having discussions with public and closed doors the next few months. please reach out and let us know if you'd like to be involved and thank you for being here. [applaus [applause]. >> c-span, where history unfolds daily. in 1979 c-span was created as a public service by america's cable television companies. and today, we continue to bring you unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the supreme court and public policy events in washington d.c. and around the country. c-span is brought to you by your cable or satellite provider. provider. >> and we take you live now to the u.s. senate which today will be considering the nomination of ryan bounds to the federal appeals court in san francisco. senators could vote on confirmation for mr. bounds today. and now live to the floor of the u.s. senate here on

c-span2. the presiding officer : the senate will come to order. senate will come to order. the guest chaplain, reverend dr. richard gibbons, will lead the senate in prayer. let us join our hearts and minds together as we pray. gracious god and loving heavenly father as we prayerfully seek your presence enable us amidst

complex challenges to be refreshed and renewed by the transforming nature of your extravagant love. impart to us a profound sense of gratitude thankful that in your sovereign purposes we are a people: conceived in liberty shaped by adversity dedicated to equality while fully dependent on you for "in god we trust." father, grant to us a renewed sense of your calling sustained by the enduring values we hold to be self-evident. equip us by your spirit to be a senate defined by: consensus through compassion, expertise enlightened by experience, leadership resistant to polarization and expediency yet intentional in unity honesty, transparency, and integrity as together we seek to be "one nation under god." we bring our prayers to you in and through.

the name of christ our lord. amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington, d.c., july 19, 2018. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i here by appoint the honorable cindy hyde-smith, a senator from the state of mississippi, who will perform the duties of the chair. signed: orrin g. hatch, president pro tempore. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved.

mr. mcconnell: madam president. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: the senate's continuing our productive summer. this week we've been focused on confirming more of the president's qualified nominees after his confirmation yesterday andrew oldham of texas will now bring his impressive credentials and years of distinguished public serves to -- service to his new role. today we are considering ryan wesley bounds to serve on the ninth circuit. each has been selected by the president and his team for their credentials and commitment to the rule of law. each has been thoroughly examined by our colleagues on the judiciary committee. ryan bounds is no exception. he's earned degrees from stanford and yale. he clerked for the ninth circuit judge he's been nominated to succeed. for the last 14 years, he's distinguished himself as be a

public servant at the d.o.j. dodge -- department of justice. he has earned the respect of legal professionals from across the country and the political spectrum. 46 of his colleagues in the district of oregon describe his admiral work ethic and writing as skills colleagues and opponents alike seek to emulate. the criminal defense attorneys who have litigated against mr. bounds testified to his fairness an legal acumen. they write he has shown time and time again he is man of his word. he's an excellent lawyer and would make an outstanding judge. a number of law professors from across the country seem to agree. they remind us of the standards to which this body is charged withholding impartial nominees, fairness, impartiality.

one legal peer said, ryan has all of this and more. so, madam president, i look forward to confirm this excellent nominee and would urge all of my colleagues to join me. speaking of excellent nominees, i'd like to speak for a moment about president trump's outstanding choice for the supreme court, judge bret kavanaugh -- brett kavanaugh. this week even more of our colleagues have had a chance to meet judge kavanaugh. it's hard to come away without being impressed. the academic credentials and esteem of his peer and legal professionals, however, that has not stopped the far-left special interest groups from grasping at straws and trying to smear this nominee in any way they can. they don't seem to care whether it's honest or not. they don't seem to care whether it's accurate or now. the latest controversy is to make hay out of comments judge

kavanaugh said about the long expired independent counsel statute. but once again there's no there there whatsoever. here, madam president, are the facts. judge kavanaugh's apparent concerns about the independent counsel law appear in line with mainstream views that have been widely held on both sides of the political aisle. views that were, in fact, strongly held by many of my democratic colleagues at least until there was an opportunity to try to make political hay. congress chose -- chose to let the statute, pier back -- expire back in 1999 based in large part on constitutional concerns. let me say that again. the congress in 19 the 9 -- 1999, on a bipartisan basis, decided to let the independent counsel statute expire. my colleague, the senior senator from illinois, the assistant democratic leader in the senate right now explained this well

when he was fighting attempt to renew the statute. here's what he said in 1999 about the independent counsel. unchecked, unbiedled, unre -- unbridled, unrestrained and unaccountable. my friend from illinois punctuated his enthusiasm about the demise of this by saying to judge starr and all other independent counsel, your days are numbered. i agreed with him about the independent statute counsel. a number of members in both parties saw it the same way so we happily allowed the law to expire. this has nothing to do with special counsels. that's different from the independent counsel. the day the independent counsel statute expired -- the day we actually finished with the impeachment trial of president clinton here in the senate, senator chris dodd from connecticut and i went upstairs and had a press conference and

said we agree the independent counsel statute ought to be allowed to expire, and it did. that has nothing, madam president, to do with special counsels or any of the other tools currently in place for elected officials to be held accountable. this has nothing to do with any investigations that are in the headlines today. judge kavanaugh was talking -- what judge kavanaugh was talking about is a law that has not existed for two decades and which the supreme court upheld with only a single dissenting vote. and one of the dissenters in the case that upheld the independent counsel statute was justice scalia. the irony, or hypocrisy, is that our democratic colleagues are now criticizing judge kavanaugh because he may hold the same views on subject that they did. or at least they did up until judge kavanaugh was nominated. a view that was shared and acted

upon by members in this body both sides of the aisle, as i explained. another day, another off-base attack. here you a how newsweek described it. law experts told nuclear that kavanaugh's view on independent counsels has nothing to do with special counsels or mueller's probe. in fact, the two types of federal investigations are completely different. yet again the far-left special interest groups who are desperate to deny judge kavanaugh fair treatment are hoping the media will buy their latest madeup charge. remember the outrage when it was learned that judge kavanaugh enjoys baseball. my goodness. shocking. i'm proud the president has chosen a nominee as strong as judge kavanaugh. we should put aside these unfair attacks and misrepresentations and give his nomination the fair

treatment it deserves. now, on a final matter, this week i discussed a number of converging reports that highlight the strength of this economy for middle-class families and job creators. u.s. retail sales increased for the fifth consecutive month. earlier this year consumer confidence hit its highest level since 2000, nearly a million new jobs were created in 2018, more job openings than job seekers in over 15 years, over 95% of manufacturers reporting positive outlook. and this is from the department of labor. in the second week of july, new claims for unemployment benefits fell to their lowest level. listen to this, since 1969. all of these favorable trends are interrelated. j. powell, chairman of the federal reserve testified before

our colleagues on the banking committee this week that, quote, robust job gains, rising after-tax intersection and optimism in households has lifted consumer spending this month. to put it more simply, american employers are doing better so american workers are doing better so american families are doing better so american businesses are doing better. this is how a vibrant, growing economy works. this is what happens in washington, d.c., swallows up less of the american people's money in taxes. when it pim poses fewer -- imposes fewer heavy-handed regulation that's make it harder to do business and get the bureaucracy's foot off the brake of the economy. this is possibly the best economic moment for jobs and opportunities that americans have seen in recent memory. the policies of this united republican government help bring

it about and they are helping to sustain it. earlier this week the "wall street journal" reported that many households are experiencing less withholding from their paychecks thanks to the tax overhaul. according to a recent survey, fewer than one in five american manufacturers now say that an unfavorable climate due to things like taxes and regulations is a primary obstacle to their businesses. in 2013, during the obama economy, more than two-thirds of the manufacturers said that. two-thirds said it was a problem in 2013. only one in five considered it . across the country, job creators of all sizes have announced worker bonuses, pay raises, and business expansions.

many say loud and clear that tax reform is what made it possible. the american people voted, the republicans kept our promises, so now middle-class families are seeking the effects of the pro-growth policies they asked for in 2016. and the whole world is seeing what the american people can accomplish when their government gets off their backs. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: mr. schumer: madam president? the presiding officer: democratic leader. mr. schumer: are we in quorum? the presiding officer: we are. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: madam president, in the three days since the president returned from his humiliating display of obsequiousness in helsinki, he's offered numerous explanations for his behavior. first, he said the media was too focused on the negative and that his summit with putin was a great success. then admitting there was in fact a problem, he attempted to walk

back some of his comments but even couldn't commit to that, ad-libbing that other people could also be responsible for interfering in the 2016 elections. a mere 24 hours later, the president was back to claiming that it wasn't his fault. the media was biased. then astoundingly, the president hadn't learned his lesson because astoundingly when he asked yesterday whether russia was still attacking our election system, the president replied no. this was, of course, followed by yet another implausible clarification in which, surprise, his press secretary told reporters that's not what the president meant. although when you actually looked at the tape, it was clear as a bell it was what the president meant. he was saying that russia was not still attacking our election system. once again, disbelieving all of the fine men and women who labor

quietly, diligently in our intelligence agencies who have reported this. the constantly shifting, insincere and thoroughly unconvincing explanations for the president's performance reveal that this president and his team do not understand the depth of president putin -- president trump's blunders with putin. and, frankly, any post hoc clarification cannot substitute or repair the president's failure to confront putin face to face. all his walkbacks which then get undone but all his walkbacks are done in the wrong place at the wrong time. where's this man who prides himself on being strong? afraid to say these things to putin and he has to wait til he's 6,000 miles away to say them? unbelievable. one of the most stunning things about the summit was the

president's openness to a request by president putin to question former united states ambassador to moscow michael mcfaul and other americans. in helsinki, the president described the request as part of, quote, an incredible offer, unquote. the president's spokeswoman was asked about it yesterday. she confirmed the president and his team would discuss it. that president trump would even consider handing over a former u.s. ambassador to putin and his cronies for interrogation is bewildering. no president, no president should have the power to gift wrap american citizens, let alone former ambassadors to our known adversaries. how can president trump and his team spend even a moment considering putin's request? how can they equate the

democracy and rule of law and system of open and fair prosecution we have in this country with what putin does? just amazing. this president every day demeans the united states. so many americans are saying they're ashamed to have him as their leader when he behaves like this. certainly if the president agreed to such a request, congress must do everything in its power to block it. there can be no room for debate, no room for discussion. we must be clear and clear quickly. so this morning, senator menendez, senator schatz and i plan to offer a simple resolution that state, quote, it is the sense of congress that the united states should refuse to make available any current or former diplomat, civil servant, political appointee, law

enforcement official, or member of the armed forces of the united states for questioning by the government of vladimir putin this body must agree on the importance of protecting our ambassadors. we should pass it today. not wait, not show any equivocation. this incredible offer as president trump so casually and incorrectly called it raises other serious questions. what else has president trump agreed to behind closed doors? what else has he discussed with president putin? president trump and president putin met for nearly two hours behind closed doors. no one else present but a translator and hardly anyone knows what was said. has secretary pompeo been briefed on that private behind closed doors meeting? nobody knows. he hasn't said so. does our military know if president trump made commitments

about our nuclear arsenal? nobody knows. defense secretary mattis hasn't said whether he's been briefed. do we know if president trump made commitments about the security of israel or syria or north korea or any of the other issues the president said he discussed with putin? it is utterly amazing, utterly amazing that no one knows what was said. this is a democracy. if our president makes agreements with one of our leading -- if not our leading adversary, his cabinet has to know about it and so do the american people. these questions and more need a full and complete accounting before congress in an open setting as soon as possible. that's why i've called on the

republican leadership to demand that secretary of state pompeo, ambassador huntsman and crucially the translator present at the closed door session be made to testify before the senate. they should come immediately, now. what are our republican friends waiting for? because, madam president, the events of this week raise serious questions about the president's ability to responsibly and safely conduct this nation's foreign policy, about his ability and willingness to defend the united states and her citizens, about his very ability to govern in so many areas. confronted with these grave questions, i believe the senate must act to show our country's

resolve, to punish putin for his interference, and never allow such a thing to happen again, to ensure the president is doing what's necessary, to stand up for american interests. i have proposed, many of my colleagues on this side of the aisle have proposed a bunch of things we can do. right now, to take action in the wake of president trump's indefensible summit with president putin. democrats are not in the majority. we don't control the floor. we need our republican colleagues who control the senate floor to join us on these measures. the lack of action, action, not just words, the lack of action by our republican colleagues is stunning and deeply disappointing, not just to democrats but to all of the american people. since monday, sadly, we haven't

seen movement from our colleagues in the majority. just more slow walking. i understand my friend senator coons and flake are working on introducing a resolution to support the consensus of our intelligence agencies and to request congressional oversight. we're all for it. i hope it passes with unanimous consent that it deserves, but my republican friends can and must do more actions, not just resolutions and statements of disapproval. we shouldn't need this resolution. the things asked for in this resolution should have been happening already, and the burden of patriotism, of protecting america's security is on leader mcconnell's shoulders. i know he has a difficult situation. i know he has a president who can sometimes be vindictive. but the bottom line is, our country's security, our

country's direction, our country's honor demands it. we need to bring secretary of state pompeo, ambassador huntsman, and the rest of president trump's national security team from helsinki including the translator who was present in the one-on-one meetings with putin right here before the congress in open session so we all know what happened. we need to pass legislation to protect special counsel mueller. there's bipartisan legislation already passed out of the judiciary committee under senator grassley's leadership and support. it's on the floor. what is our leader, our republican leader waiting for? we need to see the president's tax returns. the common practice of all presidents in recent memory but needed far more now because one of the most logical explanations of the president's obsequious

and almost inexplicable actions towards president putin is that putin has something over on him. maybe it would be revealed in the tax returns. and if nothing's there, the president should have no problem releasing them. we need to implement sanctions against russia, not weaken them. we need to demand that putin hand over the 12 russians indicted for election interference. and we need to harden our election infrastructure so that what happened in 2016 never happens again. these are all commonsense measures. most of them have bipartisan support already. and they will accomplish for america what the president has been unwilling or unable to do. if my republican colleagues refuse to pursue any if not all of these items, they are de

facto consenting to the president's capitulation in helsinki. they cannot stand by. the american people won't allow it. finally, madam president, on health care. ever since republicans were handed the keys to both houses of congress and the white house after the 2016 election, they've engaged in a protracted campaign of sabotage against our health care system. premiums are going up. coverage is going down. and it's all falling in the laps of our republican colleagues in the house and senate. president trump and congressional republicans proposed legislation that would have gutted medicaid, allowed insurers to charge more, and deny coverage just because a person got sick, excluding critical benefit, imposing lifetime or annual limits on care. under the cover of night,

republicans dismantles the health care's coverage requirement without putting anything in its place. the trump administration canceled the federal program that helped low-income customers afford insurance and expanded the availability of junk insurance plans that sucker americans in with low premiums but then hardly cover anything, and people are saying when they have these plans, why did i even buy insurance. but they were duped. now, worse yet, the administration has directed the justice department to stop defending the constitutionality of protections for americans with preexisting medical conditions. turning its back on the most popular and humane advancement in our health care system over the decade. i'd say to my republican friends here, go to your constituents. ask if someone has someone sick in their family. you'll get a lot of hands. then ask them if they should be

excluded from gaining insurance, health insurance to help that sick member. see how many support these ideas. they try to do them in the dark of night. it's not going to work. in august we democrats are going to be talking about this over and over again. and believe me, it will probably be the most important factor in the 2018 elections as the american people will rebel from the taking away of health care. imagine going back to the days when a mother with a child who has cancer can no longer afford -- can no longer find affordable health care for her daughter. when hardworking americans who fall on hard times are made to suffer, denied health care coverage precisely because they need it. how wrong, how backward, how immoral. well, that's where president trump wants to take us and that's where all of our

republican colleagues seem to be following. later this morning, actually right now, a group of democrats are announcing about how we plan to fight back against this lawsuit that the trump administration has put in place and preserve the protections for up to 130 million nonelderly americans with preexisting conditions. the elderly, fortunately, since we still have medicare despite efforts on some of the other side to cut it back are protected. as millions of americans read about the news about the republican's latest effort to undo health care protections, they fear for the future and wonder who in washington will be fighting for them. in november they'll have a chance to vote for a party who will check the president's dangerous health care sabotage, who will work to bring down

costs, improve quality, who will never undermine the protections of americans with preexisting conditions. i look forward to the response to my colleague's announcement of our lawsuit. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: morning business is cloafd. under the previous order -- closed, under the previous order -- the invoke cloture will report. the clerk: nomination, the judiciary, ryan wesley bounds to be united states circuit judge for the ninth circuit.

the presiding officer: the senator from arkansas. mr. cotton: i'd like to take this opportunity to express my support for the 20,000 men and women of immigrations and customs enforcement. they work hard every day to keep drugs off our streets, to stop human trafficking, to protect our communities from gang violence, and, yes, to enforce our immigration laws. theirs can be a thankless job, but they do it with courage, dedication, and professionalism. so i for one want to say thank you. and i'd like to point out the overwhelming support that house republicans showed for i.c.e. yesterday, which stands in stark contrast to the contemptible display put on by house

democrats. on a simple resolution merely expressing support for the men and women of i.c.e., only 18 democrats voted yes. eight skipped the vote. 34 voted no. and 133 democrats voted present. which is the same thing as no. that's a pretty sad state of affairs. 34 democrats condemn the men and women of i.c.e., and 141 democrats don't even have the courage of their conviction. they don't even have the guts to vote yes or no. because we all know democrats in their heart of hearts want to abolish i.c.e. the way they tell it, i.c.e. is a rogue agency driven by hatred and spite to tear apart communities. congressman pokan of wisconsin says i.c.e. is ripping at the moral fabric of our nation. congresswoman hyapol of washington says i.c.e. is out of

control. congressman blumenauer of oregon calls i.c.e. toxic. and the senator senior of massachusetts says we should replace i.c.e. with something that reflects our values, which i suppose means that the 20,000 men and women of i.c.e. don't measure up to the professor's definition of our values. but i have to ask, isn't the rule of law one of those values? because i.c.e.'s job is simply to enforce the law and to protect our citizens from crime. in the last year alone, i.c.e. arrested more than 125,000 illegal aliens with criminal records. those illegal aliens were responsible for more than 80,000 d.u.i.'s, 76,000 dangerous drug offenses, 48,000 assaults, 11,000 weapon offenses, 5,000 sexual assaults, 2,000 kidnappings, and

1,800 homicides. yes, that's right. almost 2,000 souls would still be on this earth but for those illegal alien criminals. i.c.e.'s investigative arm also seized more than 980,000 pounds of narcotics last year. these men and women are on the front lines of the war on drugs and the opioid crisis in particular. do the democrats really believe we should put all these efforts on hold? this call to abolish i.c.e. is so irresponsible that even some democrats, those not running for president or beholden to the radical left, are speaking out against him. jeh johnson, president obama's former secretary of homeland security, has said it's not a serious policy proposal and would compromise public safety. he has pointed out that even those who oppose the vietnam war wouldn't have demanded that we abolish the department of defense. eric holder, president obama's

former attorney general, has said i don't think that substantively or politically that makes a great deal of sense. calling it a gift to republicans. and sara saldano who ran i.c.e. under president obama has called it nonsensical. but perhaps the most inciteful comment came from joe lieberman. he said this makes no sense unless you want no rules on immigration or customs to be enforced. and that i would contend is the whole point. those who want to abolish i.c.e. just want open borders. the very bill the democrats have introduced to abolish i.c.e. doesn't say which federal agency should assume its critical and law enforcement duties. they just leave it up to a commission. and the reason i would submit is that they don't really care. their obsession with open borders is so great that they're willing to risk public safety to

achieve it. these irresponsible poll ition television -- politicians should know better. they aren't worthy to lead the brave hardworking men and women of i.c.e. these officers are just trying to do their job and to keep us safe. so on behalf of the grateful nation, i conclude by again extending them my deepest thanks. mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: minority whip. mr. durbin: i join the senator from arkansas in commending those who are involved in law enforcement risking their lives for the safety of this nation at all levels. federal, state, and local. they put their badges on every single day and risk their lives for us. and that's a fact. and within the department of homeland security, there are men and women who are cons yens shusly trying to keep america safe. i commend them as well. i believe they are doing their job as they understand it and they are risking their lives many times to achieve it. to not only stop the illegal flow of drugs into our country but to deter crime, to ferret

out criminals where possible and they risk their lives to achieve that goal. i have not joined in the call for the abolition of i.c.e., but i will not join in a call for the add der ration of i.c.e. because -- adoration of i.c.e. because of one specific issue. the zero tolerance of the trump administration resulted in our agents, the department of homeland security, forcibly separating children from their parents. forcibly separating up to 3,000 children from their parents. i saw some of those kids separated by that agency. they were toddlers and infants. some were being held by the care workers that i happened to visit up in chicago. little babies taken from their mothers. toddlers, children 5 and 6 years old, separated by this agency under the president's zero

tolerance policy. up to 3,000 of them according to the administration's own estimates. had that happened before? only rarely but it became the policy of this administration until there was such an uproar in the united states and around the world that president trump reversed his position on zero tolerance. but reversing the position did not return the children to their parents. it took federal courts to do that. one in particular in san diego where the judge called the representatives of i.c.e., health and human services, all the other agencies involved in these children being removed forcibly from their parents and gave them deadlines to return the children to their parents. and it was then that we discovered something about this agency. it was then that we discovered that they didn't keep a record of the parents and kids. if you place an order online add

amazon or some other source and the next day want to check on the status of your order, you use your tracking number and they'll tell you where your package is. there was no tracking number when it came to these kids. if you decide that you're going to order a pizza and it seems to take a little too long and you call the pizza parlor, they can generally tell you where the messenger is or the delivery person. the same thing is true in so many other areas. so why then did this agency, which my colleagues are now coming to the floor claiming such great praise for, ignore the obvious? this agency, the department of homeland security, ended up setting free 3,000 children into care facilities around the united states of america and didn't keep records of the parents. when we sd them several weeks ago -- we asked them several

weeks ago downstairs, all the agencies, including i.c.e. referred to by the senator from arkansas, we asked them, let's get down to basics. how many kids are we talking about? they wouldn't give us a number. how many kids under the age of 5? those are the ones that you have a deadline to reunite under the federal court order in san diego. they couldn't give us a number. all right, then, how many parents can you identify who actually had their kids taken away? i.c.e. said we can identify ten, ten parents, 3,000 kids. i'm not making this up, mr. president. this is exactly what they said. they said we have ten parents in custody. those are the ones we can identify. two weeks passed and we had another briefing this week. the numbers are more complete. 2,500 kids separated from their parents, spread around the united states, and some 1,800

parents. what about the difference? what happened to 700 parents who lost their children? well, the explanation from i.c.e. was they abandoned their kids and left. does that sound reasonable? does that sound honest? you take the child away from the arms of a parent and then the parent says i'm leaving the country. that might have happened in some cases for reasons i don't know, but it's an outrageous suggestion. and what it reflects on is incompetency. how in the world can you take a child away from a parent, forcibly take them away and not keep an adequate record for the reunification? how can you do that? common sense, common decency suggests that you would do it. so i'm not going to join in any resolution here applauding that action by any federal agency, department of homeland security, i.c.e., or other agencies. to me it is a stain on the

reputation of this nation, one that we need to quickly resolve by reuniting these children with their families as quickly as possible. because, you see, it isn't just a question of a holiday for these kids. pediatricians have come forward, the american academy of pediatrics, and said what we have done is institutional abuse of children. this separation is not just another day in the life of this 2-year-old, 5-year-old, 8-year-old. this separation is something that is causing trauma within their own minds. have you read the stories about the reunification? where some of the parents come back, finally get the children and the children won't even come to the parents? they don't quite understand what just happened to them. they think the parent might have just decided to give them up. and there they were alone and by themselves at that tender age. can you imagine that for your children or your grandchildren? i can't. we did it as part of official

government policy of the trump administration under zero tolerance. so when some of us come to the floor to question the actions, the conduct, the management of i.c.e., we have good reason to do it. and i hope that for the people within that agency who are doing their jobs cons shensly, we can be honest in saying that this policy is one which doesn't deserve praise and doesn't deserve our adoration on the floor of the united states senate or the u.s. house. mr. president, i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the senator from have the have the. mr. sanders: thank you. mr. president, i rise to speak about a matter of extraordinary importance to the future of american democracy and in fact democracies all over the world. at the helsinki summit on monday , president trump embarrassed our country, undermined american values, and openly sided with russia's authoritarian leader vladimir putin against the u.s. intelligence communities' unanimous assessment that russia interfered in the 2,016 presidential election. senator john mccain is right when he said it was, and i quote, one of the most

disgraceful performances by an american president in memory. the damage inflicted by president trump's naivety, egotism, false equivalence and symphony for autocrats is difficult to calculate. but it is clear that the summit in helsinki was a tragic mistake. end quote. that's not bernie sanders talking. that is former republican presidential candidate senator john mccain. on tuesday after a strong international backlash, trump in a bizarre statement claimed that he misspoke and of course blamed the media for reporting what he said. even then he could not help but suggest that the electoral interference, quote, could be other people also, end quote,

and not just russia. and then in an enter few last night -- in an interview last night, trump changed his answer yet again and acknowledged in the meekest way possible that, yes, russia meddled in our election and as the leader of russia, vladimir putin is responsible. well, this is a step forward, but it is not remotely sufficient. and who knows what tweet the president will release tomorrow. he seems to come up with a new response every few hours. mr. president, today we face an unprecedented situation of a president who for whatever reason refuses to acknowledge the full scope of the threat to american democracy. either he really doesn't understand what is happening and

that's possible, or he is under russian influence because of compromised -- compromising information they may have on him, or because he is ultimately more sympathetic to russia's authoritarian oligarch form of government than he is to american democracy. whatever the reason, congress must act now. democrats must act. republicans must act if we are serious about preserving american democracy. we must demand -- and i know this is a radical idea but demand that the president of the united states represent the interest of the american people and not russia. now, let us be as clear as we can be. russia has been interfering not

only in u.s. elections but in the elections of other democracies, united kingdom, france, germany. i would yield to the democratic leader. mr. schumer: thank you. i want to thank my friend, the senator from vermont, for this outstanding resolution. it is a resolution i don't see who can object, who can object. we ask for five things in this resolution. that our government accept the assessment of our own intelligence committees about russia's interference, that we move aggressively to protect our election systems, that the sanctions that this body passed 98-2 finally be implemented by the trump administration, that there be no interference in mr. mueller's investigation, and that there must be cooperation. who in america would object to that? maybe a small group of hard right ideologues but no one

else. who in this body will object to it? this is an outstanding resolution. now, i know my friend from vermont would agree with me, we need action in addition to resolutions, but this is an excellent start. and i would urge all of my colleagues to support this full heartedly. our country is at risk. the senator from vermont is sounding a clarion call and saying in a bipartisan way we should strengthen our country, not weaken it as the president has done over the last week. and i hope, i hope that this will get unanimous support from every member of this body, whether they be democrat, independent, republican, whether they be liberal, moderate, or conservative. if you love america, if you care about our security, support this resolution. i thank my colleague for yielding. mr. sanders: i thank the democratic leader for his strong efforts on this enormously important issue. and i just want to reiterate, this really is not a democratic

resolution. if there is any resolution that should be bipartisan, this is it. my republican colleagues believe in democracy. i know that. we believ -- we believe in democracy. and together we and the american people must make it clear that we will not allow russia or any other country on earth to undermine our democracy. and let us be very clear that russia has not just been interfering in u.s. elections but in elections of other democracies around the world -- united kingdom, france, germany, to name just a few countries. russia's goal is to advance its own interests by weakening the trans-atlantic alliance of democracies that arose after world war ii while also inflaming internal divisions in our country, as well as other countries. we should also be clear that

this interference is directorred from the very -- directed from the very highest levels of the russian government. last week special counsel mueller announced a set of indictments of 12 members of russia's military intelligence service, the g.r.u. there can be no doubt that given the nature of the russian government, vladimir putin was directly involved in this effort. but our concern is not only what has already happened. more importantly, it is what could happen in the future. what happened in 2016 was an outrage, but we have got to make sure it does not happen in 2018 and future elections. last week director of national intelligence dan coats, a former republican u.s. senator, raised the alarm on growing cyber attacks, threats against the united states in a range of

areas -- a range of areas, not just elections, including federal, state, and local government agencies, the military, business, and academia, saying the situation is at a, quote-unquote, critical point. coats said that russia is, quote, the most aggressive foreign actor, no question, and they continue their efforts to undermine our democracy, end of coat. coats compared the warning signs to those the united states faced ahead of the september 11 terrorist attacks. this is a clear and present threat to our democratic system and those of our allies. ultimately, of course we want a peaceful relationship with russia. we do not want to return to the cold war, and we surely do not seek any type of military conflict. but, at the same time, we must be very clear that we oppose what putin is doing, both in terms of his foreign policy and

his domestic policy. on foreign policy we will not accept russian interfering -- russia interfering in the elections of democratic countries, stoking political tensions by promoting hatred and suspicion of immigrants and minorities and trying to undermine long-standing alliances between democratic allies. in 2014, in violation of international law, russia invaded neighboring ukraine and annexed the crimea region. russia has assassinated political opponents abroad most recently through the use of poison in salisbury, england. it was concluded that it was most likely carried out by russia's military intelligence service. domestically, putin has undermined democracy in russia, crushing free speech, jailing political opponents, harassing and assassinating journalists who criticize them and increasing persecution of ethnic and religious minorities.

on monday in helsinki, president trump had an opportunity to speak out on all of these things and more, to confront putin about these destabilizing and inhumane policies. he chose not to. well, and here is the main point, mr. president. if for whatever reason the president of the united states is not going to do what is right, congress must do it. democrats must do it. republicans must do it. the congress must make it clear -- and this is the resolution that i am introducing and asking for unanimous consent. the congress must make it clear that we accept the assessment of our intelligence community with regard to russian election interfering in our country and in other democracies. does anybody doubt the truth of that? the congress must move aggressively to protect our

election system from interference by russia or any foreign power. does anybody deny the importance of that? the congress must demand that the sanctions against russia, as the democratic leader mentioned passing with 98 votes, be fully implemented. 98 votes on that issue. the congress must make it clear that we will not accept any interference with the ongoing investigation of special counsel mueller, such as the offer of preemptive pardons or the firing of deputy attorney general rod rosenstein, and that the president must cooperate with this investigation. at the same time and time again i've heard republicans -- time and time again, i've heard republicans, including leaders, make it clear that there should not be interference on that election. nothing new here on that point. and finally -- nothing new here either -- the congress must make it clear to president trump that his job is to protect the values that millions of americans

struggled, fought, and died to defend -- justice, democracy, and equality. that he is the president of the united states and his job is to protect the interests of the american people, not russia. tweets, comments, and press conferences -- i know many of my republican colleagues have been engaged in those activities. they are fine, they're constructive. but we need more from republican senators now. it is time for the senate to rein in the president's dangerous behavior. if their leadership -- senator mcconnell -- will not allow votes on this extraordinarily important matter, then my republican colleagues must join with democrats to make it happen, or all of their fine-sounding words of concern become meaningless. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that, as if in

legislative session, the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of s. res. 582 submitted earlier today. i further ask that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble 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: there 0 objection? mr. paul: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from kentucky. mr. paul: trump derangement syndrome has officially come to the senate. the hatred for the president is so intense that partisans would rather risk war than give diplomacy a chance. does anybody remember that ronald reagan sat down with gorbachev and we lessened the nuclear tensions. we need to still have those openings. nobody is saying or excusing russia's meddling in our elections. absolutely. we should protect the integrity of our elections. but simply bringing the hatred of the president to the senate

floor in order to say, we're done with diplomats. we're going to add more sanctions and more sanctions. you know what? i would rather that we still have open channels of discussion with the russians. kennedy, at the height of the cold war, had a direct line to khrushchev, and it may have prevented the end of the world. should we be so crazy about partisanship that we now say, we don't want to talk to the russians. we're not going to have relations with the russians. we should stand firm and say, stay the hell out of our elections, but we should not stick our head in the ground and say we're not going to talk to them. i would like to see the russians leave ukraine. i think we could do it through diplomacy. we're not going to have it if we don't talk to them. i would like to see the russians help more with north korea, with denuclearization of the korean peninsula. we're not going to have it if we just simply heap more sanctions on and say, we're not going to talk to the russians and anybody who talks to the russians has

committed treason. for goodness sakes, we have the former head of the c.i.a., john brennan, galavanting across tv -- now being paid for his opinion -- to call the president treasonous. this has got to stop. this is crazy hatred of the president. this is crazy partisanship that is driving this. for goodness sakes, we don't excuse russia's behavior in our election, but we don't have to have war. we can still have engagement. we have engaged russia throughout 70 years while also acknowledging the imperfections of their system. the parts of their system that we vehemently disagree with -- the lack of freedom, the lack of human rights. and yet we had open channels of negotiation, open channels of communication. so i could not object more strongly to this, mr. president. i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. sanders: mr. president? the presiding officer: the

senator from vermont. mr. sanders: the senator from kentucky just told us he wants dialogue with russia, he wants diplomacy with russia, that he thinks it's important that we communicate with russia. i agree. who disagrees with that? there is not one word in this resolution that suggests that the united states of america should not aggressively engage in diplomacy with russia to ease the tensions that exist between the two countries. what the senator said is totally irrelevant to what is in this resolution. what this resolution says is we're going to tell russia, stop interfering in our elections. what this resolution is about is to tell russia to stop interfering with democratic countries all over the world in their elections. what this resolution is about is saying that we should implement the sanctions overwhelmingly voted by congress.

what this resolution is about is that we will not accept interference with the ongoing investigation of special counsel robert mueller and that what this resolution says is the president must cooperate with the investigation of mr. mueller. that's what this resolution is about. it has nothing to do with ending diplomacy with russia at all. so that is just inaccurate, and i would hope that if not today, if the very near future, republicans will join democrats and do the right thing in our effort to preserve american democracy. thank you, mr. president.

the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. flake: mr. president, we're here to put forward a resolution and ask for unanimous consent for its adoption. this is the flake-coons

resolution which senator coons will speak first on and then i'll take it from there. mr. coons: thank you, mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from delaware. mr. coons: thank you, mr. president. i come to the floor today with my colleague, senator flake of arizona, to send a strong and clear and importantly a bipartisan message to the american people, which is that we stand with the men and women of the department of justice, the men and women of the u.s. intelligence community. we sport the ongoing investigation into russian interference in our elections and we must act, and act unequivocally to hold russia accountable for its actions. mr. president, just three days after the u.s. intelligence community issued a detailed and staggering find that led to an indictment against 12 russian military intelligence officers for interfering in our 2016 election, president trump stood shoulder to shoulder with president putin and failed to challenge putin's claim that his government played no role in the effort to undermine our

democracy. fix nics, when asked -- in fact when asked if he believed putin's denial, president trump said i have confidence in both parties. now he has subsequently walked back those comments. but i think it's important that the senate be on the record saying that our intelligence community is clear. our law enforcement community is clear, and today the u.s. senate should be clear. so today senator flake and i are putting forward a resolution that in its language commends the department of justice for its ongoing investigation into russia's interference in our last election. the one that led to last week's 11-count tkoeuplt -- indictment offering a account of the chaos leading of the last election. the resolution reaffirms the intelligence community assessment of russian interference and asserts russia must be held to account for its actions. this can be accomplished in part by immediately and responsibly

implementing sanctions provided for in the countering america's adversaries through sanctions act which this body passed last summer. following the president's summit with putin in helsinki, today's resolution calls for prompt hearings and the release of notes to better understand what the two leaders discussed and may have agreed to during their one on one meeting that ran for two hours. i am encouraged by hearings that have already been scheduled, but i think it is important that it be clear that our senate seeks a role in engagement and oversight. congress and the american people deserve to know what promises or concessions may have been made to president putin and thorough hearings that senior administration officials including secretary pompeo are critical. mr. president, this resolution is a first step, a good first step, but we need to be clear-eyed. president putin of russia will not stop until we stop him. we know we face continued threats to our elections in 2018

and beyond. just last week director of national intelligence dan coats, our former colleague here in the senate, cautioned that the warning lights are blinking red again on cyber attacks against our nation. and he said, and i quote, these actions are persistent, they're pervasive and they are meant to undermine america's democracies. attacks on our country's digital infrastructure, he said, is made principally by russia. he said, and i quote, russia is the most aggressive foreign actor and the worst offender. so we know that we continue to face hostile threats. f.b.i. director chris wray said just yesterday russia is still working to sow division into the united states and continues to engage in malign actions against our country. so we need to join arms and look forward to protecting our next election. today's resolution is an important first step, but i think we should work together to take up and pass the deter act introduced by senators rubio and

van hollen to deter russia from interfering in our next elections. i think we should take up and consider the lankford-klobuchar secure elections act to strengthen election cybersecurity. i'd like to see my act taken up and voted on as well. we could build on the $350 million invested in election security. grants provided by this congress to states back in march to help most of their election systems against threats. it's important to remember putin and putin's russia are attacking other democratic processes throughout europe, and as americans, as senators, we need to stand up and fight for our democracy and the rule of law. i had a memorable conversation with a ukrainian leader last year who said to me, if you don't defend your own elections, your own democracy, how can the rest of us count on you to defend ours? this resolution makes clear that on a bipartisan basis, we intend to defend our democracy. mr. president, russia's attacks on our last elections were

attacks on every american, republican and democrat. the threat is grave, it is pressing, and it demands that we act. today's resolution is a first step and an important one. and i call on my colleagues to join us in supporting it. if there is any senator who disagrees with this very basic resolution, i look forward to hearing for their reasons. mr. president, let me close by thanking my colleague and friend, senator flake from arizona, for having taken the initiative and the lead in introducing this important resolution. we may not agree on everything, but we agree on this important principle. we should stand and be counted in defense of our democracy. thank you, mr. president. mr. flake: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. flake: mr. president, i thank the senator from delaware, senator coons, for helping get together and working on this resolution and for working it through his caucus. i hope that we can pass it today. there may be an objection to moving forward. if there is, we'll bring it back

again and again. this needs to be passed. the senate needs to speak here. mr. president, in his novel "1994" george or well wrote a party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. it was their most essential, most final essential command. unquote. well, we be saw earlier this week -- we saw earlier this week in helsinki what was truly an orwellian moment. what we saw earlier this week in helsinki is what happens when you wage war on objective reality for nearly two solid years, calling real things fake and fake things real. as if conditioning others to embrace the same confusion. ultimately you're rendered unable to tell the difference between the two and are at critical times seemingly rendered incapable of thinking clearly. your mind,s a hash of conspiracy

theory and fragments of old talking points deployed in response to a question no one even asked. ultimately you fail to summon reality in the face of a despot in defense of your country. it wasn't a hard question, mr. president. an american president was invited by a reporter to denounce russian attacks on our elections and in doing so defend the country that he was elected to lead. this should have been not much of a test at all for any american president, and yet it was, and our president failed that test. the findings of our intelligence community regarding the russian aggression are not matters of opinion, no matter how powerful and strong putin's denial. to reject these findings and to reject the excruciating specific indictment against the 12 named russian operatives in deference to the word of a k.g.b.

apparatchik is an act of will on the part of the president and that choice leaves us contemplating the dark mystery, why did he do that? what would compel our president to do such a thing? those are questions that urgently beg for an answer, and it is our job to find that answer. but what isn't a mystery is that by choosing to reject object reality in helsinki, the president let down the free world by giving aid and comfort to an enemy of democracy. in so doing, he dimmed the light of freedom ever so slightly in our own country. such is the power that we vest in the presidency. such are the consequences when a president does not use that power well. i can add no further to the extraordinary and thoroughly justified response of my fellow americans from across the political spectrum to the events in helsinki ranging from heartbreak to horror. but i will say that if ever

there was a moment to think not of just your party but for the country, this is it. this is not a moment for spin, deflection, justification, circling the wagons, forgetting, moving on to the next new cycle but for more of orwell's doublespeak. no, when the american government offers an onslaught on unreality, it puts the whole world at risk. that is the lesson of helsinki. that is the dose of reality that hit hard. we have indulged myths and fabrications, pretended it wasn't so bad and our indulgence got us the capitulation in helsinki. we in the senate who have been elected to represent our constituents cannot be enablers of falsehoods. this bipartisan resolution from the senator from delaware and i that we have here today commends the department of justice for its thorough investigation that has led to the indictment of 12

russian operatives who on behalf of the russian government interfered in the 2016 election. it acknowledges that such efforts by the russian government to undermine our elections as confirmed by our own director of national intelligence continued, specifically the flake-coons resolution rejects the denial of election interferes by russian president vladimir putin, something that our president failed to do when given the opportunity in a public forum in helsinki on monday. this resolution calls for the full and immediate implementation of mandatory sanctions passed by a vote of 98-2 to deter and punish election interference by the russian government. if there are waivers that are needed -- and there are some needed for the indian government, for example, for weapons they purchased from the russian government or hardware -- there is a waiver process already in law for that. and i would support that. finally, the resolution calls on

the relevant committees of the senate to exercise oversight, including prompt hearings in obtaining relevant notes and information to understand what commitments were made by the president at the summit and the impact it will have on our foreign policy going forward. the russian ambassador last night said that, quote, important verbal agreements were made. mr. president, we need to know the details of those agreements. mr. president, empirical objective truth has taken a beating for the last 18 months. i said from this pulpit in january that the dissemination of untruths has the effect of eroding trust in our vital institutions and conditioning the public to no longer trust them. as we saw in helsinki on monday, entertaining the untruths of a dictator has the same effect. passing this resolution will let our constituents, the administration, our allies, and

our adversaries know that here in the senate we do not entertain the deceit of dictators. the truth is russia interfered in our elections in 2016, and these efforts continue. accepting that truth is the first step in preparing us to confront this malign activity. let's pass this resolution. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the consideration of s. res. 583. i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: is there objection? a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: majority whip. mr. cornyn: mr. president, reserving the right to object, let me first thank the senator