interests and western national security and european energy security than the former chancellor of germany, gerhardt schroeder, the former chance letter of gorm. he was the chancellor of germany. when he left, what did he do? he immediately went to work for gazprom to sell natural gas to european countries, including his own government, his own country, germany. so, to me, that represents a remarkable betrayal of western values, nato security, european energy security. doesn't get highlighted, but for our german friends, and they are our good, close allies, it is one thing to protest our president but take a look at your former chancellor. he is doing more damage to the national security of europe, the energy security of germany, and

our allies than probably anybody else in europe. but the bottom line, mr. president, this 2% energy -- this 2% g.d.p. goal, this concern that we have with russian energy into european capitals, these have been bipartisan concerns of democrat and republican administrations from the united states for decades, and i think this nato summit we're starting to see some good progress. the president ended the nato meeting by saying, quote, the united states commitment to nato is very strong, remains very strong, and the spirit of countries willing to spend additional amounts of money is amazing to see, to see that level of spirit in the room of all the leaders is incredible. that's what the president said today. and i think that was a good message to end this nato leaders

' summit in brussels. but, mr. president, i want to emphasize another point about our alliances, about nato. it's also important to know that nato is not just the sum of the amount of money that countries spend. that's important. there's no doubt about it. but this alliance, which many have viewed as the most successful military a-- alliance in history, is a lot more than just money. at its heart, it's about common values. at its heart, it's about countries coming together to defend democracy. at its heart, it's about countries that have the same core national security interests. and, mr. president, this is very important.

at it's arctic it's about shared -- at it's heart, it's about shared sacrifice -- shared sacrifice. yes, there's shared sacrifice in the checkbook, but it goes way, way beyond this. it's very important to remember that article 5 of the nato treaty, which is the treaty by which countries invoke the common defense -- when you invoke article 5, that means, hey, all the other allies are coming to help you. all the other allies are coming to defend you. article 5 has been invoked in the nato treaty, which was passed by this body in 1949, one time, one time. when was it invoked? after the terrorist attacks of september 11, 2001.

our nato allies said, we're going to help defend america. that's really important, and they did. and they did. again, we talk too much about dollars -- and, again, i commend the president for what he's done -- but let's talk about other shared sacrifice. the alliances that we have around the world aren't just about money. since 9/11 it over 1,000 non-u.s. nato troops have been killed in action in afghanistan coming to our defense after 9/11 going after the terrorists who killed over 3,000 americans on 9/11. over 1,000 nato soldiers, non-american nato soldiers, have

paid the ultimate sacrifice because of the alliance they had with the united states. you can't put a price tag on that. you can't put a price tag on that. some sacrifices are more than just dollars. some sacrifices can't be measured in dollars, and i think it's important for all of us here in the senate, for the trump administration, and for all americans to remember that to remember that. and i want to thank the families of those over 1,000 nato alliance member soldiers who've been killed in action -- and, by the way, mr. president, thousands and thousands more wounded in action in afghanistan, hunting down terrorists who killed our

citizens. it's very important to remember that. bottom line, mr. president -- when this comes to one of the most important and enduring strategic advantages we have anywhere in the world%, it's this -- we are an ally-rich nation and our adversaries, like russia, like north korea, like iran, and our potential adversaries, like china, are ally-poor. we are ally-rich. countries trust us. countries want to join alliances with the united states. and our adversaries and potential adversaries are ally-poor. in that system of alliances that's been built over 70 years through the hard work of democrats and republicans,

presidents, secretaries of state and defense, u.s. senators, that has been a joint collective effort. and here's something else that's important to know. our adversaries and potential adversaries know that this is the most, one of the most, if not the most strategic important advantage we have over any other country, and that is why for years -- for decades -- countries like russia and china and iran and north korea have tried to split up our alliances. we shouldn't let that happen. we shouldn't let that happen. and it's important to remember this as we continue to deal with these countries, and i think that this nato summit sent a strong message that we're going

to stand together for decades more to come. and when it comes to alliances, mr. president, this body in particular, pursuant to the u.s. constitution, plays a very important role. the alliances that i've talked about, including especially this week nato, came to the united states senate for ratification. so, again, it is important as we talk about national security -- and we talk about it% and we talk about -- and we talk about 2% and we talk about burden-sharing, yes, we need from our allies. but we also need to remember that our alliances go well beyond the checkbook. common values, shared sacrifice, and sometimes that's the most important issue to remember as we continue to deepen our alliances and expand them

throughout the world, which is the best way to keep peace and prosperity, not just for us but for the entire world. mr. president, i ask that my following remarks appear in a different section of the "congressional record." the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sullivan: mr. president, it's thursday afternoon, and for the new pages here, you will hopefully see that this is certainly one of my favorite moments in the senate. i know it's the presiding officer who gets to see the alaskan of the week every week around this time. but i guarantee the young men and women who are doing a great job as our pages, they're going to start to view this as their favorite time, too, because you get to hear about alaska, and you get to hear stories about example arkansas, and you get to hear about great people, wonderful people. and the great state of alaska has been doing great things for their community, their state,

their country. we call that person our alaskan of the week. now, from the on-set, we've tried to focus on people generally who are unsung heroes in their communities. people who have worked diligently a lot of times without a lot of recognition, and i get to, with my colleagues, come down here and tell stories about what they've done for their community or their state or even their country. but other times we've recognized someone in our state who has made the headlines, someone whose contributions are well-known through all parts of the state, and we just do because it we want to reemphasize it, because it's important. today we're going to recognize one of those people who's well-known in alaska but we think is worthy certainly of the

title alaskan of the week because of all he has donald trump his name is bill sheffield who was our state's governor in 19 he 82 and has spent his adult life making alaska a better place for all of us. now, governor sheffield's story in alaska embodies what many of us love about our great state. it doesn't matterrer with you come from, or your social status. in alaska, if you have grit and tenacity and determination and a servant's heart, nothing can hold you back. governor sheffield was born in spokane, washington when the depression hit, his family had to grow and sell vegetables to survive. it was during this time that he saw firsthand how president roosevelt's new deal passed by this body helped people, including his father who was

struggling, and the idea that government was there to help people stayed with him and turned him into a lifelong democrat. he joined the air force and after his release joined sears and roebuck and in 1952 moved to the great state of alaska to work for the company as it expanded throughout the state. he repaired televisions and appliances and took on sales roles excelling in both repairs and sales. now, mr. president, he did this all the while suffering from a serious, difficult stutter, one that he had carried with him throughout his childhood. when he was a child, he said he simply couldn't or wouldn't talk. i had to point to pictures, he told one interviewer. but his stutter landed him tremendous empathy and also

steeled his determination to work hard, overcome obstacles and succeed. and succeed he did. he got into the hotel business, eventually owning a chain of 19 hotels across alaska, but he still wanted something more. he wanted to give back to his community more. and so in 1982 as a long shot politician, he ran for governor. and the long shot came in. and he won. he always understood and still does that infrastructure is the key to creating a path for economic growth in alaska. we are a resource rich but infrastructure poor state. and the policies that he undertook as governor and the projects that were built during his administration, likely more infrastructure projects than any other governor, still have a huge impact on our state today. let me just mention a few of

them. the largest zinc mine, zinc and lead mine literally in the world, the red dog mine in northwest, alaska was made possible by his hard work and countless other alaskans. the ketchikan shipyard was build during the sheffield administration, a construction road program was undertaken throughout the state and particularly in the city of anchorage. the bradley lake hydroproject near homer was built during his administration along with several other hydroprojects throughout southeast alaska. he traveled extensively throughout rural alaska. he got to almost every single village in our state. we have over 200 that are not connected by roads. that's marred to -- that's hard to do. almost every one was visited by our governor.

but his crowning achievement was the purchase of the alaska railroad. when he first became governor, the federal government which had owned the railroad was threatening to shut it down, which would have been devastating to our state. there were no private buyers so governor sheffield worked with the state legislature and the congressional delegation to buy the railroad from the federal government. then they created a state-owned corporation designed to be operated like a private business. and that railroad, the alaska railroad, still serves as a critical transportation link for goods and people throughout alaska. since his time in office, governor chef -- sheffield has continued his ties to the railroad as c.e.o. and chairman of the board. he also continued to serve in other public service capacities, like the port director in anchorage and has contributed to numerous causes, served on many charitable boards like the

community foundation board and has received countless awards and recognition for his public service. but what really makes governor sheffield so special to so many is that he is just a kind, warm person. he's always lending a hand to others. he's always there for many when he's needed. and he does this without regard for political affiliation. his house is always full of republicans, democrats, libertarians. last year i was at a great event at his house where he honored the coast guard foundation. many members both current and past on both sides of the plift cal aisle -- of the political aisle including from this body have eaten wonderful dinners in his home, including my good friend senator john mccain who

had dinner in governor sheffield's house with senator hillary clinton. now that's bipartisanship. where he opens all his doors in his beautiful home, all are welcome. mr. president, governor sheffield recently celebrated his 90th birthday with a party in anchorage. unfortunately, i was not able to attend, but i heard it was one for the ages. hundreds of people showing up. people from all walks of life, all political affiliations were there, all of them sharing deep affection for one of our state's giants, a man with a huge heart who's made life better for countless alaskans. so governor sheffield, from the senate happy 90th birthday. thanks for your great service to our great state and all you've done and congratulations on

being our alaskan of the week. i yield the floor. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk shall call the roll.

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. rubio: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent take the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. rubio: if you're like me, a member of the senate in the hallways this week, i think the two questions that have come up over and over again were about the nato meeting that just transpired over the last couple of days and the upcoming meeting on monday between vladimir putin and president trump. and i had intended to come to the floor and speak about policy towards china on trade. there's a lot to cover. there was an article this morning in the associated press about how the chinese government has turned the american business class into lobbyists, basically telling these guys that are doing business in china, shoe go

back to washington and -- you should go back to washington and lobby your government to stop imposing tariffs are you guys are going to pay a price. but i'll have time to talk about that next week. that was really my intentsz. i want to focus in on this meeting on monday between president trump and vladimir putin. because there's a lot high perly. i -- hyperbole. i had someone come to me and say are you concerned that the president is going to meet with vladimir putin with no one else in the room. i said i can guarantee someone else will be in the room because the president doesn't speak russian so it's not going to be a productive meeting unless there are one or two other people there. that's the least we should be focused on. we should take the stuff serious because it's an important and serious meeting. i don't take a back seat to anyone in terms of being clear-eyed about vladimir putin. and i want to talk about that today a little bit. i want to start out by saying let's all take deep breath and be reasonable here. it is not unusual for the president of the united states

to meet with the president of russia because of the 16,000 nuclear weapons on this planet, 90% of them are possessed by one of these two countries, almost equally divided. so i think because -- this is the reason why other presidents have met with putin or whoever the leader is of the russian federation and that's why those meetings are important and will continue. that said, it is important when we analyze these meetings and what we hope they're about and what we hope they produce to understand not just who you're meeting with and what they do but to understand why they're doing it. if you do not understand what the other side wants and what motivates them, then the meetings are not nearly as productive and neither is our analysis or the suggestions we make about our policy towards that country. first, it's understanding vladimir putin. i never met the man. i don't think you need to to believe a couple of things about him. the first is he's a very suspicious human being himself, suspicious of others and i think

its kgb background probably influenced that. he also grew up in the cold war in russia in the soviet union when russians didn't even trust each other. so imagine growing up in a society where people spy on each other and you don't know if you're a friend in school, if you say something, they'll report you to the authorities not to mention the authorities themselves being -- looking at you all the time and then actually being a product of tear intelligence services. so i think when you grow up in that era in a place like that, you are naturally going to be suspicious of other people. and you're going to ascribe to the attributes. so that is the first thing. by the way, i think that also informs his view of the united states. it is impossible, i believe, for someone like this to grow up in that era and that place working where he did and not have deep suspicions and views, negative views about the united states and the west at large. the second thing that's pretty apparent just by watching him is this is a guy who is pretty competitive. he kind of views everything as a personal thing, personal level

dominance is important to him but more importantly his relationship with the united states is a competitive one. i think by and large he views the world as a zero sum gain but most certainly views the relationship it the united states and russia as a zero sum gain meaning in any sort of interaction we're having a vladimir putin, there is no scenario in which he envisions that we both do well. he believes there is only so much success in the world and the more i have of it, the less he has of it. i do believe it informs all the decisions that he makes. there can only be one winner. i think he's also deeply driven by the way, by his personal image. he probably wouldn't last two weeks in american politics where people are habitually mocked and you run for public office, you're a public figure, whether it's social media or the like, everyone gets read ciewled, mocked -- ridiculed, mocked, and attacked. he's probably sensitive about it. the one thing you can tell

watching him, this is a person who works very hard to control his emotions. he never wants to look angry or afraid of something or worried about anything. he never wants to look like he's in doubt of anything. he's very image driven and drives a lot about how he controls his emotions him the other thing that is common sense if you grew up as a spy in the kgb, you know how valuable personal information is and how person a.m. information about you can be weaponnized. that's why we know very little about him as a person or his personal life, his health, any of these things. you would never know about it other than what he allows us to see, him on a horse without a shirt on, whatever he wants to show us that day because he wants to control the personal information that's available, but he also wants to be able to portray this image and the image he wants to portrayed is twofold. he wants an image that vladimir putin is a indispensable world leader. he is a guy that matters and

that in every major crisis on this planet, he is a person whose views and position has to be taken into account. and that drives a lot of the decisions that he makes. it's the reason right now why they're in libya. it's the reason why they're in afghanistan, it's at the reason why they're trying to figure out how he can finagle his way into the talks on north korea. he wants to be a leader and there should not be any major discussion that he is not a part of. that's tied his second end goal. that is the one that drives most of what he is does. he wants to restore russia as a great world power equal to the united states of america. now, he cannot that economically. the russian economy is a g.d.p. of $2 trillion, which makes it roughly the size of some of our states in the united states but also roughly the size of italy and spain and other countries. so he is not an economic superpower. therefore, he can only be an acy

metrical superpower, meaning using things that are not traditional like cyber warfare and his role on the security council, and the other is military, the ability to project power and to threaten with the nuclear weapons and also with their conventional capabilities to invade neighboring countries or to inter intervene in places like syria. ultimately what drives him most of all, in addition tock himself, he wants himself and the united states to be viewed as equal powers on the world stage. and i think it's pretty clear from the what he has said publicly that if you use the 1990 as an era of humiliation for russia. he considers the period of time from the world war ii that the we are pregnant on russia. he views the world as a consumer zero sum game. a place where the --

understanding all of that the and any interaction with them is critical to having a positive or productive -- at a minimum not damage interaction because if we go in with any illusions that this is somehow somebody that if we get along with with him better or we work on some things together that's going to change his behavior and be less problematic is a fool's errand. because at the end of the day, if you believe the world is a zero sum game and if you believe that the competition between the united states and russia is one in which every time we win, they lose and vice versa, then it is going to be very hard to find areas of interest that we can truly work on for the benefit, the mutual benefit of both countries. that does not mean that you are unnecessarily antagonistic. the bottom line is that the united states is both economically, militarily and diplomatically superior to the russian federation government in terms of our influence and our ability to do things in the world. when you are stronger not in image necessarily but in

reality, it should give you a level of security to be able to figure out ways in which we can work on things that are good for our country but also not lose the wisdom of understanding that you are often fall into traps and that's what we do not want to fall into the trap of. so -- and by the way, on this whole point of strong versus weak, i know number of my colleagues had an opportunity to travel to moscow during the last recess. it is interesting how it was covered in the american media or you this they toker tray the visit. how russian media covered it. the russian media basically controlled them -- state-controlled media, so they will control it any way they want. they almost made it look like these weaklings from america came over. they're very frustrated by this. it gives you unsight into the way they view things in the world. that's why very rarely will you ever see an interaction that they couch as a meeting that is

respectful. it always wants to put putin in a dominant position and it always wants to put russia in a dominant position. one of the tactics that putin uses to accomplish this is before meetings even happen, he announces ahead of time that a deal has been struck, almost like to trap you into the deal. since he is announcing the deal, it sounds like something he came up with. all of these are interesting points but where does that lead us into these conversations? there are a few things we need to keep in mind. the first is invitations to work together and they will probably happen and he will probably pre-announce them before this visit. one, he will he'll say, why don't we work on counterterrorism. a lot of people will say, that makes a lot of sense. why can't we work with putin to go after terrorists? and ideally the answer would be, yes, we have strong disagreements about a the love things, but if there is a an isis element or an al qaeda element and we have a chance to work together on it, then we should pursue it. there is a problem, though. this is what i hope everyone is

clear-eyed about. they are not very good counterterrorism partners. their capabilities are not very good. they're not targeting terrorists in syria. they are bombing schools and hospitals and they've -- not only have they committed war crimes, they have assisted assad in committing war crimes. in you were going after terrorists, you would go after the places that terrorists are. they've spent their time going after non-terrorist rebels or at least non-al qaeda, non-isis represent else. they're not very good at counterterrorism. they are a not very capable. the other is he use that as an opportunity to spy on us. because when you are cooperating together militarily, you are embedded alongside each other and sharing information, that gives you a lot of opportunity to spy on the people you're working with. and so we need to be wary of that. so any effort to work together on counterterrorism has to be real, has to be truly about terrorists, and it has to protect the united states and our information. the second thing they love to talk about is, well, why don't we work together on arms

control. there's two problems. it sound good on problem. the first is they cheat. they violate t they deny it but they violate it. the other is they're for arms control as long as the application are the ones we have more of or as long as the arms are ones that we are technologically superior in. they seek to use it as an advantage. it difficult because if you go out and talk to people, hey, the russians with a tonight work together on arms control, everybody says, hey, that's good idea. it sounds great on paper. but the reality is very different. it means we are going to look for opportunities to cheat on our end, try to strictly enforce if on your end. remember, zero sum game. if they we are in a counterterrorism relationship with us, it will be nun which they win and we lose because vladimir putin does not see a cooperative agreement with anyone. if it is an arms reduction agreement, remember zero sum game because he is motivated by

the desire to win at our expense and he would use arms control as an opportunity to do that if he can structure it appropriately. the other one we hear him talk about is cyber. imagine a cyber deal with vladimir putin. again, vladimir putin knows that the united states private sector and government has superior cyber capabilities than he does. if he can come up with some sort of cyber agreement that creates rules that take away our advantage but allows him to chin to cheat and deny that they're cheating, zero sum game. he is able to jump on top of us. so these are things that we want to give an eye on. the other things to keep an eye on moving forward in this relationship is the unexpected. one of the things that you have seen in his behavior and his zero sum game sort of analysis of our relationship with them is, anytime he sees an opportunity to do something because we're distracted or because the world may not act,

he takes advantage of it. in 2007 in georgia, in 20013, 2014 in ukraine. we could see the ukrainian hostilities resume. the world is focused on north korea. we're focused on the arguments with the nato stuff. we're focused on the trade situation with china and canada and mexico and everybody else. everybody is talking about something different and ukraine has fallen off the headlines. you can wake up one morning and realize that hostilities have resumed. maybe this will be ramping up their involvement in places like libya or afghanistan. we wake up and realize they have deployed significant assets to those countries or both, for that matter. and it would be very reminiscent to what we saw him do in syria and the excuse would be, we have the russians, we're already there. they've invited us to come in and help them. but you have to foresee that. the one thing i think we should anticipate putin will push very strongly on is to get the united states to completely pull out of syria.

and what he ideally probably wants is some sort of,, quote-unquote, international process to resolve it but an international process in which russia not only is a key player but they get to stay in syria, they get to keep their naval base, they get to keep their air assets. all supervised by the international community. but the united states has to leave first and he would love nothing more than an opportunity to set up that sort of scenario because then in a zero sum game situation he foresees the world in the next five years in which russia has significant military and other assets in syria permanently, potentially in iraq, afghanistan, libya, and all of a sudden the countries of the middle east are saying to themselves, you know, russia and vladimir putin is a guy who can be a good interlocutor, meetate of disputes in this region. this is a person we should be

working with. he would love nothing more than that. understand he would be able to do it without committing 100,000 troops, 50,000 troops who are a large loss of russian personnel. zero sum game. great power politics. the notion that he wants to be equal to the united states. imagine if he could create a scenario in which, if he hasn't done so already, in which russia in the middle east is at least as important if not more important than the united states, a situation in which they have permanent military assets and a friendly regime in syria, potentially in iraq, afghanistan, libya, and other places and the united states is pulling out of syria, being forced to reduce its presence in iraq and in other places. they become de facto and more upon than we do in the middle east. and he takes one step towards achieving the goal of reaching parity with the united states of america as far as an influential global power. by the way, these efforts to

increase their influence would not just be limited to the middle east. you could foresee them doing this in the western hemisphere. i read an article a few days ago, a big fanfare, they opened up what they called a counter-drug school in nicaragua. and i can only tell you that while it may very well be called the counter-drug school, when anytime that a country welcomes in a limited number of russian military personnel and others, you're welcoming in spies and influence agents and the ability to project power. they've long wanted permanent or at least semipermanent basing opportunities in the western hemisphere like they had during the cold war. they already have intelligence facilities. they already have a presence in cuba. they would love nothing more than to get into a place or expand their presence in a place like could you about a or venezuela. this is an important conversation but it oftentimes

gets lost in all of this rhetoric that is going on around the elections and american politics. we have to understand very clearly that we're not dealing with belgium here. we're dealing with vladimir putin, who views the world as a zero sum game, the strong versus the weak, and is trying to position russia and himself as the strong versus others, who he hopes he can weaken. and he also wants -- there is no interaction between us and them in which he does not want to come out ahead. he does not feel that there is such a thing as a mutually good deal. it's -- the only good deals for him are deals in which they win and whoever he's dealing with loses, especially if it's the united states. i would wrap up by saying that with all this in mind, i would not diminish the threat that russia continues to pose to our electoral system, our society, and our politics. the number-one objective, the number-one objective of russians efforts in 2016 -- and it would be the number-one objective

moving forward -- is encouraging infighting in our politics. they have a clear understanding of american politics and its nuances. our societal divisions, the things we like to fight over and how we fight over them and where we fight over them on. and they have figured out and have gotten even better at being able to drive those narratives. and so when people ask, what was the real goal of those efforts in 2016, beyond anything else, it was not electing one person or another. his number-one objective, number-one objective, with as to leave a country in the united states deeply divided, at each other's throats, constantly fighting and no matter who won the election, that was the result he wanted. those efforts continue. the second effort i think that they have as a priority by the way is to create pro-russia constituencies in the united states. and what i mean by that are people in american politics who actually take the russian side or the putin side of a debate. and you already see the -- sort of the early phases of that in

some placings. it's still a minority thought process, but it's not unusual in many cases. because it's gotten wrapped up in up a the other things going on. it is not outside the realm of the possible. but you could see the growth of some pro-putin element, maybe not like what you see in europe or russian-speaking parts of europe but some pro-russian constituencies in the united states whether that is somehow wrapped up around partisanship or the like, these remains their goals. they cannot compete with us economically, but if they can divide us from within, it weakens us, at least in his mind, and it's one of the things he can point to and say look how weak america is. all they do is fight with each other. their democracy is a fraud, and look how strong we are because there's no dissent, no infighting going on in my russia. what he doesn't tell you is

whoever fights against him winds up in jail. so these are the things to keep in mind as we move forward because the tools that remain at his disposal are still very significant. for example, you could, i could foresee the time of day where a lot of times a lot of focus in america about they go into the ballot box and change the votes. that's probably much harder to do because of the way we conduct elections in america, so decentralizing. a cyber actor could change party registrations, go into the database and erase a pwufrpbl of voters. -- a bunch of voters. imagine if they did so by being able to use analytic tools to identify here are the people in this county we think are likely to vote for this candidate, and we're going to knock out a bunch of them so enough people say they are not registered. if you get enough people to do that and enough people complain to the press you're going to have stories saying supporters of candidate x or y were not allowed to vote in the election.

fraud. democracy is dead. you could foresee that at some point in the future. it's a real threat. you could foresee vladimir putin taking the next step and doing here what he's done in parts of europe, and that's creating an enemies' list. politiciansthat he believes are anti-russia and targeting those individuals, targeting them with information he steals by hacking their e-mails, even doctoring, fake documents, perhaps doing something like deep face which is something we'll be talking about next week. that basely is off the shelf technology you can buy right now where you can produce a video that without the proper technology, you could not tell is fake where a person is saying something they never said or doing something they didn't do, a doctored video that looks real. imagine that on the eve of an election, a video pops up online, the media starts to report of it a candidate saying something offensive they never said or taking a bribe because of a doctored video that looks real.

and unless you're a technical expert, you can't tell. it's called a deep fake. they're not that hard to make. if they're not that hard to make with someone with off the shelf technology, imagine for a nation-state that decides to use it. we could foresee them targeting specific races. they have a pretty good understanding of american politics. you could foresee where they would say there's a congressional race or a governor's race or a senate race, somewhere in the country that's going to be a really big deal. it has an outsized influence on american politics. and what we're going to do is that's the race we're going to interfere in and we're going to do something to impact the outcome of it because we think that will further our narrative one way or the other. we have to be clear-eyed about all these things as we go into this. i would say perhaps the greatest goal that vladimir putin would have in the short term is weakening nato. not just tphuft limiting its -- in just limiting its expansion but weakening its resolve. nato at the end of the day beyond military hardware that is a part of it, is no better than

the true commitment of the nations who are a member of it to live up to the organizing documents commitments that we make to one another, meaning we have a commitment along with our partners in nato that if one of us is attacked, we've all been attacked. that's only been invoked one time in history, and that was after september 112001. but if he how could not just keep us from expanding nato, begin to undermine it from within, it would be an enormous victory because, again, for him it would be a sign that america's diminishing, that the threats against them are diminishing and his influence and russia's world in the world increased. this is an important meeting. it probably won't be the last time they meet. but more important than the meeting are the issues at play between a leader in russia who views everything as a zero-sum game in which either he wins or america wins but it can't be

mutually beneficial. we have to deal with him. he possesses a significant percentage of the world's nuclear weapons between the u.s. and russia. we have 90% of the world's nuclear weapons between these two countries. we have to talk to them but we have to do so very clear-eyed and that is it is a complicated but important relationship, and we should clearly understand what motivates him and what motivates his decision making and what their aims and roles are in any conversation that we have. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor.

mr. rubio: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. rubio: i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to consideration of the following nomination: executive calendar 912. the presiding officer: without objection. the clerk will report. the clerk: nomination, the judiciary, kelly higashi of the district of columbia to be an associate judge of the superior court of the district of columbia. mr. rubio: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate vote on the nomination with no intervening action or debate, that if confirmed the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, the president be immediately notified of the senate's action, that no further motions be in order and that any statements relating to the nomination be printed in the record. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. the question is on the

nomination. all in favor say aye. all opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the nomination is confirmed. mr. rubio: i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the consideration of the following nomination, executive calendar 913. the presiding the presiding officer: without objection. the clerk: emory a. rounds of maine to be director. mr. rubio: i ask unanimous consent that if confirmed the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, the president be immediately notified of the senate's action, that no further motions be in order and that any statements relating to the nomination be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. the question is on the nomination. all in favor say aye. all opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the nomination is confirmed. mr. rubio: i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the consideration of the following nomination: executive

calendar 2924. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: nomination, department of state. georgett mosbacher of florida to be ambassador extraordinary to poland. mr. rubio: i ask unanimous consent that if confirmed the motion to reconsider be made and laid upon the table, the president be notified of the senate's action, no further motions be in order, that any statements related to the nomination be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. the question is on the nomination. those in favor say aye. all opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the nomination is confirmed. mr. rubio: i ask unanimous consent that the senate resume legislative session for a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. rubio: i ask unanimous consent that the judiciary committee be discharged from further consideration of the senate -- and that the senate

proceed to s. res. 558. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 558 designating july 30, 2018 as national whistle-blower appreciation day. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection the committee is discharged and the senate will proceed. mr. rubio: i ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. rubio: i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the decreasing of sp*z -- to the consideration of sp*z 574. the presiding officer: senate resolution 574 designating july 13, 2018, as collector car appreciation day, and so forth. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure. without objection. mr. rubio: i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be

considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. rubio: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of s. res. 575 submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 575, honoring the memory of the five victims of the attack of the "capital gazette" in annapolis, maryland on june 28, 2018. the presiding officer: without objection the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. rubio: i ask that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble p be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. rubio: i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today it adjourn until 3:00 p.m., monday, july 16, further that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for use later in the day and morning business be closed. i ask that following leader remarks the senate proceed to

executive session to consider executive calendar 936, scott stump and that the time until 5:30 p.m. be equally divided between the two leaders or their designees and that the senate then vote on confirmation of the nomination with no intervening action or debate. further, that if confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the president be immediately notified of the senate's action. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. rubio: if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until 3:00 p.m. on monday. this afternoon the senate approving the nomination of the defense department general counsel. they return on monday. we will return as well with live senate coverage when they do, monday july 16th at 3:00 p.m. eastern. on capitol hill, a hearing now seven hours underway in a break now because of votes in the house. the house judiciary and the

oversight committee, a joint hearing with fbi official peter strzok testifying on his texts and the fbi investigation into the 2016 elections and the hilary clinton e-mail investigation. that hearing will resume once house votes are done. and we will have live coverage of that here on c-span 2 when the committees gavel back in. until then, we're going to show you some senate floor debate from earlier today on the nomination of president -- the nomination of brett kavanaugh to be the next supreme court justice. >> madame president, as we all know the federal bureau of investigation is a component of the department of justice. it is frequently described as the premier law enforcement agency in the country. the fbi's investigative authority has only grown and