Floor Statements

Madam President, in addition to the nomination of the Secretary of State, later today we are considering the nomination of Richard Grenell to be our Ambassador to Germany. I opposed Mr. Grenell's nomination in committee, and I will again oppose his nomination today.

If confirmed, Mr. Grenell will assume the post at a time of strain in the bilateral relationship since the election of President Trump, who has disagreed with German Chancellor Angela Merkel on several key issues.

Germany is one of our most critical partners and a key ally in upholding the post-World War II order responsible for securing peace and prosperity. Germany is a key NATO ally, serving with distinction and sacrifice in Afghanistan. Germany also serves on the frontlines of Europe against an aggressive Russia that is actively seeking to destabilize German democracy in the same way it does American democracy. Germany showed great humanity in accepting so many migrants when that crisis escalated in 2015.

This is a close ally for our security but, more importantly, an ally in championing the values we hold dear as a country. It would have been my hope and desire that for such an important ally as Germany, the President would have put forth a serious, credible, experienced diplomat who could strengthen our relationship with Germany. Instead, President Trump nominated Mr. Grenell.

In a few moments, I will read things that Mr. Grenell has tweeted in the past and that he continues to tweet, even as his nomination has been pending before this body. I do not savor having to read you these tweets because, frankly, I don't think they are suitable to have to say on the floor of the Senate.

But since the majority and the President have prioritized this nominee and the vote will occur a little later, the American people deserve to know exactly who the Trump administration wants to represent the United States to our great friend and ally Germany. So I will read a selection of Mr. Grenell's tweets for the Record:

``Did you notice that while Michelle Obama is working out on the Biggest Loser, she is sweating on the East Room's carpet?''

Rachel Maddow should ``take a breath and put on a necklace.''

He said this about Callista Gingrich: ``Callista stands there like she is wife #1.''

He said in another quote: ``Do you think Callista's hair snaps on?''

This is just a selection--just a selection. I chose not to read some that I consider the most insulting out of respect for this body.

These are not the words of a child or a teenager who does not understand the power of words; these are the words of a grown adult who had previously been a public face of the Bush administration for 8 years. Mr. Grenell's derogatory comments about women are simply unacceptable for anyone to make in public, let alone a diplomat.

I would go further. Not only do these tweets show bad judgment, they show us who Mr. Grenell really is and how comfortable he is publicly contributing his own brand of toxic political discourse. Will he do such things if he is confirmed and goes to Germany? Will he insult via his Twitter account the female Chancellor of Germany? I don't know. I hope not.

In the committee process of considering his nomination, Mr. Grenell was asked about these tweets and other comments he has made. Do you know what he said? He assured us that he understood there was a difference between being a private citizen and being a public figure and that he would never say or tweet such things as a public figure. So imagine our surprise when Mr. Grenell started tweeting again after he had been voted out of the committee. Astonishingly, he retweeted a WikiLeaks tweet which included documents stolen by Russian intelligence.

Madam President, the other nominee before us today, CIA Director Mike Pompeo, has called WikiLeaks ``a non-state hostile intelligence service.'' That is what CIA Director Mike Pompeo called WikiLeaks--``a non-state hostile intelligence service.'' He went on to say about WikiLeaks that it will ``take down America any way they can and find any willing partner to achieve that end.''

Imagine that. Amidst all the controversy about the connection between WikiLeaks and Russia and their interference in our 2016 election and while under consideration for an ambassadorship by this body, Mr. Grenell feels perfectly comfortable tweeting out emails stolen by Russian intelligence to interfere in our democratic process--basically, in essence, as Mike Pompeo describes, doing the work of Russian intelligence.

These are not the actions of a person with anything close to good judgment. These are not the actions of a diplomat. I urge my colleagues to reject sending Mr. Grenell to Germany as a U.N. Ambassador.

With that, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, we are about to vote on cloture on the nomination for Secretary of State. I, once again, just to summarize, express my opposition to Mike Pompeo serving as this Nation's top diplomat.

As I said earlier this week in committee, I am genuinely disappointed to be casting a vote against the Secretary of State nominee. I believe the United States needs an effective leader on the global stage, but at the end of the day, as I considered Director Pompeo's nomination, including his hearing, his past statements, and recent revelations, I have lingering concerns, which I outlined in detail yesterday on the floor and will not go through in detail here again.

I do want to say, though, in listening to the remarks of some of my colleagues this week, I was struck by how easily some characterize legitimate concerns about a nominee as a purely partisan act. I was struck by suggestions that somehow Democrats obstructed this nomination.

Democrats on the Foreign Relations Committee agreed to every request of the chairman in the process of considering this nomination. We held hearings on the date the chairman requested. We held the business meeting to vote on the nomination on the date the chairman requested. We sent the nomination to the floor. Yesterday, we had an opportunity to debate the nomination on the Senate floor, and today we will vote. That is not obstruction. That is a fair and appropriate process--agreed on in a cooperative manner.

Democrats have worked with Republicans in a constructive manner to confirm a wide range of nominations. We voted for the President's nominees for Cabinet members. Nikki Haley was confirmed as the U.N. Ambassador, 96 to 4; John Kelly was confirmed as the Secretary of Homeland Security, 88 to 11; and Deputy Secretary of State John Sullivan was confirmed, 94 to 6. This body confirmed Secretary of Defense Mattis by a vote of 98 to 1--98 to 1.

It seems Republicans complain about Democratic votes only when they don't get what they want. I would say it is the President who is politicizing many of these nominees by nominating people he must know cannot draw broad bipartisan support. There are many qualified candidates this President could have nominated for this critical position, whom I am sure my colleagues and I--as well as others--would have been happy to confirm.

Let me close by providing more actual facts. In the Senate Foreign Relations Committee alone, we have sent 86 nominees to the Senate floor, and 77 of them have been confirmed, mostly through unanimous consent. It is the Trump administration that has failed to keep pace on nominations. Of the 172 Senate-confirmed positions at the State Department, our Embassies, and USAID, the Trump administration has not nominated anyone to fill 76 of those vacancies. They include ambassadorial vacancies left unfilled, which include critical countries of great strategic importance like South Korea, Egypt, Jordan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sweden, South Africa, and Turkey.

The committee had agreed to hold a nomination hearing for three nominees just this past week, when the administration asked that the hearing be indefinitely postponed. Let us not forget that Republican leadership can bring up any nominee on the floor at any time they choose. This suggestion that not supporting a nominee you believe is unqualified is a purely partisan act is ridiculous, based upon the facts. What is partisan is to hold up a qualified nominee for Justice to the Supreme Court, like Merrick Garland for 295 days, without a hearing or even a vote. So please save me the sanctimonious voices of this question of partisanship.

It is the article I right of this body to vet nominees and cast the vote they think is correct. I believe strongly that the Congress plays a vital role in the check and balance of any executive branch, and I believe that regardless of who is sitting in the White House. That is what article I is all about.

I close simply by saying, we will continue working to advance those nominees who are qualified. We will continue to work with the chairman, as we have, and we will support those nominees who truly are qualified. Even if we do not agree, we certainly want to be of support in the mission to make sure America is safe and secure.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I rise today to express my opposition to Mike Pompeo serving as the Nation's top diplomat.

As I stated earlier this week in committee, I am generally disappointed to be casting a vote against a Secretary of State nominee. I believe the United States needs an effective leader on the global stage. But at the end of the day, as I considered Director Pompeo's nomination, including his hearing, his past statements, and recent revelations, I have lingering concerns along three broad themes. Mr. Pompeo failed to express any tangible diplomatic strategies for which he would advocate to advance American interests; he failed to be forthright with the committee; and, finally, I don't have a satisfactory answer to the question: Which Mike Pompeo am I asked to cast a vote on?

Unfortunately, during his nomination process, in which he had an opportunity to address all of these concerns, Director Pompeo offered contradictory statements and was less than forthcoming when pressed on a number of issues.

Given the opportunity to outline the strategies he would advocate with the administration to deal with the challenges of Russia, Iran, North Korea, China or Venezuela, to mention a few, he failed to exhibit the depth of knowledge or thoughtfulness about what those strategies would be. Granted, he is under the constraints of this administration, which has failed to offer a strategic vision for American diplomacy, a White House that has failed to effectively outline policies or strategies to achieve a series of ever-changing goals and objectives. But I expect our chief diplomat to have a vision for diplomacy.

A meeting is not a strategy. Airstrikes are not a strategy. Unilaterally walking away from an international agreement is not a strategy.

Beyond his lack of strategies, I fear Mr. Pompeo was less than transparent through his confirmation process. Truthfulness and willingness to be forthcoming to the Foreign Relations Committee are essential in a Secretary of State nominee. But in his refusal to answer questions about the Russia investigation, in which he was interviewed-- a critical issue before the committee--and in his failure to disclose any information about his trip to North Korea, which he could have disclosed even in a classified setting, although we got to learn about it through the press--both critical issues before the committee--he exhibited that he was more suited to the clandestine nature of the CIA Director than the transparency of a Secretary of State.

I don't expect a Cabinet Secretary to publicly disagree with the President; indeed, it is his or her duty to carry out the President's agenda. But as policies are being formulated, I remain skeptical of whether he will be forthcoming with Members of Congress, how he will approach complex issues, and what that means for our foreign policy.

This lack of forthrightness ultimately leaves me wondering whether he would be willing to push back against the President's worst instincts, whether he would be willing to say no to advance a different course or whether he would simply be a yes-man.

When the President blames Russia's aggressive behavior on Democrats-- pretty amazing, on Democrats--will Director Pompeo remind him that Russia's aggressive behavior is caused by Russia and no one else? As our Nation's top diplomat, would Director Pompeo, as he said in his confirmation hearing, value diversity and demand every employee be ``treated equally with dignity and respect''? Does he believe, as he said in his hearing, in ``promoting America's ideals, values, and priorities,'' including our collective identity as a nation of immigrants and refugees fleeing oppression who have made the United States a bastion of hope in the world? Or will we be represented by Congressman Pompeo, who voted against the Violence Against Women's Act to deny support to victims of gender-based violence and who sponsored legislation to roll back marriage equality, or Congressman Pompeo, who, as recently as 2016, sponsored legislation to immediately halt refugee resettlement in the United States until ill-advised reforms were made? These concerns are beyond policy disagreements, which alone are not the basis for rejecting a nominee. Rather, this legislative history paints a troubling picture of how the United States and our diplomatic efforts will be conducted and received by our allies and adversaries alike.

Will the Department seek to roll back programs advancing women's access to healthcare and justice systems--programs that have significantly improved the lives not only of women all over the world but, by extension, improved stability, prosperity, and governance reforms? When we talk about promoting universal human rights in countries that seek to oppress people based on their sexual orientation, what will our Nation's top diplomat credibly say?

As we work with our allies who are absorbing literally millions of refugees from profoundly devastating crises all over the world and as families in my own State of New Jersey and throughout the country open their hearts and their homes, what will he credibly say as this administration slashes our own refugee program, once a crown jewel of our foreign policy, both in establishing our moral leadership and in supporting our partners globally?

On our own border, we simply cannot address the threat of drug traffickers or opioids without productive collaboration with Mexico. When the President wants to call Mexicans drug traffickers and rapists, as our Nation's top diplomat who, during his confirmation hearing, insisted his ``record is exquisite with respect to treating people of every faith with the dignity they deserve,'' would Mr. Pompeo advise the President not to call Mexicans drug traffickers and rapists or would the Pompeo who once called an Indian-American political opponent a ``turban topper'' prevail?

How would he explain this kind of rhetoric to people of myriad different faiths who wear turbans, whether they are millions of Sikhs, Punjabis, or Muslims in India--a critically important ally--or Orthodox Christians in the Horn of Africa or tribal leaders in Afghanistan with whom we are trying to build constructive relationships based on values of democracy and human rights?

What impact would his accusations that Muslim leaders in the United States are somehow ``complicit'' in devastating terrorist attacks have as he engages with Muslim leaders and citizens around the world? Nearly 2 billion people in the world adhere to the Muslim faith, many in countries with which we have relationships critical to protecting and promoting our national security, with citizens who have suffered the most from brutal terrorism.

Similarly, part of the exceptionalism of the United States comes from the power of our diaspora communities, which serve as critical cultural and public diplomats to the rest of the world. How can someone who has made such derogatory and uninformed remarks conduct effective diplomacy?

As I have said before, I believe it is imperative for the Secretary of State to be forthright, to be someone with whom the American people and our allies can invest faith and trust, someone who will unequivocally champion our values to assert our global leadership.

Our global leadership comes from our investment in diplomacy and development as our primary policy drivers abroad. Unfortunately, I don't believe that Director Pompeo is someone who will always prioritize diplomacy over conflict, particularly in the context of the aggressive foreign policy voices growing around him. I am particularly concerned by his past comments on regime change in North Korea and Iran. Look, I abhor both regimes, but our national security is a little different.

While he said during his confirmation hearing that war is ``the last resort,'' Mr. Pompeo's past statements calling for military action and regime change in Iran, for example, will surely follow him as we work with our allies to build on multinational agreements to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. His offhand remarks about regime change in North Korea will be ever-present as we pursue negotiations to roll back North Korea's nuclear weapons program and seek dismantling.

With all of these concerns of mine, ultimately, I simply do not believe that Director Pompeo is someone who can genuinely represent all Americans and best promote American foreign policy interests. It is for these reasons, among others, that I will be voting against Director Pompeo. Let me be very clear. Despite what some of my other colleagues may believe or tell the press, this is not a vote in the name of political resistance to the President. I have voted for members of this President's Cabinet, from the Secretary of Defense, to the former Secretary of Homeland Security and now the President's Chief of Staff, to our Ambassador to the United Nations, to mention some.

I will never hesitate to agree with a sound policy or criticize a misguided one, regardless of which party is in the White House. I think history will certainly prove that and judge it to be true. I will always put patriotism and our national security interest over partisanship--always.

I also reject the notion that we should confirm a Secretary of State based on world events outside of our control, whether that be a NATO summit or a meeting with North Korea. Nobody forced the President to fire his former Secretary of State at the time

he did. And unless Kim Jong Un is unilaterally dictating the terms of our relations, we should wait until we have the appropriate people and dutiful preparation to achieve the success that we and the world need.

In closing, as we consider this nominee and the nominee for Germany who is also subject to cloture, let me be clear. Despite what the White House wants to claim, Democrats are not obstructing nominees through this body. The facts are simply not on their side. Of 172 positions at the State Department and USAID critical to advancing U.S. interests, the administration has failed to even nominate 77 of those positions, including 45 ambassadorial positions in critical countries, including South Korea, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan, to mention a few. I could go on and on.

Lest we all forget, Republicans control the votes on the Senate floor. Republican leadership can bring up any nominee, once they have passed the committee, at any time. That is their prerogative.

The Founders recognized that an effective democracy needs coequal branches of government to operate in a system of checks and balances. The President has the right to nominate whomever he wants, but the Congress has a responsibility to ensure that person is best suited for the job at hand--we have already seen challenges to some of these nominees in that process--and in the case of our Secretary of State, one who will prioritize diplomacy instead of war and promote fundamental values.

If and when he is confirmed, as someone who has served on both the House and the Senate committees tasked with overseeing foreign policy administration, I am more than willing to work alongside the nominee to provide advice and input as he and the President seek to advance American interests and values on the global stage. I will, of course, in my capacity as ranking member, work alongside him in pursuit of comprehensive and coherent strategies that promote American interests. Despite my misgivings, I will always have an open door and seek opportunities to advance our shared objectives. We stand ready and willing to take any and all actions in the interest of peace, security, and all Americans. That has always been my North Star, and it will always be.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wish to call attention to what has been called the world's most neglected humanitarian crisis and call upon the administration to play an active leadership role in helping bring a sustainable peace to the Central African Republic, CAR. Diplomatic attention, especially from the United States, has waned over the past 2 years. If we fail to commit diplomatic attention to CAR, we risk increasing threats to regional stability, U.S. investments, and, most tragically, the lives and livelihoods of millions of Central Africans.

CAR has long been beset by political and social upheaval. Since independence in 1960, the country has endured coups, military mutinies, rebellions, and incursions by the infamous Lord's Resistance Army. The most recent civil war accelerated in 2013 after rebels opposed to the government of Francois Bozize took over the capitol. Their campaign to seize the capitol and the response by resulting self-defense militias were characterized by widespread violence against civilians. France, the European Union, and the African Union all deployed troops to prevent further bloodshed, and in 2014, the U.N. deployed a peacekeeping mission mandated to protect civilians and prevent further intercommunal fighting. The State Department's Atrocities Prevention Board identified CAR as a country at risk, and the United States took action accordingly, working on the ground to support interventions to prevent mass atrocities.

These vigorous diplomatic actions ushered in a period of relative calm. In the wake of Pope Benedict's visit in 2015 and peaceful elections in 2015-2016, the situation on the ground appeared to stabilize. President Faustin-Archange Touadera was elected in what was arguably the most competitive contest of any leader in the central Africa region. Donors pledged $2.2 billion to support stabilization and postconflict reconstruction in late 2016.

However, in 2017, security in the country began to precipitously decline. Militia and criminal gangs in the north and eastern parts of the country began fighting each other in a quest for control over territory and resources, threatening the fragile peace. Entire villages have been destroyed, civilians targeted and killed. While the government and 13 armed groups signed a notional peace deal in June 2017--the fifth disarmament agreement signed by armed groups in 4 years--renewed fighting quickly followed.

Some armed groups have targeted United Nations peacekeepers, a potential war crime under international law. On April 3, members of ``anti-Balaka'' militias attacked a United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in the Central African Republic, MINUSCA, base, killing 1 peacekeeper and injuring 11 others. On April 8, MINUSCA troops came under fire as they were conducting a joint operation with CAR state security forces aimed at disarming and detaining the leaders of what they referred to as criminal groups in Bangui's last remaining Muslim enclave, the PK5 neighborhood. Two days later, armed groups levied a sustained attack against a MINUSCA base in downtown Bangui, resulting in the death of one peacekeeper.

The resurgence of militia violence has made CAR one of the most dangerous countries in the world for humanitarian workers, leading aid agencies to reconsider their operations there. Six aid workers were killed in February this year alone, and attacks and threats continue. In November 2017, Doctors Without Borders shut down a major operation after a string of attacks and threats.

Some may ask why the United States should care about what happens in a small landlocked country in Africa with a population of just under 5 million. I give you three reasons.

First, as members of the community of nations, we have a moral obligation to take action when we see mass violence and human suffering. United Nations Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs Stephen O'Brien warned in August 2017 that the renewed clashes were early warning signs of a possible move towards genocide. While thankfully that scenario has not unfolded, violence continues to play out along ethnic and sectarian lines, causing social profound cleavages. Armed groups of various stripes carry out atrocities, including widespread sexual violence, against innocent civilians. In 2014, largely Christian anti-Balaka militia groups, waged a systematic campaign in 2014 forcing most of CAR's Muslim citizens to flee their homes. Many of those Muslim communities remain largely confined to the rebel stronghold of the northeast and small enclaves in the capitol and other population centers. We must do our part to bring this kind of horrific violence to an end. History offers brutal reminders of what happens when the international community fails to intervene on behalf of persecuted minorities.

We must continue to help those in need. The number of internally displaced persons in CAR has increased by more than 70 percent over the past year. Of an estimated total population of 4 million, approximately 681,000 Central Africans are internally displaced--the highest number reported since the height of the conflict in early 2014--while an estimated 568,000 more are sheltering as refugees in neighboring countries. Over 87,000 children are at risk of acute malnutrition. Yet the U.N. has received only 5 percent of the $515.6 million it has requested for its 2018 humanitarian response plan. The World Food Program was forced to cut rations in half for the most vulnerable families nearly a year ago, due to lack of funding. Earlier this year, U.N. Assistant Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Deputy Emergency Relief Coordinator Ursula Mueller stated unequivocally: ``If we do not receive funding, people will die.''

Second, lack of stability in CAR has implications for broader regional instability. CAR is located in a volatile and impoverished region with a long history of development, governance, and human rights problems. Violence in CAR only adds to the enormous human suffering in neighboring countries such as Democratic Republic of Congo and South Sudan. Other countries bordering CAR continue to struggle against the Boko Haram insurgency. We know that instability throughout the world can directly impact U.S. interests. It is in our interests to promote stability and peace throughout the region.

Third, the U.S. has invested $1 billion in CAR in the past 2 years; promoting lasting stability and governance is the surest way for our investments to yield positive results. Our Permanent Representative to the U.N., Ambassador Nikki Haley, has spent considerable time focusing on cutting peacekeeping costs, and the administration has signaled its desire to limit funding for U.N. peacekeeping missions. However, it has spent precious little time investing in diplomatic strategies and initiatives to end the conflicts that have necessitated these missions and would support their success. Doing so would be more cost effective, as well as having a positive impact on those impacted by conflict.

The situation is dire. In the absence of action by the administration, along with our partners in the international community, the risk of the CAR fully collapsing is high, but while it might be difficult to turn back the increasing tide of violence facing the country, it is not impossible. I urge the administration to take the following steps: fully staff senior leadership positions at the Department of State and USAID. It is well past time for this administration to put our foreign policy house in order to best advance American interests. The administration has not nominated an ambassador to CAR, leaving the post vacant for over 6 months. It also has not nominated an Assistant Secretary of State for Africa to coordinate policy and engage with counterparts in the region and among our partners in Europe and elsewhere. There is no Assistant Administrator for Africa at USAID at a time of unprecedented humanitarian needs on the continent. We need high-ranking diplomats and aid officials to bring fresh ideas and energy into policy discussions in Washington and galvanize action in capitols of other countries. Quickly filling vacancies is an easily accomplished task that would have a significant impact; formulate an updated strategy for CAR. Fully staffed or not, given the situation on the ground, the administration must act. Three years ago, the Obama administration put forward such a strategy in response to legislation. This administration should follow up and respond to changing conditions on the ground by putting in place a multiyear, comprehensive strategy to support greater peace and stability in CAR as a foundation for future development and prosperity. Such a plan should include humanitarian and development goals in addition to plans for diplomatic actions and engagement; work with other donors and the United Nations to incentivize greater progress on disarmament, demobilization and reintegration, and security sector reform. The 2015 ``Bangui Forum'' called for all combatants to give up their weapons prior to national elections in 2016. This process was never undertaken. A renewed effort a year ago has yet to yield significant results. We must continue support for rule of law and accountability. Financial and diplomatic support for CAR's nascent special criminal court is also critical to fulfilling this process.

Finally, we must signal our intention to follow through with commitments to the people of CAR and to our international partners by sending a high-level delegation from Washington to CAR and inviting President Touadera to the United States for an official visit.

None of the policy recommendations I am suggesting are particularly difficult. All it takes is time, attention, and, to be frank, an interest in being involved to devise a strategy and determine how to adequately fund it. I urge the administration not to let a tragedy occur due to indifference.

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

Mr. President, I rise to speak in opposition to the nomination of Kyle Duncan to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Mr. Duncan has spent large portions of his legal career seeking to suppress the rights of immigrants, minorities, women, and the LGBTQ community. In short, his values are grossly out of touch with a modern and inclusive America.

I can't say I am surprised that Mr. Duncan has been nominated by a President who has called Mexicans racists and drug dealers. President Trump and Mr. Duncan share the same extreme political ideology, especially regarding their view of immigrants. Mr. Duncan, in an amicus brief challenging the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents, wrote that permitting DAPA--the acronym for that program--to go into effect would exacerbate the problem of violent crime by unauthorized immigrants. This position advances the false and offensive narrative that a majority of immigrants are violent criminals. In fact, DAPA was a program that would have allowed the parent of a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident who had lived in the United States continuously for years and passed a criminal background check to remain in the United States with legal status and a work permit. This program was never implemented, but it would have kept families together, and to suggest it would have benefited criminals and threatened public safety is just plain wrong. It fits with the Republican Party's misleading and racist attacks on immigrants in this country.

Mr. Duncan makes these arguments despite overwhelming evidence that immigrants commit less crime than native-born Americans, and numerous law enforcement entities have voiced their support for DAPA because the program actually advances public safety by encouraging cooperation and trust between immigrant communities and the police.

A year after voicing his opposition to DAPA, Mr. Duncan submitted another amicus brief. This time he argued against the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, known as DACA, claiming it was unconstitutional. So we know where Mr. Duncan stands in stereotyping immigrants, but Mr. Duncan is not just hostile to immigrants.

He represented North Carolina in its defense of a discriminatory voting law, urging2 the Supreme Court to hear the case. In the brief, Duncan wrote, ``The Constitution does not allow the sins of Civil Rights-era legislators to be visited on their grandchildren and great- grandchildren.'' Yet the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals had found that the law was enacted with discriminatory intent and ``targeted African Americans with almost surgical precision.'' Mr. Duncan appeared to have clearly missed the point as to who the real victims were.

In another voting rights case, Duncan argued that Texas's restrictive voter ID law helped to ``prevent voter fraud.'' Although this myth has been debunked over and over and over again, the Republican Party, President Trump, and Mr. Duncan continue to perpetuate this lie to the American people in an effort to suppress the voting rights of others.

I would be remiss if I ended these remarks without noting Mr. Duncan's extremely troubling record on reproductive rights and his hostility toward the LGBTQ community. He has continuously fought to restrict women's access to contraceptives. In 2013, he criticized the Affordable Care Act's inclusion of contraceptives as an essential benefit for the health and economic success of society, particularly women.

Given that he holds these views, it seems fitting that Mr. Duncan would serve as the lead counsel in Hobby Lobby v. Burwell, in which he argued that corporations have the right to deny contraceptive coverage to their employees. I am sure he was pleased when the Supreme Court agreed with him.

Yet, when the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, which recognized same-sex marriage as a fundamental right, Duncan said that such a decision ``raises a question about the legitimacy of the Court.'' This comment cuts to the core of my opposition to Mr. Duncan--his disregard and contempt for judicial precedent he disagrees with.

Even before the Supreme Court considered same-sex marriage, Duncan warned that if the courts granted the right to same-sex marriage, then they might have to grant the right to marry a first cousin or a 13- year-old. To clarify, this is a man who believes that the rights of a corporation to deny employees health benefits is perfectly constitutional. Yet granting the right to same-sex marriage will lead us down a road to child marriage.

I know my colleagues are on a furious quest to pack the Federal bench with conservative judges--judges who hold outrageous views, views out of step with the American public. I do not trust, nor does his record suggest, that once Mr. Duncan puts on the judicial robe, he will uphold the rule of law for all Americans and not just those who share his ideological views.

I do not believe he can be an unbiased jurist, and that is exactly why the President nominated him and his supporters will vote for him.

I urge my colleagues to oppose the nomination of Mr. Duncan.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, 5 years ago today, the Rana Plaza building collapsed in Bangladesh, tragically killing more than 1,100 people and injuring thousands more. Rana Plaza, a bustling multistory commercial building in Dhaka, had housed several ready-made garment factories, as well as banks and other businesses. When cracks appeared in the building facade the day prior to its collapse and some stores in the building accordingly closed up shop, owners of the garment factories inside Rana Plaza rather told their workers not to worry and ordered them to return for work the next day, but this was not a time for business as usual. Thousands of garment workers, the majority of them enterprising young women achieving new levels of financial independence for themselves and their families, filed back into the building the next morning. Thousands of them never made it back out. The world was rightly stunned and horrified by the images of the lifeless bodies of hundreds of young women being pulled from the rubble of this manmade disaster.

The Rana Plaza tragedy could have been avoided, and it demonstrated that ``business as usual'' in Bangladesh's

garment industry inordinately rewarded factory owners and managers, while ignoring factory workers' safety and rights. In the dusty rubble of the building collapse, it became crystal clear that the Bangladeshi Government, factory owners and managers, and the global apparel brands all had a grave responsibility to do more, and quickly, to secure the labor rights of Bangladeshi workers. A simple fact remains, 5 years later: Had the Rana Plaza workers been afforded the ability to organize and protect their interests, the tragedy never would have happened. With collective strength and action, they could have stood up to employers to demand basic rights, and they could have refused to be ordered back into the building without appropriate safety standards. Five years later, it is also clear that a great deal of work remains to secure these rights.

As the son of a seamstress who worked in the textile factories of northern New Jersey, I knew from watching my mother how tiring and strenuous such work could be, but it does not have to be fatal. The United States' own Triangle Shirtwaist Fire more than a hundred years before Rana Plaza, which killed nearly 150 people, galvanized a necessary workers' movement and subsequent necessary reforms that to this day help protect labor rights while ensuring that American companies produce high-quality products. To this day, the AFL-CIO and other American labor unions work tirelessly to expose the conditions facing U.S. workers and to organize collective responses and inform government decisions to promote worker protections. Last year, for example, an AFL-CIO report revealed an alarming rate of workplace deaths among Latinos and immigrants to the United States and provided recommendations to the Department of Labor to address them. Along with many of my Senate colleagues, I am pushing for our government to adopt these recommendations. Put simply, the successes of American organized labor are inextricable from the prosperity of the American economy and have helped to boost the fortunes of countless American workers.

We know that countries and people are more secure and prosperous when workers can operate in safety while pursuing economic success. The proud legacy of the movement for American workers' rights demands that we advocate for workers at risk around the globe. In the past 5 years since the Rana Plaza disaster, we have so advocated. We have come together in unprecedented ways to address the factors driving labor abuses against workers in Bangladesh.

As chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee at the time of the Rana Plaza disaster in 2013, my first hearing explored the tragedy and the consequences of a race to the bottom that had increased companies' profit margins alongside risks to their workers. This was the first SFRC hearing focused on labor rights in more than a dozen years. I called another hearing early the following year to review progress in addressing the labor rights emergency in Bangladesh and conducted rigorous, bipartisan oversight to ensure that the U.S. Government was doing all it could to spur change among brands, owners, and Bangladeshi Government officials. This included a field visit and a November 2013 majority staff report that examined progress in advancing workers' safety and labor rights since the Rana Plaza disaster and the Tazreen factory fire. We also worked closely with our colleagues on the Appropriations Committee to ensure that funds over 3 successive fiscal years were designated to directly support the development and capacity- building of truly independent labor unions in Bangladesh that could safely and effectively advocate for worker rights.

Meanwhile, major American retailers who produced apparel in Bangladesh, including Abercrombie & Fitch, American Eagle Outfitters, and Fruit of the Loom, joined the effort alongside other global brands, governments, civil society, and labor unions to grapple with the acute challenges facing Bangladeshi workers who produced their goods. The risk of undermined consumer confidence and declines in brand quality helped spur some corporations to join the Accord on Fire and Building Safety in Bangladesh--a 5-year, legally binding compact to improve safety in Bangladeshi ready-made garment factories through reasonable steps to prevent future disasters. Most importantly, the accord signatories included labor unions, who were rightly regarded as equal and critical stakeholders in effecting needed change. Five years later, accord brands have the opportunity to demonstrate a sustained commitment to worker rights by signing on to the 2018 accord. This iteration strengthens and expands the accord to cover freedom of association. Other groups, such as the Alliance for Bangladesh Worker Safety, have also helped to further galvanize American and multinational brands to take greater responsibility for ensuring worker safety in Bangladesh. In any such efforts, workers and their representatives must have a truly equal seat at the table, for without them we cannot make meaningful labor rights reforms.

Governments have a critical role to play as well. Following Rana Plaza, the United States and other governments pressed Bangladesh to take meaningful steps to improve respect for labor rights in the country, including through removing Bangladesh from the generalized system of preferences and conducting regular reviews of the Bangladeshi Government's efforts to better adhere to international labor standards. I believe the U.S. Government can and should do more to ensure that developing countries with which our country trades are taking necessary steps to respect labor and human rights. I was proud last year to introduce the Labor Rights for Development Act with Senator Brown and the Anti-Trafficking Trade Act with Senator Portman that together would raise the labor and human rights standards countries must meet to gain preferential access to the U.S. market.

Five years on, the progress made in Bangladesh is simply not enough. Factories throughout the country have failed to meet their binding commitments on workplace safety in the accord and the alliance, risking the departure of some global retailers to other markets. Independent unions in Bangladesh remain constrained and subject to increasing harassment and attacks on labor rights activists, which often occur with impunity. Amidst a growing climate of political tensions in Bangladesh, the government too often views independent labor unions as opposition dissenters to punish, rather than key partners that are vital to the country's growth and prosperity.

In the 5 years since Rana Plaza, I have continued to believe that what happens in Bangladesh to improve labor rights and workers' safety can have a dramatic ripple effect on the global apparel industry and that real change in working conditions there can help to change conditions for workers everywhere in a race to the top, but similarly, if not enough happens in Bangladesh, it sends the message that workers' lives can still be systematically undervalued and that working to advance labor rights is an endeavor not worth the risk. That is the wrong message, and on this anniversary, we must recommit ourselves to pushing stakeholders in Bangladesh--whether government, brands, or owners--to continue a path of reform. To do any less harms not just the workers, but also Bangladesh's economic potential, because no one will want to wear clothes stained with the blood of workers.

Mr. President, today I wish to address Cuba's undemocratic leadership transition and its implications for the Cuban people and U.S. foreign policy.

Today, in a highly scripted process, Cuba's National Assembly replaced Raul Castro, the country's gerontocratic dictator, with heir apparent Miguel Diaz Canel. While this marks the first time in nearly 60 years that a Castro does not occupy the Cuban Presidency, this transition by no means portends the desperately needed political and economic change that Cubans desire, nor does it mean that the Castro regime is no longer in charge.

This week's transition, characterized as a coronation and an attempt to institutionalize the Castro regime, is a ruse. This spectacle does not remotely come close to meeting internationally recognized standards for a democratic election. Cuba remains a single party, authoritarian state that denies its citizens their most fundamental freedoms.

Some contend that Mr. Diaz Canel could be a ``Cuban Mikhail Gorbachev,'' and in seeking to reform the Castros' broken model, he will stumble into the collapse of Cuba's communist system. Such thinking fails to account for the fact that Mr. Diaz Canel's political ascent was forged under the same Communist Party that has perpetuated the Castros' decades-long stranglehold on Cuba.

More importantly, Raul Castro will maintain his position as the First Secretary of the Cuban Communist Party. As article 5 of Cuba's authoritarian constitution states, ``The Communist Party of Cuba [. . .] is the superior ruling force of society and the State . . .'' Under such a structure, does anyone honestly think that Raul Castro won't continue calling the shots while his handpicked dauphin occupies the role of President?

As this political farce unfolds, I want to make brief observations about three aspects of Raul Castro's legacy, the state of human rights in the country, the state of the Cuban economy, and the crisis in Venezuela, which Miguel Diaz Canel now owns.

Raul Castro will certainly leave an enduring human rights legacy. In the last 3 years, the Cuban Commission on Human Rights and National Reconciliation, Cuba's leading independent human rights organization, documented more than 20,000 arbitrary detentions of activists. Moreover, the State Department's 2016 Human Rights Report on Cuba stated that the Cuban Government routinely denies its citizens fair trials, monitors and censors private communications, suppresses freedoms of speech, assembly and press, and employs threats, physical assault and intimidation tactics against its own people.

Raul Castro's economic legacy will be the maintenance of the dual currency system that distorts the national economy and subjugates Cuban citizens to second-class status in their own country. Foreign companies seeking opportunities in Cuba are still forced to conduct business with the military and its vast network of shell companies. ``Independent entrepreneurs'' are a complete misnomer, as individuals continue to operate in a byzantine system that prevents them from owning their own companies and subjects them to licensing and tax requirements designed to stifle entrepreneurial activity.

Additionally, as well-connected members of the Cuban Communist

Party and the military use their positions for self-enrichment, average Cubans face a status quo of limited economic opportunities. As the gap between the ``haves'' and the ``have nots'' grows in Cuba, it appears that the Castros' Orwellian dystopia is a system in which all Cubans are equal, but some Cubans are more equal than others.

Finally, looking outward, at the Summit of the Americas last week, where leaders of the Western Hemisphere grappled with an unprecedented migration and humanitarian crisis, Raul Castro may have been absent, but the legacy of ruin in Venezuela was front and center. In a July 2017 Senate hearing, Organization of American States Secretary General Luis Almagro described Cuba's presence in Venezuela as an ``occupation army.'' While Nicolas Maduro clings to his failed ideological, military, and economic alliance with the Castro regime, Venezuelans are suffering from food shortages, a collapsed healthcare system, and rampant crime.

This brutal reality is the Castros' legacy for the Cuban people and the hemisphere. In his role as First Vice President since 2013, Mr. Diaz Canel has been Raul Castro's first accomplice. So while Cubans will never stop dreaming for a future in which they are guaranteed human rights and are truly free to pursue economic prosperity, they know that Mr. Diaz Canel represents little more than a continuation of the Castro regime.

Turning to U.S. foreign policy, to those who would argue Cuba is ready to be a member of the community of nations, let me point to the attacks against American diplomats in Havana. U.S. personnel have faced an unprecedented ordeal. More than 50 unexplained attacks have affected more than two dozen American citizens, with some cases involving lasting, physical brain damage. Let anyone who harbors doubts about these incidents refer to the Trudeau government's announcement this week regarding incidents affecting Canadian officials and changes to Canada's diplomatic presence in Cuba. These attacks are real. People are suffering.

Cuban officials attempting to dismiss these egregious attacks is yet another sign of the disingenuous nature of the dictatorship. Whether the attacks were perpetrated by Cuban intelligence services or involve the participation of another country's intelligence services, it is unfathomable that a government that prides itself on running a police state would even try to feign ignorance about these incidents. I refuse to accept the premise that members of the Castro regime are not in some way complicit or have no information about who is responsible. The State Department must continue its investigation of these attacks.

The Trump administration must also move beyond Presidential promises towards a substantive strategy that pressures the regime to undertake serious reforms to advance democratic values and human rights and end its support of failed leadership in Venezuela.

First, the United States must remain steadfast in supporting democratic activists in Cuba. While President Trump claims to support those fearlessly advocating for their rights, his budget proposals tell a different story. Alarmingly, his fiscal year 2018 request to Congress proposed zero dollars for democracy programs in Cuba, while his fiscal year 2019 budget only requested $10 million. In contrast to his statements, this amounts to rejecting support for the Cuban people and our interests.

Additionally, as the U.S. Government hones new tools to advance accountability for human rights violations, we should utilize targeted global Magnitsky sanctions to put a spotlight on the Cuban officials responsible for these abuses.

Second, although senior administration officials have been critical of business deals with the Cuban military that enrich the Castro regime in the process, the regulations the administration introduced in November 2017 fail to address key elements of commerce that benefit Cuba's dictatorship. In the coming weeks, I will launch a congressional review of Treasury and Commerce regulations in order to end unnecessary loopholes that benefit the regime.

Finally, as leaders from the Americas and Europe come together to address the multifaceted crisis in Venezuela, they must seriously confront Cuba's role in Venezuela's collapse. To date, efforts to coordinate increased international pressure on the Venezuelan Government have given the Castro regime a free pass. There was widespread support in the hemisphere for Peru's decision to not invite Nicolas Maduro to the Summit of the Americas due to the authoritarian nature of his government; yet no one, including the Trump administration, held Cuba's dictatorship to the same standard. It is time for the administration to reverse this trend and call for a coordinated diplomatic response to Cuba's longstanding role in Venezuela's emergence as a failed state.

In closing, I urge my colleagues join me in speaking out against the undemocratic political spectacle in Cuba this week. We must join together to pursue a comprehensive policy towards Cuba that pressures regime officials to loosen their stranglehold on Cuba's economy and political system and that advances the true democratic and justice reforms the Cuban people so desperately desire.

Mr. President, today I want to wish a lifelong citizen of New Jersey the happiest of birthdays. Grover Connell, Jr., celebrates his 100th birthday today. That alone is an accomplishment that not many people are able to achieve and is worthy of recognition.

Grover Connell, Jr., was born on April 12, 1918, to joyous parents, Mr. and Mrs. Grover Connell, Sr., who were the founders of a rice distribution and export business, Connell Rice & Sugar Co. After serving in the Navy as an officer on a Fletcher Class destroyer from 1942 to 1946 during WWII, Grover succeeded his late father and moved the business to a modern building near their family residence in Westfield, NJ, in 1950. There, he expanded his business, and by the 1970s, Connell Rice & Sugar Co. became one of largest exporters of domestically grown rice, serving over 100 countries around the world. With the growing success of the family-owned business, Grover extended his scope of operations and became involved with a vast variety of services and products, and the business was renamed the Connell Company.

The Connell Company has provided thousands of jobs to New Jersey residents with its business of leasing, distributing, and selling construction equipment; brokering and selling canned food products; offering asset management services in the technology sector; and arranging financing of leased equipment and commercial property development. Today, under the leadership of Grover Connell, Jr., the Connell Company is one of the greatest known brokers of domestically grown rice. Thanks to love and support of his late wife, Patricia, his two daughters, Terry and Toni, and his three grandsons, Shane, Duane, and Sean, the Connell Company continues to grow while remaining a privately held, family-run company.

I applaud and honor the exemplary life of Grover Connell, Jr., for his sacrifice and service to our Nation and nations around the world and for his ambition and humility throughout his life. New Jersey is better today for his relentless hard work and dedication. I am immensely proud to have him as a constituent, and I hope that his 100th year is the best one yet.

Mr. President, today I wish to honor the memory of the late Robert Joseph Burke of Hoboken, NJ, who passed away last month. On this day, March 21, 2018, Mr. Burke would have celebrated his 85th birthday. I had the pleasure of knowing Robert Burke personally, and I know that his legacy will continue to be celebrated through the times he shared with us.

Mr. Burke was born in Yonkers, NY in 1933. He served our Nation in the U.S. Army during the Korean war. After his military service, Robert led a successful business career as the chief executive officer of Union Dry Dock & Repair and the chairman of the Board of Hudson United Bancorp. Burke was also active within the Irish-American community through the Society of the Friendly Sons of St. Patrick in New York City.

Robert was a beloved husband to his wife, Mariella, and a dedicated father to his five children Mary Lou Kenny, Robert P. Burke, Laureen Flock, Susan Quinn, and Claudia Cytrynbaum. Robert had 15 grandchildren, and I have no doubt that his memory lives on through each and every one of them.

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

Mr. President, I wish to thank Senators Lee, Sanders, and Murphy, as well as the other cosponsors of the resolution we are debating, for their commitment to elevating this debate in the Senate. I agree with my colleagues that this is an important debate with significant implications. As the elected representatives of the American people, we must serve as an effective check on the executive branch, fulfill our commitments to protect the national security interests of the United States, and be responsive to our constituents.

This debate is about how we best leverage the tools in our national security toolbox, including military tools, to protect U.S. national security. Although the resolution focuses on one particular element of U.S. policy, limited military support--basically, refueling, intelligence, and advice--to the Saudi coalition, I encourage my colleagues to expand the aperture of this debate so we may call on the administration to assert real leadership, diplomatic heft, and nonmilitary resources to move the conflict in Yemen toward a political tract.

As the ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I remind

my colleagues that it is this committee that has the jurisdiction over the questions of use of force. I remind my colleagues that it was also under my leadership as chair of this committee that it twice voted on authorizations for the use of military force--once in 2013, in response to the Assad regime's use of chemical weapons against the Syrian people, and once in 2014, in response to the rapid rise and spread of the Islamic State. I remind my colleagues of these two committee votes to underscore my commitment to open debate, my willingness to take tough votes, and my enduring commitment to a robust role for the legislative branch of the U.S. Government in the use of force and oversight of that force.

Now, I am pleased that Chairman Corker has agreed to hold a public hearing with administration witnesses on the war in Yemen--I think a hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is critically important--to look at the U.S. military support to the Saudi coalition and our overarching U.S. policy for resolving the war in Yemen. I appreciate that the chairman has also made a commitment to a markup in the committee in the near future on legislation that deals with the question of Yemen, and I also welcome his commitment to markup an AUMF, or an authorization for the use of military force, in the committee. Those are significant and actually will go a long way toward an informed process about how we deal with this challenge.

In considering S.J. Res. 54, I encourage my colleagues to assess the best way to promote core U.S. security interests in the Middle East, including pushing back on Iran's aggressive and destabilizing actions across the region, countering terrorism, and ensuring the freedom of navigation. To achieve these goals, our longstanding policy has been to partner with the members of the Gulf Cooperation Council to promote the security and stability of the Arabian Peninsula.

As we consider this resolution, we must fully grasp the situation on the ground and the scope of attacks on one of our traditional security partners. Saudi Arabia has endured Yemeni-originated attacks inside its territory on a scale that no American would accept--ballistic and Scud missile attacks aimed at major Saudi population centers, cross-border attacks by Iran-backed Houthis. Those are significant.

Now, having said that, I share the concerns, I think, of a majority of my Senate colleagues regarding the conduct of the Saudi-led coalition operations, the unacceptable scale of civilian casualties, the severity of the humanitarian crisis, and the seeming lack of momentum on all sides toward a political tract to negotiate an end to this conflict.

The Saudi coalition bears significant responsibility for the magnitude of human suffering and the scale of destruction in Yemen. Seventy-five percent of the population is in need of humanitarian assistance, and more than 8 million are on the brink of famine. The conditions have also led to the worst outbreak of cholera in modern history, with an estimated 1 million people suspected to be infected.

While the Houthis bear much responsibility for the violence, the Saudi-led campaign has played a significant role in exacerbating, however, the current humanitarian catastrophe. We must remember that the Houthis overthrew the internationally recognized and lawful government of Yemen and continue the conflict by resisting a political solution. So we ask the Saudis to have a political solution, but we need the Houthis to engage in a political solution as well. We also have to remember that the Houthi insurgency has vastly expanded the opportunities for al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula.

At the same time, I worry that withdrawal of limited U.S. military support to the Saudi coalition will weaken our leadership and our ability to influence a political settlement, improve humanitarian conditions, and could even make the situation worse.

Let us be clear-eyed about who will most benefit from an absence of American power. As it has done in political vacuums throughout the region, Iran will continue to expand its proxy power, and through its Revolutionary Guard, Iran will continue shipping weapons to the Houthis in violation of the arms embargo. With an emboldened Iran as patron, the Houthis will continue their campaign within Yemen and their attacks on Saudi Arabia.

Meanwhile, other nations in the region will be left questioning the commitment of its long-term security partner, the United States. In Saudi Arabia's darkest hours, as ballistic missiles are launched at major population centers in Saudi Arabia and Lebanese Hezbollah is on their border training Houthi fighters while Iran continues to transfer lethal equipment, we risk sending a signal to our partners and to our adversaries that the United States is not reliable.

Across the world, from Canada to the United Kingdom, President Trump has damaged our credibility as a reliable partner, even to some of our most stalwart allies. We must push against those concerns and show our allies that the United States upholds its international commitments. Consideration of withdrawal of support for the Saudi coalition must be taken in concert with other ways in which the United States is working to end this war--the totality of U.S. policy--which I fear is lacking.

The solution, I believe, is to bolster our diplomatic, humanitarian, and political presence to help solve this crisis, to end the human suffering, and to assert practical, concerted leadership. Thus far, the administration's approach has effectively abdicated leadership on the global stage. Thus far, while we have heard senior officials assure us that there is no military solution to this conflict and a political settlement is necessary, this administration is actively dismantling the State Department and antagonizing the United Nations--the two entities that have the potential to play the most critical roles in moving toward a political settlement and addressing the humanitarian crisis.

We have vacancies at the Assistant Secretary of State level for the Middle East and the Ambassador in Riyadh--a failure of leadership.

With this dangerous approach to our diplomatic institutions, we will not be in a position to promote political solutions, and our military, once again, will be called on to do the critical work of diplomacy and development, distracting their attention from other pressing challenges--a failure of leadership.

Regarding a broader diplomatic strategy, the administration has also failed to develop a comprehensive strategy to confront Iran, including holding Iran accountable for continuing to provide missile supplies and lethal training to the Houthis.

Across land and sea, we know Lebanese Hezbollah operatives are in Yemen. Yet we have seen no sanctions and no action at the Security Council for this illicit, illegal activity. The administration has not made one designation for Iranian violations of arms embargoes, as directed by the legislation passed here 98 to 2, the Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act--again, a failure of leadership.

I expect the administration to articulate and implement a comprehensive strategy for addressing Yemen that includes requisite conditions for continuing to support the Saudi coalition, a strategic push for a political settlement, efforts to alleviate the human suffering, and a comprehensive strategy to decisively push back on Iran's destabilizing actions in Yemen. This includes tough diplomacy with countries that will continue to facilitate or, at a minimum, fail to push back on Iran's actions.

I will continue pushing the administration to assert critical American diplomatic leadership rooted in the values of democracy, human rights, and human dignity.

Based upon Chairman Corker's commitments to those hearings and future markups and based upon the totality of the situation, I will vote to table the motion to discharge from the committee because I am not ready to either abandon our partners that face an existential threat from Iran run amok in Yemen, but my support is not unconditional, and I will demand responsive actions.

I want to see, as I told the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia earlier today, a renewed commitment and a rapid movement toward a political track by the Saudi coalition. I want to see consistent demonstrations of commitment

to humanitarian access and alleviating the humanitarian crisis. I want to see followthrough in pledges of assistance to stabilize and rebuild Yemen by members of the Saudi coalition. I want to see energy and diplomacy from the Trump administration.

This week's visit of Crown Prince Muhammad bin Salman is an opportunity to press forward on a path for ending the war and addressing the civilian suffering. That certainly was my message to him. The limited support the United States provides is leverage. Now the Trump administration needs to use it.

In conclusion, I invite my colleagues on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to join me in holding the administration to account and pushing the administration to use our leverage to drive this conflict toward a political track. I also invite my colleagues to join me in conducting oversight of our policies and programs to counter Iran's activities in the region, including implementing CAATSA.

Finally, I want to be very clear that my vote today is not a blank check for U.S. military support, nor an endorsement of the current policy and strategy, and, finally, not a thumbs-up for the Saudi coalition that we should continue business as usual. I expect to see improvements on all fronts, as I have previously stated, and I will review future decisions with respect to potential arms sales and other votes with that type of extreme scrutiny.

There is no more time to waste. We must move toward a political settlement to end the war in Yemen, and the people of Yemen must see improvements in their situation immediately.

I look forward to working with all of my colleagues to ensure we are working toward a policy that embraces American leadership in promoting a political solution and alleviating the devastating humanitarian suffering in Yemen. I look forward to this continuing debate before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I come to the floor with a series of my colleagues on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on the Democratic side to enter into a colloquy about this administration's chaotic and incoherent approach to foreign policy--an approach that has left our allies confused and our adversaries emboldened and undermines the standing of the United States on the global stage.

To be fair, the President's own national security strategy echoes decades of bipartisan recognition that the founding values of the United States--democracy, the rule of law--should continue to drive our foreign policy. Yet the President himself has shown a fundamental disrespect for these very principles: declining to publicly champion the importance of human rights and good governance, refusing to condemn dictators around the world who brutally repress their own citizens, sow instability across the world, or even attack those who attack the United States--something I fear will ultimately weaken our ability to promote the security and prosperity of all Americans.

Last week's unceremonious firing of our Nation's top diplomat was the President's latest and brazen example of disrespect for the role of diplomacy, diplomats, and of the State Department itself. While I had my differences with Secretary Tillerson, the reality is, it does not serve the interests of the United States when the President undermines his top diplomat on major foreign policy initiatives, from the crisis in the gulf to, ironically, his outreach to North Koreans.

Secretary Tillerson's legacy will be shaped not just by the President's misguided efforts but also his own ill-advised attempt to dismantle the State Department, leaving the United States without key voices to advance our interests around the world.

The administration has failed to even nominate critical, high-level positions--Under Secretaries, Assistant Secretaries--leaving a void of empowered voices. Meanwhile, there are gaping vacancies in some of the world's most troubled regions. For example, as we confront a nuclear- armed North Korea, the President has yet to nominate an ambassador to South Korea, our critical ally on the peninsula--one that has historically relied upon American assurances and allegiance.

Similarly, the President took more than a year to nominate an Assistant Secretary for East Asian and Pacific Affairs. The impact of these vacancies was on full display last week when the President-- without the knowledge of his top diplomat--announced a meeting with North Korean Dictator Kim Jong Un, an assertion that was then ultimately walked back and modified by his Secretary of Defense and his White House Press Secretary.

In the Middle East, as the President continues to send more and more American troops and we face an emboldened Iranian regime creeping further into Syria, facilitated by the Kremlin's military support, he has yet to appoint Ambassadors to consequential posts, including Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Qatar, Turkey, and Jordan, which has proved a critical partner in our fight against terrorism in the region and in supporting refugees--two essential components of U.S. policy in the Middle East.

How can we possibly expect to assert American leadership and secure our interests with these posts unfilled and with no empowered individuals at the Department itself? Under the President's watch, the number of career Ambassadors, which is basically the State

Department's equivalent to four-star generals at the Department of Defense, has plummeted by 60 percent. If we were shedding four-star generals this quickly, we would be sounding the alarm of a national security crisis.

We have just one career-level Ambassador left at the State Department. Let me say that again: One career-level Ambassador left, and this administration has seen fit to ship him off to an academic institution rather than to engage him in frontline diplomacy.

We are witnessing a mass exodus of experienced diplomatic and security professionals who have dedicated their lives to this country. This is a forced exodus, and I am deeply alarmed to see reports revealing what we have feared for some time.

We just started to learn about disturbing efforts to purge the Broadcasting Board of Governors and impose a partisan editorial voice on U.S. international media. Alarmingly, last week, press reports highlighted emails that provided concrete evidence of the administration's efforts to effectively purge the Department of anyone they do not believe would be a purist for the President's vision. Emails showed political leadership describing some civil servants as ``turncoats, leakers, and troublemakers.''

The conversations showed senior political appointees working with outside organizations engaged in vicious smear campaigns against career civil servants and dismissing death threats against some of these same career officials. Diplomats who have served Republican and Democratic Presidents alike, who have spent their careers working to build a more prosperous and secure world so a Commander in Chief would not have to send our sons and daughters into war.

This is America. Our government functions because of apolitical civil servants across agencies who dedicate their lives to advance the interests of their fellow citizens, from distributing Social Security checks to negotiating nuclear arms treaties. It is outrageous. It is disgraceful. It is dangerous.

We face challenges from every corner of the globe. We simply cannot confront them if we are not present, and we cannot overcome these challenges when the President himself does not acknowledge them.

As China's political leadership consolidates power and as the country expands into the South China Sea and pursues an aggressive economic agenda around the world, the President, for his part, praises these dictatorial moves. Meanwhile, he has failed on his promise to deliver better trade deals.

In Latin America, while the President calls our neighbors to the south drug dealers, criminals, and rapists, China is expanding its economic and cultural presence in our own backyard.

In Mexico, one of our most integral bilateral partners--Mexico is the second largest market for U.S. goods and services in the world--we will soon lose our Ambassador, as we hear about how the Russian Government is seeking to interfere in their upcoming elections.

When it comes to Russia, again and again, the President's own intelligence officials have made clear that the Russian Government not only meddled in our election in 2016 but continues its interference in the American political system to this day. Yet the President refuses-- refuses--to condemn Vladimir Putin or impose congressionally mandated sanctions to hold them accountable for their attack on the United States. I understand today he congratulated him on his ``election.'' That is not an election. Putin is seeking to be a czar, not to be a President.

The Russian Government continues its military aggression in the Ukraine and its disinformation campaigns across Europe.

In the Middle East, it continues to enable Bashar al-Assad's slaughter of innocent civilians and Iran's efforts to expand its presence and threaten Israel. In a brazen move this month, the Kremlin used an unlawful chemical agent to commit murder on British soil, showing how far they will go if they are unchecked.

Beyond these great power threats, we must also confront nonstate actors and new tools designed specifically to destabilize free and democratic societies.

We must demand more information to learn about Cambridge Analytica and the efforts of this organization to exploit private information from social media users across the world to promote particular political agendas.

The only way to confront old and emerging threats is to stand united with our allies. We have spent decades building these alliances based on mutual respect, accountability, and vigorous engagement in the international institutions and security agreements that are essential to promoting peace and security around the world. We ourselves must be a reliable ally and partner. We must speak with an authoritative voice. We must have our national security agencies executing clear, integrated, coherent strategies.

The President himself must champion the fundamental ideas that have made America secure and prosperous: democracy, human rights, free expression--values we champion not because simply they are right but because they are also strategic. We stand for these values because, globally, governments that uphold the rule of law, that respect human rights and freedom of expression, that welcome economic competition-- these are the nations that form America's most reliable allies, most prosperous economic partners, and most strategic security relations.

Let me close with this: The American people and the institutions we have built remain resilient. Now more than ever, Congress must exercise its role as a coequal branch of government when it comes to our foreign policy. We need Republicans and Democrats in Congress to uphold our duty to conduct oversight, to ensure that bipartisan values that have guided American foreign policy for decades can be executed by an experienced, empowered, fully funded and fully staffed State Department.

Together, we must ensure that our reputation as a leader of nations is not eroded by a President and an administration that thus far, in my view, far from putting America first, threaten to leave America isolated and behind. That is our challenge. That is our choice. I appreciate my colleagues who join us in this regard.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague from New Mexico, a key member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, for his insight, input, and continuing efforts to make sure we have a diplomacy in the world that ultimately pursues our national interests and security.

I understand there are some colleagues who are on their way to the floor--Senator Shaheen and Senator Cardin. When they get here, we will hopefully have the Chair recognize them at that point.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I come to the floor to amplify the efforts of my colleague Senator Whitehouse as he gives his 200th climate speech on the Senate floor. He really has become a modern-day Paul Revere on one of the most critical issues of our time that very well dictates the future of our planet and our way of life as we know it. I believe history will record that Senator Whitehouse riveted the attention of the Senate--or attempted, certainly, to do so--and the Nation on the real threat that is climate change. Climate change may be an inconvenient truth to some, but it is a threat to New Jersey, to the United States, and to the security and stability of our world. It is a challenge we cannot afford to ignore.

I agree with my distinguished colleague from Rhode Island that it is well past time for this Congress to wake up and demand climate action from this administration.

We often hear the Trump administration officials, and even some of our colleagues in Congress, suggest that ``we don't know enough'' about climate change to take action, when the truth is, we know too much not to take action.

We know about the greenhouse effect and how gases like carbon dioxide trap heat in our atmosphere. We know that since 2010, we have experienced the five warmest years on record and that momentary cold snaps in our weather do not detract from the indisputable reality that around the world, temperatures are steadily rising. We know that 97 percent of scientists agree that manmade climate change is real and that the burning of fossil fuels and other human activities have led to unprecedented levels--unprecedented levels--of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere and in our oceans.

We know experts at NOAA have concluded that since the Industrial Revolution, our oceans have become 30 percent more acidic--the greatest increase in 300 million years.

Likewise, we know the Arctic is warming at twice the rate of the rest of the world and that as icecaps melt, our sea levels rise, endangering the coastal communities that drive so much of America's economy.

In New Jersey, we know the real threat posed by climate change, and we know that threat is real. My constituents bore the brunt of Superstorm Sandy when it devastated the Jersey shore. We know rising sea levels and the powerful storms that accompany them jeopardize our coastal communities. From tourism to commercial fishing, to coastal property values totaling nearly $800 billion, millions of families across New Jersey depend upon a healthy coast and a safe climate. While I may be partial to the Jersey shore, the reality is, nearly 40 percent of the American people live along a coast. That is 40 percent of our country threatened by rising sea levels, stronger storm surges, and more extreme flooding.

Of course, climate change is far from just a coastal problem. From life-threatening heat waves to crop-destroying droughts, to record- breaking wildfires, the perils of a warming planet are not up for debate. The fact is, climate change will impact every human being and every living thing on this planet if--if--we fail to take action, and the American people know it.

In October of 2017, the Associated Press found that over 61 percent of Americans want us to respond to this historic challenge--61 percent. Even President Trump's Department of Defense gets it. Earlier this year, the Pentagon reported that about 50 percent of all Department of Defense sites already--already--face risks from climate change and extreme weather events. As the ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I am particularly concerned that we have done little to address climate change's role as a threat multiplier.

Whether it is disruptions to the food supply or forced migration from sea level rise or destruction wreaked by more powerful storms, climate change will likely exacerbate conflict and humanitarian crises around the world. President Trump's willful ignorance of these threats risks leaving the United States unprepared for the 21st century.

There is no question that this willful ignorance is born out of this administration's cozy relationship with the fossil fuel industry. From the Department of Energy to the Environmental Protection Agency, to the Department of the Interior, President Trump has stacked his Cabinet with individuals who seem more concerned about Big Oil profits than the safety of our people and the future of our planet.

Nearly a year ago, the President announced his plan to withdraw the United States from the Paris climate accord, leaving us isolated on the global stage.

Now is not the time to hand our precious waters and protected public lands over to special interests. Now is the time for Congress to incentivize the investments that will modernize our energy infrastructure, create new high-paying jobs, and grow our clean energy economy.

That is why I have introduced the COAST Anti-Drilling Act to permanently ban offshore drilling in the Atlantic and protect the coastal communities so vital to New Jersey and other States. That is why I introduced legislation with 22 of my colleagues to level the playing field and eliminate taxpayer-funded subsidies for the five biggest oil companies. That is why I have worked on the Senate Finance Committee to extend incentives for wind and solar and other clean energy technologies. That is why I have backed legislation that would help harness the potential for limitless clean wind power off our shores.

These initiatives represent modest, commonsense steps toward a thriving clean energy economy, but, ultimately, it is not enough. We need to think bigger and act boldly. That is why I am here on the floor today with Senator Whitehouse calling for action on climate change. It is time we take action to reduce carbon pollution, create new, high- paying jobs, and accelerate the adoption of innovative clean energy technologies. It is time this administration wake up and put the long- term economic, environmental, and security interests of the United States ahead of fossil fuel profits. It is time the United States reclaims its rightful place as the global leader on climate change.

The American people demand it, and the future of our planet depends on it. That future, to a large degree, is going to be, hopefully, achieved because of individuals willing to stand up for a cause, being principled about it, and willing to fight for it and continue like a laser beam on focusing the attention of the Senate, the Congress, and the American people. Senator Whitehouse is that person, and I salute him as he gives his 200th speech today.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I rise to explain my opposition to the bill that is before the Senate, the banking deregulation bill, S. 2155.

First, I would like to say I am appalled this is how the Senate is spending its time this week. Three weeks ago, 17 students and teachers were murdered when a teenager, armed with an AR-15 decorated with swastikas, opened fire at Stoneman Douglas High School in Florida, but this week we are not banning the sale of high-capacity magazines that enable mass shooters to fire 30, 40, or even 100 rounds without stopping to reload; we are not closing the gun show loophole or stopping violent people from buying assault weapons online with the click of a mouse; we are not taking steps to report more cases of severe mental illness to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System; we are not even passing President Trump's proposal to raise the age one can buy an assault weapon to 21 years. Simply put, this week we are not doing anything to stop the next mass shooting from taking place.

So what are we doing this week?

Well, this week the Republican majority has brought to the floor legislation rolling back safeguards we passed after the financial crisis of 2008--not exactly something the American people have been clamoring for.

I want to be clear why I oppose this bill as written. It is not that I don't support measures that provide meaningful relief to small banks, credit unions, and consumers. I do. It is not that I don't believe in reexamining regulations and ways to reduce compliance costs. I do. It is not that I don't agree with efforts to better calibrate the rules of the road for small banks and credit unions while strengthening protections for consumers investors and taxpayers. I do. Indeed, I would support a bill like that, but that is not the bill we have before us today.

The bill before us today brings back risky mortgage lending practices that increase the likelihood of foreclosures. It undermines our efforts to police discriminatory lending practices, and it would allow 25 of America's 38 biggest banks to escape the safeguards we adopted after the 2008 financial crisis--a crisis that destroyed more than $12 trillion worth of American wealth, required huge bank bailouts, sent our economy into a tailspin, and saddled us with the great recession.

Ten years later, it is worth remembering what caused that crisis-- mortgages designed like ticking timebombs for home buyers and for our economy at large, large financial institutions making risky bets on those risky mortgages, and regulators who turned a blind eye to these risks. Borrowers were steered into loans with low interest rates, often below 4 percent at the start, but once the promotional period ended, these teaser rates disappeared, higher interest rates kicked in, and millions of borrowers suddenly saw their mortgage payments go through the roof--even doubling, in many cases. Between 2004 and 2006, one- third of all adjustable rate mortgages were designed this way, and at a time of stagnant wages, millions of families couldn't keep up. That is why a wave of foreclosures overtook our housing market--displacing families, decimating home values, and destabilizing neighborhoods. From 2006 to 2014, more than 9.3 million families lost their homes to foreclosure, sold their homes at a significant loss, or surrendered their homes to the bank.

For communities of color, the crisis was even worse. African-American and Latino borrowers were at least twice as likely to receive a higher cost loan than White applicants, even when controlling for income and credit scores, and they were nearly 50 percent more likely to face foreclosure during the crisis.

So what did we do about it? Well, we passed laws to stop lenders from offering mortgages that were, in many ways, doomed to fail. We said that from now on banks and mortgage lenders would have to make a reasonable and good-faith determination that borrowers could pay back their loans by looking at income, employment, credit history, monthly expenses, and other metrics. We prohibited banks from using these teaser rates to determine whether a borrower could repay a loan. We did the sensible thing, and we required them to make sure that borrowers could actually afford their payments once the higher interest rates kicked in.

We also passed reforms to better catch discriminatory lending practices because we know that, in many cases, the riskiest products were offered to minority communities. We asked banks to provide data that they already collected on things like debt-to-income ratios, credit scores, loan-to-value ratios, interest rates, and loan terms. This way, we could better identify emerging risks and possible discriminatory lending practices in our communities. Were all of these reforms perfect? Of course not. Have they made our mortgage lending system safer, smarter, and fairer for credit borrowers? Absolutely. Does that mean we still don't face challenges? No. New Jerseyans know that. Our State still suffers the highest rate of foreclosure in the Nation, and many New Jersey neighborhoods still struggle with frequent foreclosures, abandoned homes, and their painful consequences.

Likewise, discrimination still persists. I was appalled by a report released in January that showed African-American and Latino families-- even controlling for income, loan amount, and location--continue to be disproportionately denied conventional mortgages. These practices are nothing short of modern-day redlining. We see it in Camden, NJ, for example, where Black applicants are still more than 2\1/2\ times likelier to be denied than White applicants.

Now, 10 years after the crisis, Congress is poised to turn back the clock. Under this bill, some banks will once again be able to offer mortgages with teaser rates of 4 percent that more than double in just 2 years, without ever verifying if a borrower could afford a 9-percent interest rate, and all they have to do is keep the loans on their books.

This bill will excuse 85 percent of banks from sharing the data we need to identify discrimination and ensure all creditworthy borrowers have a fair shot at the American dream of home ownership. So if this sounds familiar, that is because it is. History is repeating itself.

Beyond making mortgage lending riskier and less fair, this bill removes guardrails we put in place for 25 of the 38 largest banks in the country. These are the banks identified as systemically important during the crisis--the banks that received $47 billion in bailouts.

Now, I appreciate my colleagues who point out this bill's benefits for community banks and credit unions--and I mean that. That is a good thing. But I fear these provisions mask giveaways that will make big banks bigger and, ultimately, hurt smaller banks struggling to compete. Under title IV, for example, this bill significantly cuts oversight of banks with assets between $50 billion and $250 billion.

Have we forgotten so quickly the lessons we learned after the crisis? Do we not remember how the government had to arrange forced mergers of Countrywide, with $200 billion in assets, and National City, with $145 billion in assets, because their near-failures worked to spread risk from Wall Street to Main Street?

Do we really want to weaken these guardrails--the stress tests and the capital planning requirements to ensure that banks can survive a crisis, the living wills that ensure they have a feasible way to unwind if things go badly, and the minimum liquid assets they must hold in the event they lose access to funding markets?

When taxpayer dollars are on the line, I don't think it is unfair to ask big banks to be safe and smart. On the contrary, it is unfair to the American people who will have to bail them out when and if they get into trouble.

Supporters of this bill are quick to point out that it preserves the Federal Reserve's authority to take action if they become concerned about a bank with less than $250 billion in assets. Well, forgive me for not having confidence in regulators with a long history of doing too little too late. That is exactly the kind of risk that taxpayers,

homeowners, and investors can't afford.

As the chairman of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission recently wrote, ``history has shown, time and again, that the failure of financial firms that are not among the largest mega-banks can pose systemic risks to financial stability.'' According to the Congressional Budget Office, these weaker protections make it even more likely that taxpayers will once again have to bail out banks.

At the end of the day, this bill injects tremendous risk into the system and undercuts our tools to have our financial cops on the beat actually work to monitor the risk. So that leaves taxpayers on the hook if risk then turns into crisis. Rather than protecting families, this bill is packed full of goodies for large banks and special interests, because consumers--the families who would suffer the most in another crisis--don't have a seat at the table.

As a member of the Banking Committee, I worked in good faith to amend this bill and make it better. I offered an amendment called Christopher's Law to better protect consumers like the Bryski family in New Jersey. While mourning the tragic loss of their son Christopher, the Bryskis were stunned to learn that they would be responsible for paying an education their son could never use because they had cosigned his private student loan. I appreciate that my colleagues incorporated major components of Christopher's Law to protect families that suffer the tragic loss of a loved one into the manager's package for this bill.

When you look at the totality of the bill's provisions, the fact remains that we couldn't get an inch for consumers in exchange for the miles this bill gives to big banks. Take, for example, my amendment to enhance protections for military servicemembers who often struggle to protect their credit while they are serving our country abroad or the amendment I offered to prevent the rewards of this bill from flowing to banks that adopt punishing, Wells-Fargo-style sales cultures that put consumers at risk. These are just some of the pro-consumer, commonsense amendments that were rejected in the Banking Committee.

Ultimately, I still believe Congress could pass legislation that provides targeted relief to community banks and credit unions, but not in exchange for erasing the standards that protect working families and our economy from systemic risk. So you can bet that I will be working here on the floor to get those amendments included in full. Senator Cortez Masto and I will offer an amendment to ensure that banks report the data we need to police against discriminatory lending practices.

Likewise, I am offering an amendment to require that consumer reporting agencies like Equifax quickly disclose data breeches and require a Federal study of how these breeches impact consumers over the long haul.

Finally, I am proposing an amendment that requires mutual funds to disclose to their shareholders whether they invest in the gun industry, because it is downright offensive to be considering a banking bill this week instead of pressing corporate America to step up in the fight against gun violence that rips our country apart year after year.

These measures, if adopted, would make a bad bill a bit better, but as we quickly approach the 10-year anniversary of the government-backed bailout of Bear Stearns, I cannot, in good conscience, vote to remove the guardrails we put in place to prevent big banks from playing fast and loose with our economy in the first place.

The financial crisis and recession stripped trillions of dollars in wealth from communities all across the country. While banks were bailed out, families were left reeling with the consequences. From foreclosure to job losses to hard-hit retirement accounts and falling home values, the American people bore the brunt of the financial crisis. For years, Washington protected Wall Street from sensible regulations when we should have been protecting consumers. Unfortunately, it took the greatest financial crisis since the Great Depression for us to pass the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act for us to make a fundamental choice to reject a system that took advantage of consumers and instead stand for a banking system that is more fair, transparent, and accountable to the American people.

To quote the Spanish philosopher George Santayana, ``those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.'' Only in Washington would anyone think it is a good idea to commemorate the 10-year anniversary of the financial crisis with a bill that dares big banks to get bigger and increases risks to taxpayers.

I look forward to the day when this Congress strives to do better by the working families who lost their homes, their jobs, and their life savings during the crisis. Hard-working families had to fight their way back from the recession without bailouts and are counting on us to fight for them in Washington, and that is what I intend to do.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I wish to affirm the partnership between the United States and Guatemala. I also rise to speak to the crucial role the Guatemalan attorney general has in efforts to strengthen the rule of law and the importance of the selection of the country's next attorney general.

In addition to the important contributions that more than 1 million Guatemalan Americans make to the United States, our two countries share a wide range of economic, social, and cultural linkages. In the past 2 years, Guatemalan President Jimmy Morales has emerged as a partner on U.S. foreign policy priorities. He has supported U.S. efforts to increase diplomatic pressure against Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro in the face of the humanitarian, economic, and political crisis in Venezuela. President Morales is also working to align Guatemalan foreign policy with the U.S. approach to the Middle East, both at the United Nations and by recently announcing that Guatemala will move its embassy to Jerusalem.

Since 2014, I have supported increased U.S. assistance for Guatemala and the other Northern Triangle countries in order to address levels of violence and poverty that drive migration in the region. I believe that continued U.S. engagement can be transformative for efforts to increase security, strengthen democratic governance, support civil society, improve protections for human rights, and foster economic development. However, we must recognize that these efforts would be futile without the work of Guatemala's attorney general.

While President Morales made the commendable decision to increase the budget for Guatemala's Public Ministry, which is overseen by the attorney general, I am troubled by recent actions that run counter to the Ministry's work. For the past 11 years, Guatemala has become an example in the fight against impunity. This is due, in no small part, to the work, commitment, and determination of Guatemala's attorneys general and the efforts of the United Nations International Commission Against Impunity in Guatemala--known by its Spanish acronym, CICIG--an independent investigative body that works closely with the Public Ministry.

Since its creation in 2006, CICIG has worked with the Public Ministry to investigate and dismantle the criminal networks that seek to influence the Guatemalan state, while also helping increase the capacity of local judicial institutions. Such efforts have contributed to reducing Guatemala's overall impunity rate for homicides from 95 percent to 72 percent. These institutions deserve our steadfast support so they can continue their progress building a safer and more prosperous Guatemala, which in turn contributes to a more stable hemisphere. The success of this model has served as a model for similar efforts in other countries.

Although there has been tangible progress, much work remains, and Guatemala will continue to benefit from a sustained commitment to good governance and accountability. I worry recent actions signal a move in the wrong direction, including the recent removal

of Interior Minister, including Francisco Rivas and the chief of Guatemala's Internal Revenue Service, Juan Solorzano Foppa--both were key partners of the Public Ministry and the CICIG. I was equally concerned about attempts last year to reform the Guatemalan penal code in a way that may complicate the prosecution of cases involving illicit financing and commuted sentences for crimes such as extortion, trafficking, and sexual assault. I was truly shocked by President Morales' attempt to expel CICIG commissioner, Ivan Velasquez, from Guatemala. The work of Commissioner Velasquez is highly regarded and attempting to remove him simply sends the wrong message to those interested in Guatemala's fight against impunity.

These developments are deeply concerning as Guatemala is in the process of selecting its next attorney general. It is imperative that the Morales administration ensures a credible and efficient process in which all Guatemalans can have faith. It is equally necessary that the nominating commission responsible for selecting candidates conduct a transparent, merit-based process, guided by international standards. Most importantly, it is essential that President Morales select a person with the best qualifications, professionalism, and impeccable ethical standards to continue advancing an agenda that upholds the independence and impartiality of the institution. Here in the U.S. Senate, we will be following this process closely.

During her visit to Guatemala, Ambassador Nikki Haley reaffirmed U.S. support for CICIG and Commissioner Velasquez, noting that it would be in President Morales' best interest to continue support for the UN body and the commissioner. Ambassador Haley's message builds on ongoing bipartisan efforts, including continued U.S. engagement in Central America's Northern Triangle, steadfast support for CICIG, and ensuring accountability for human rights abuses, when necessary, through the implementation of the Global Magnitsky Act.

Yesterday, I had the chance to meet with Commissioner Velasquez and reaffirm my support for him and CICIG as they carry out their critical work. I remain committed to ensuring that the State Department, U.S. Agency for International Development, and the Treasury Department use all of our foreign policy tools to help strengthen democratic governance and the rule of law as we continue our support for the Guatemalan government and CICIG.

Guatemala's next attorney general must continue the courageous work of current Attorney General Thelma Aldana and former Attorney General Claudia Paz y Paz, whose efforts have been invaluable in the fight against impunity. Failure to do so would undercut the commitment of prosecutors and judges who have done their work with professionalism and adherence to the law and whose efforts have produced tangible results.

Promoting good governance and the rule of law in Guatemala is critical to building a resilient, secure, and prosperous nation for all Guatemalans. Guatemala has taken commendable steps in establishing itself as a leader on these and other critical issues in the hemisphere. It is my sincere belief that committing to these efforts will greatly contribute to overall stability and success to the region, including the United States.

In closing, I urge President Morales to support the work of the Public Ministry and CICIG, so they are able to move forward with their important work without interference. I also encourage President Morales to continue his commitment to transparency and accountability, and to advancing his statement that, ``the rule of law should always prevail.''