is stark: stay and die or leave and have a shot to live.

We know USAID initiatives that support economic development and good governance make a real difference. We have heard directly from young people who have found hope and safety through these programs. Now is not the time to recklessly abandon these programs. It is a time to invest in them.

The administration claims to be for law and order, but it deals in chaos and discord. President Trump lies with such frequency and such confidence because he knows the muddier the waters, the harder it is for the rays of truth to shine through.

This past weekend, some rays of light shone through when former First Lady Laura Bush made her voice heard. As she wrote in the Washington Post, ``Our government should not be in the business of warehousing children in converted box stores or making plans to place them in tent cities in the desert outside of El Paso. These images are eerily reminiscent of the internment camps for U.S. citizens and noncitizens of Japanese descent during World War II, now considered to have been one of the most shameful episodes in U.S. history.''

She couldn't be more right.

This isn't a PR crisis. It is a humanitarian crisis, and it is a moral crisis for our country. That is why even members of the Trump administration are struggling to defend this policy. It is indefensible.

Years from now, will we look back on this policy and be proud? No. We are going to look back and see it for what it is--another dark period in our history, in which we as a country failed to live up to the values that make America a beacon of hope and a leader among nations.

It is despicable to see President Trump inflict trauma on innocent children just to score political points with his base or to somehow use children as a leverage for some negotiating point. That is what is happening here.

President Trump and his Republican enablers in Congress have one strategy left in their playbook for 2018. They cannot run on being fiscally responsible; their trillion-dollar corporate tax cuts have exploded the Federal deficit. They cannot run on delivering the American people more affordable health because under their watch, healthcare premiums are soaring, and prescription drug costs are surging. They cannot run on raising wages because under their policies, most of the Nation's economic gains continue to go to big corporations and to the top 1 percent instead of working families and the middle class. The only thing they have left to run on is fear.

In 2018, the Republican Party has one message. It is a message that says, as the President said earlier today, that these migrants aim to ``infest our country''; that babies and toddlers and middle schoolers pose a threat to our public safety and our national security; that Latino families who are fleeing unthinkable violence are nothing more than pests.

Let me be clear, Mr. President. Running to save the lives of your child doesn't make you a criminal. It makes you a parent. Tearing innocent children away from their parents is shameful, it is cruel, and it is un-American.

President Trump is calling on Congress to fix a policy of his own creation. There is no law that instigates the President and his administration to do this, none at all. He chooses to do it.

House Republicans are trying to pass a so-called immigration compromise, when as far as I can see, the only thing it compromises is our time-tested system of legal, family-based immigration in this country.

Contrary to Speaker Ryan's claims, this will do nothing to end the separation of families at the border. It doesn't address the issue of the President's zero tolerance policy or put an end to the administration's cruel practices. Instead, the bill removes protections for asylum seekers and gives the administration license to lock families into detention for indefinite periods of time.

President Trump and ideologues like Jeff Sessions and Stephen Miller want to use the tears of innocent children as leverage in their quest to end legal immigration, as we know it, and to force the American people to pay for a ludicrous $25 billion border wall.

The President, the Attorney General, the DHS Secretary, and the White House Chief of Staff are practicing a doublespeak tactic in the hope of confusing the American public, but there is nothing confusing about separating children from their parents. The America I know doesn't put children into cages. The America I know doesn't rip newborn babies out of their mothers' arms. The America I know doesn't treat families fleeing from criminals like they are criminals.

President Trump could end this despicable policy today without a law. He can order U.S. Customs and Border Control to stop tearing babies from their mothers' arms today. He can correct course and restore America's commitment to basic human rights today.

They say a picture is worth a thousand words, but the audio released yesterday by ProPublica is worth a million tears.

How do you submit the cries of innocent children to the Congressional Record? I don't know how you do that, but you can hear it.

(Inaudible audio.)

You can hear it. I know we don't want to hear it. I know we don't want to hear it, but those are the cries of innocent children. I can't replicate it. I can't replicate their pain: ``Papi, papi. Donde estas, papi?''

It is time this Senate has its conscience pricked, that it moves to action, and that it challenges the President on this horrific policy.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, at the G-7 Summit in Charlevoix, Canada, on June 9, 2018, President Trump stated the following in regard to the Russian Federation rejoining this group of the world's seven most industrialized and powerful nations: ``It would be an asset to have Russia back in. I think it would be good for the world. I think it would be good for Russia. I think it would be good for the United States. I think it would be good for all of the countries of the current G-7. I think the G8 would be better.''

Such a statement, even for this President, is stunning.

On March 24, 2014, the current group of G-7 states suspended the Russian

Federation, in response to its illegal invasion and occupation of the Ukrainian territory of Crimea. Since then, the Government of the Russian Federation continues to illegally occupy Crimea and has utterly failed to fulfill its obligations under the Minsk Agreements to end its violent aggression in eastern Ukraine. Russia has failed to respect a full ceasefire; it has failed to pull back its heavy weaponry; it has failed to permit the monitoring and verification of a ceasefire regime; and it has failed to ensure access for humanitarian aid to conflict- affected individuals.

The story does not stop with Ukraine. Since 2014, the Government of the Russian Federation has greatly expanded its aggression around the world, including against the United States with the attack on our 2016 election. The Kremlin continues to interfere in elections, wage cyber attacks, engage in corruption and political meddling, and spread lies and disinformation--all with the goal to divide societies, undermine the rules-based international order, and break up longstanding transatlantic alliances. Our intelligence community has repeatedly asserted that the Kremlin will likely target our elections again this fall. The very ideal of democracy as a system of government is under constant assault from a Kremlin bent on destroying the international rules-based order.

Upon considering these facts, no observer could seriously think Russia deserves to be welcomed back into the G-7 club. Any such suggestion is ludicrous and must be dismissed out of hand.

The United States is a country long governed by the rule of law, where breaking the rules has consequences. More broadly, the United States has helped to create the rules-based order in the international community that has undoubtedly served the interests of the American people and benefited the world since the end of WWII by fostering peace and prosperity. The United States is bound with other G-7 nations not just because of the size of our economies, but because of our shared values and common cause to foster societies in which our citizens can live freely, peacefully, and prosperously. Inviting the current Government of the Russian Federation to rejoin the circle of G-7 world leaders when President Vladimir Putin's regime poses an ongoing threat to our freedom, peace, and prosperity serves his interests, not ours.

President Trump's suggestion to readmit Russia to the G-7 and his subsequent disavowal of the joint communique which the United States and other G-7 nations successfully negotiated in Charlevoix defy logic. More outrageously, they reflect his propensity to praise autocrats while attacking our allies and the democratic values and rules-based system they defend. Does it put America first to side with autocrats? This President seems to think so.

I have submitted an amendment to the defense authorization bill calling on President Trump to retract his comments on readmitting Russia to the G-7. Absent any change in the Kremlin's efforts to undermine the rules-based international order or its illegal occupation of Crimea, the G-7 should not even consider welcoming the Russian Federation back into its fold, let alone with open arms. This amendment sends a necessary and strong message that the United States stands by our friends and the international rules-based order that benefits American workers and American national security. I am committed to working with my Senate colleagues on both sides of the aisle to shore up our closest alliances and to hold the Russian government accountable for its aggression in Ukraine, the United States, and beyond. I urge adoption of this amendment.

Mr. President, I was unavailable for rollcall vote No. 112, on the motion to invoke cloture on the nomination of Robert Earl Wier, of Kentucky, to be United States district judge for the Eastern District of Kentucky. Had I been present, I would have voted yea.

Mr. President, I was unavailable for rollcall vote No. 113, on the nomination of Robert Earl Wier, of Kentucky, to be United States district judge for the Eastern District of Kentucky. Had I been present, I would have voted yea.

Mr. President, I was unavailable for rollcall vote No. 114, on the motion to

invoke cloture on the nomination of Fernando Rodriguez, Jr., of Texas, to be United States district judge for the Southern District of Texas. Had I been present, I would have voted yea.

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

Mr. President, what is the pending order at the desk as it relates to the time of the vote?

Mr. President, we are considering today the nomination of James ``Randy'' Evans to be Ambassador to Luxembourg. I opposed Mr. Evans' nomination in committee, and I will again oppose his confirmation on the floor.

My concerns with Mr. Evans center around his tenure on the Georgia State Election Board from 2002 to 2010. In March of 2005, Georgia passed a controversial new law requiring voters to show a photo ID in order to cast a vote.

Despite the fact that both Federal and State judges prohibited the law from going into effect, the Election Board made a decision in 2006 to send a letter to 200,000 voters with the false impression that the law would be in effect for the upcoming election. Appropriately, this action caused an uproar, and multiple voices accused the Board of defying the injunction in a deliberate attempt to mislead voters and possibly suppress minority turnout. The board subsequently mailed out a clarification letter, but the damage had already been done.

During his confirmation process, Mr. Evans unfortunately presented conflicting accounts of his involvement in this effort to suppress voter turnout. He first said he could not remember the details of how the letter was sent or who wrote it. However, other board members who served during that time period, as well as summaries of election board meeting minutes from 2006, clearly reflect that Mr. Evans and the board as a whole appeared to play a central role in drafting and distributing the letters.

These conflicting accounts trouble me. The right to express one's vote at the ballot box is fundamental to our democracy. Throughout our Nation's history, various actors have sought to systematically deny different groups of people this core right.

Those representing the United States abroad must embody and embrace our fundamental democratic values and ideals. I am not convinced that Mr. Evans will do that. One cannot be advocating for democracy and human rights and suppressing votes here at home. I do not think he has demonstrated the judgment I would expect from our Ambassadors, and for this reason I will urge my colleagues to reject sending Mr. Evans to Luxembourg as the U.S. Ambassador.

Because my colleagues are here on the floor, although I have time reserved to speak on North Korea, I will yield, because I think they have an important action to take place.