[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 36 (Wednesday, March 1, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1532-S1535]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                                 Russia

  Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, I am here to discuss, along with the 
Senator from Delaware, the issue of Russia. I know it has been at the 
forefront of much of the debate that is ongoing in this country. I 
wanted to begin by commending the Vice President and Secretary of 
Defense and Secretary of Homeland Security and Secretary of State for 
the strong message of support for NATO. That includes the President 
last night and their strong support, by the way, for the Transatlantic 
Alliance that these individuals outlined during their respective visits 
to the Munich Security Conference and meetings with allies in February.
  At that Munich Security Conference on February 18, the Russian 
Foreign Minister, Sergey Lavrov, said: ``I hope [he means the world] 
will choose a democratic world order, a post-West one, in which each 
country is defined by its sovereignty.'' I think that based on recent 
history, it is clear that when a Russian leader says ``post-West,'' we 
should interpret that as a phrase to mean post-America.
  So I would ask the Senator with regard to this, what are his views 
with regard to Vladimir Putin's desire to establish spheres of 
influence in Europe and the Middle East, create divisions with our 
allies. How should we view the Russian world view as it compares to the 
national interests of the United States?
  Mr. COONS. I would like to thank my friend, the Senator from Florida, 
my colleague on the Foreign Relations Committee and on the 
Appropriations Committee. I would like to answer his question by 
saying, it seems clear to all of us on the Foreign Relations Committee 
who have had the opportunity to travel to Eastern Europe to visit with 
our NATO allies that Vladimir Putin has a world view and an agenda that 
is in sharp contrast with our own.
  Vladimir Putin dreams of returning Russia to the days of the Russian 
Empire, to reexerting influence over a broad geographic region from the 
Baltic Sea and Poland and Ukraine to the Caucasus and Central Asia. He 
has internally used the West and NATO as a scapegoat for Russia's 
internal economic woes. He has, as we know, launched invasions or 
extended his influence through forces and supported illiberal and 
separatist fighters in Georgia and Ukraine and Moldavia, former Soviet 
republics, and has launched cyber attacks and propaganda campaigns and 
coordinated the use of all his tools of state power against our NATO 
allies in the Baltic region and Central and Western Europe.

[[Page S1533]]

  All of these things suggest a very different world view, a different 
set of values than we have in the United States and a different set of 
values in a way that really worries me. As my colleague from Florida 
has suggested, when Foreign Minister Lavrov talks about a world order 
defined by sovereignty, he is challenging us. He is challenging what 
the West really stands for, what we in America stand for.
  I believe what we stand for is the universal values on which we 
forged the Transatlantic Alliance more than 70 years ago, a 
Transatlantic Alliance that has been a force for stability and good in 
the world, a Transatlantic Alliance that has secured peace in Western 
Europe, North America ever since the close of the Second World War but 
a Transatlantic Alliance that is rooted in values, values of freedom of 
speech, freedom of press, rule of law and democracy, and in opposition 
to authoritarianism.
  We support American leadership because a stable and prosperous world 
makes us safer and more economically secure. So I would ask my friend 
from Florida what he views as the agenda or the objective of Russia and 
whether we can be hopeful, in any way, that Vladimir Putin's Russia has 
an agenda that is harmonious with ours, that can be put in the same 
direction as ours or whether it is fundamentally at odds.
  Mr. RUBIO. To answer that question, I would begin by reminding 
everyone that when we are talking about Russia, we are not talking 
about the Russian people. We are talking about Vladimir Putin and the 
cronies who surround him and their goals for the future. We have no 
quarrel with the Russian people, who I actually believe would very much 
want to have a better relationship with the United States and certainly 
live in a world in which their country was more like ours than the way 
their government now runs theirs.
  The second thing I would point to is, it is important to understand 
history. At the end of the Second World War, Nazism had been conquered, 
and the Japanese Empire and its designs had also been ended, fascism 
defeated. The United States and the world entered this period of a Cold 
War, a battle between communism and the free world. The United States 
and our allies stood for that freedom. At the fall of the Berlin Wall, 
the end of the Soviet bloc, the fall of communism, the world we all 
hoped had entered into this new era, where every nation had a different 
system--maybe some had a parliamentary system, maybe some had a 
republic, such as ours--but in the end, more people than ever would 
have access to a government responsive to their needs.
  That was the growing trend around the world, up until about 7, 8, 10 
years ago. We now see the opposite. We see a rising arc of the 
totalitarianism, and within that context is where I believe Vladimir 
Putin's world view is constructed. He views the values we stand for, 
which some may call Western values, and perhaps that is the right 
terminology, but I really believe in universal values: the idea that 
people should have a role to play in choosing their leader, that people 
should have a freedom to worship as they see fit, that people should be 
able to express their opinions and ideas freely without fear of 
retribution or punishment by the government.
  These are the values I think we have stood for and that our allies 
have stood for and that we had hoped Russia would stand for in this new 
era, but Vladimir Putin viewed that as a threat. In particular, over 
the last number of years, he has decided the best way for him to secure 
his place in Russian politics is through an aggressive foreign policy 
in which he views it as a zero-sum game.
  That is not the way we view it. We actually view the world as a place 
where we can help rebuild Japan; we can help rebuild Germany. They are 
stronger, and we are stronger. It isn't one or the other.
  He does not see it that way. He views the world as a place where in 
order for Russia to be greater, America has to be less; in order for 
him to be more powerful, we have to be less powerful, and it is a world 
in which he has to undermine democratic principles and try to expose 
them as fraudulent.
  That is why you saw the Russian intelligence services meddle in our 
elections in 2016. One of the main designs they had was to create doubt 
and instability about our system of government and to not just 
discredit it here at home but to discredit it around the world.
  I just returned from Europe a week ago. Germany and France, which 
both have upcoming elections of their own, are seeing an unprecedented 
wave of active measures on the part of Russian intelligence to try to 
influence their elections. In the Netherlands, we have seen some of the 
same. So this is very concerning.
  Our European allies are very concerned about the weaponization of 
cyber technology to strategically place information in the public 
domain for purposes of undermining candidates, steering elections, and 
undermining policymaking.
  I want everybody to understand this is not just about elections. The 
exact same tools they used in the 2016 Presidential election, they 
could use to try to influence the debate in the Senate by attacking 
individual Senators or individual viewpoints and using their control 
over propaganda to begin to spread that.
  I will give you just one example, and that is in May of 2015, the 
German intelligence agencies reported an attack on the German 
Parliament, on energy companies, on universities. They attribute that 
to Russian hackers.
  In Montenegro, the Prime Minister has sought membership in NATO, an 
action we have supported in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, 
which both of us serve on, but Russian intelligence has plotted at a 
very aggressive level to disrupt their elections late last year.
  Moscow has used TV and Internet outlets like Russia Today, or RT, and 
Sputnik to launch propaganda campaigns to galvanize anti-EU extremists 
ahead of the Dutch elections. The list goes on and on. There is no 
shortage of them.
  The point is, we are in the midst of the most aggressive, active 
measures ever undertaken by a foreign government to not just meddle in 
American policy debates and American elections but in those throughout 
the free world, and it is deeply concerning.
  I think another matter that I would love to hear the Senator's 
opinion on is on the issue of human rights violations because, on top 
of being a totalitarian state, what goes hand in hand with 
totalitarianism are human rights violations. In fact, totalitarianism 
is, in and of itself, a human rights violation; that there can be no 
dictatorship, no repressive regime, no totalitarian leader who can 
maintain themselves in power without violating the human rights of 
their people.
  So I would ask the Senator--I would love to have his comment on 
whether or not, indeed, Vladimir Putin is a serial human rights 
violator and what our policy should be in terms of outlining that to 
the world.
  Mr. COONS. We have worked together on a number of bills in this area. 
Let me respond to my friend the Senator by saying it is clear that 
Vladimir Putin's Russia has been a serial human rights violator. When 
we talk about human rights, we talk about things that belong to 
everyone, and they are necessary as a check on state power. When 
nations break these rules, we believe they should be held accountable.
  Russia continues to engage in efforts, as my colleague said, that 
undermine democracy in free elections throughout Europe. We have shared 
concerns about the upcoming elections--the Dutch elections, French, and 
German elections--where there are overt actions and covert actions by 
Russia to influence the outcome of those elections, but part of why 
they are doing that, part of why they are violating these norms around 
Europe is because they are seeking to distract from their brutal rule 
at home.
  The reality is, many of the critics of Putin's regime end up dead or 
incapacitated.
  Boris Nemtsov, a Russian politician who supported the introduction of 
capitalism into the Russian economy and frequently criticized Vladimir 
Putin, was assassinated 2 years ago, on February 27, on a bridge just 
near the Kremlin in Moscow.
  Vladimir Kara-Murza, a Russian politician and journalist, was 
apparently poisoned last month, the second time in recent years. He had 
been actively promoting civil society and democracy in Russia.

[[Page S1534]]

  Back in September of 2012, Putin threw USAID out of Russia 
altogether, claiming that U.S. efforts were undermining Russian 
sovereignty when, in fact, we had been working in Russia since the 
nineties, supporting human rights, independent journalism, and 
promoting fair elections.
  Most importantly, in my view, Russia doesn't just violate the human 
rights of its own citizens, it exports brutality.
  Russia's support for Bashar al-Assad's murderous regime and brutal 
war in Syria continues. Their military has targeted hospitals, schools, 
and Syrian first responders. They have blocked the provision of food 
and medicine to starving families and children. Russia's diplomats have 
vetoed any efforts at the United Nations to act to stop the suffering 
in Syria. Also, Russia, having illegally invaded Ukraine and annexed 
Crimea, continues to promote violence and instability in eastern 
Ukraine, in the Donbas region, leading to the deaths of thousands.
  All of these human rights violations within Russia and in countries 
around its sphere of influence, in its region, suggest to us that they 
need to be held accountable for these violations of basic human rights.
  Like the Senator from Florida, I led a codel to Eastern and Central 
Europe. Mine was not last week. It was last August, but with two 
Republican House Members and two Democratic Senate Members, the five of 
us went to the Czech Republic, to Ukraine, and to Estonia. We heard 
widespread concern about this record of human rights and a disrespect 
for democracy in Russia and about this aggressive hybrid warfare 
campaign that threatens Ukraine's very stability and existence, that 
puts Estonia, our NATO ally, on warning, and that is putting at risk 
Czech independence and Czech elections all across Central and Western 
Europe.
  We have heard from Ambassadors, experts, those who have testified in 
front of committees on which we serve, about a Russian campaign--a 
brutal campaign--to undermine human rights within Russia and to 
undermine democracy throughout Western Europe, with a larger strategic 
goal of separating the United States from our Western allies and 
undermining the Transatlantic Alliance that has been so essential to 
our peace, security, and stability for 70 years. We cannot let this 
stand.
  There is no moral equivalence between Russia and the United States. 
If we believe in our democracy and if we believe in our commitment to 
human rights, we must stand up to this campaign of aggression. So I ask 
my colleague what he believes we might be able to do on the Foreign 
Relations Committee, on the Appropriations Committee, or here in the 
Senate, what we might do, as voices working in a bipartisan way, to 
stand up to these actions undermining democracy and human rights?
  Mr. RUBIO. That is the central question. The first is what we are 
doing now, which is an important part: shining the sunlight on all of 
it, making people aware of it. For example, we know in France two of 
the leading candidates have views that I think the Kremlin would be 
quite pleased with, if that became the foreign policy of France--a 
third, not so much. He is a very young candidate running as an 
independent. His last name Macron. Suddenly, as he began to surge in 
the polls, all these stories started appearing, ridiculous stories 
about his personal life, about his marriage, things that are completely 
false, completely fabricated. Fortunately, French society and the 
French press understands this and has reported it as such.
  It is important for us. This is happening and is real, and it is 
unprecedented in its scope and in its aggression. So shining a light on 
the reality and understanding, as I always tell my colleagues--I said 
this last October, that this is not a partisan issue.
  I am telling you that--to my Republican colleagues who might be 
uncomfortable about discussing Russian interference--this is not about 
the outcome of the election; this is about the conduct and what 
happened throughout it. And what they did last year, in the fall, in 
the Presidential race, they can do against any Member here. If they 
don't like what you are saying, if they think you are getting too far 
on policy, you could find yourself the target of Russian propaganda in 
the hopes of undermining you, perhaps even having you eliminated from 
the debate because they understand our political process quite well.
  The second is to do no harm. There is this notion out there--and I 
think on paper it sounds great, right--why don't we just partner up 
with the Russians to defeat ISIS and take on radicalism around the 
world.
  The problem is this: No. 1, that is what Russia claims they are 
already doing. Vladimir Putin claims he is already doing that. So if he 
is already doing it, why would we have to partner with him? He is 
already doing it. Obviously, the answer is because he hasn't. This has 
been about propping up Assad.
  Here is the other problem. When you partner up with someone, you have 
to take responsibility for everything they do and all the actions they 
undertake.
  Senator Coons just outlined a moment ago, he said: Well, we talked 
about the bombing in Aleppo.
  Think about it. If we had partnered with Russia in Syria and they 
were bombing Aleppo and they were hitting hospitals and they were 
killing civilians and they were our partners, we have to answer for 
that as well. We would be roped into that.
  The third is to understand their strategic goal is not to defeat 
radical elements in the Middle East; their strategic goal is to have 
inordinate influence in Syria, with Iran, potentially in other 
countries at the expense of the United States.
  We have had two Presidents--a Republican and a Democrat--previous to 
the current President who thought they could do such a deal with 
Vladimir Putin. Both of them fell on their face because they did not 
understand what they were dealing with. It is my sincerest hope that 
our current President doesn't make the same mistakes.
  In addition to that, I know there are a number of legislative 
approaches that we have worked on together, as members of both the 
Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the Senate Foreign Operations 
Appropriations Subcommittee, and I would ask the Senator from Delaware 
if he could highlight some of those legislative matters that we have 
been talking about: resolutions, laws, and public policy that we have 
been advocating.
  Mr. COONS. Well, briefly, if I could. Two bills that are currently 
gathering cosponsors--and which I hope our colleagues will review and 
consider joining us in cosponsoring--one is S. 341, the Russia 
Sanctions Review Act of 2017, which currently has 18 cosponsors. The 
other is S. 94, the Counteracting Russian Hostilities Act of 2017, that 
has 20 cosponsors--10 Republicans and 10 Democrats. In both cases, we 
are proud to have a very broad range of both Republicans and Democrats 
engaged in this important legislation, which ensures that Russia pays a 
price for breaking the rules. It starts by taking action to support the 
sanctions against the Russian Government for its occupation, its 
illegal annexation of Crimea, for its egregious human rights violations 
in Syria, and for meddling in the U.S. election. It prevents the 
lifting of sanctions on Russia until the Russian Government ceases the 
very activities that caused these sanctions to be put in place in the 
first place. It supports civil society, pro-democracy, anti-corruption 
activists in Russia and across Europe to show that many of us are 
determined, as members of the Foreign Relations Committee, as members 
of the Appropriations Committee, as Senators--not as partisans--that we 
intend to fund the tools that will enable the United States and our 
NATO allies to push back on Russia's aggression. Most of these tools 
come from the international affairs budget: State Department and 
foreign assistance accounts.
  I want to commend you, Senator, for giving a strong and impassioned 
speech on the floor today about the importance of our keeping all of 
these tools in our toolkit so that as we confront our adversaries 
around the world, we have the resources and the ability to partner with 
and strengthen our allies as well.
  We have no quarrel with the Russian people, but we are here because 
there is nothing Vladimir Putin's regime would love more than to see 
his actions divide us in this Chamber and divide us in this country 
from our vital allies in Europe and divide the whole North Atlantic 
community that for seven decades has brought peace and stability to

[[Page S1535]]

Europe, has brought prosperity to the United States, not as an act of 
charity but as an investment in the best interests of security.
  We are here to say with one voice that we will stand up to Russian 
aggression that undermines democracy and violates human rights.
  I am grateful for my colleague, for the chance to join him on the 
floor today, and I look forward to working together with any of our 
colleagues who see these issues as clearly as my friend and colleague, 
the Senator from Florida.
  Mr. RUBIO. I thank the Senator for joining me in this endeavor here 
today. It is important that we speak out about this.
  In a moment, the majority leader will be here with some procedural 
matters that will, I guess, take the Senate to a different posture.
  Before that happens, I wanted to close by not just thanking him for 
being a part of this but by making a couple more points.
  The first is, I want you to imagine for a moment, if you are sitting 
at the Kremlin and you are watching on satellite television the debate 
going on in American politics today, you are probably feeling pretty 
good about yourself. You have one group arguing that maybe the 
elections weren't legitimate because the Russians interfered. In 
essence, there have been news reports about a tension between the 
President and the Intelligence Committee. You have these reports every 
single day back and forth. You are looking at all this chaos, and you 
are saying to yourself: We did a pretty good job. If what we wanted to 
do was to divide the American people against each other, have them at 
each other's throats, arguing about things, and sowing chaos and 
instability into their political process, I think you look at the 
developments of the last 6 weeks and 6 months, and if you are in the 
Kremlin, you say: Well, our efforts have been pretty successful with 
that. I think that is the first thing we need to understand.
  The second thing is, this should all be about partisanship. I am a 
member of the Senate Intelligence Committee. It is probably known that 
we are undertaking an investigation into Russian interference in the 
2016 elections. I want everyone to know--I speak for myself and I 
believe almost all of my colleagues when I say, on the one hand, I am 
not interested in being a part of a witch hunt; on the other hand, I 
will not be part of a coverup. We are going to get to the truth. We 
want to get to the truth. We want to be able to deliver to this body 
and to the American people a document with truth and facts, wherever 
they may lead us, because this is above political party. Our system of 
government and this extraordinary Republic has been around for over two 
centuries. It is unique and it is special, and with all of its 
blemishes and flaws, I wouldn't trade it for anything in the world.
  I want people to think about that. The next time you wonder and say 
to yourself that things are so tough in America and things are going so 
poorly, well, with whom would you trade places? I am not saying we 
don't have problems, because we do, but I ask, in what country would 
you rather be? I promise you that you won't say China if you know 
anything about China. I promise you that you won't say Russia if you 
know anything about Russia. There is no nation on Earth we would trade 
places with, and there is no process of government I would trade for 
ours. It is not perfect.
  One of the strengths of our system is our ability to stand up here in 
places like the Senate and discuss our differences and our problems and 
make continuous progress forward even if the pace is slower and more 
frustrating than we wish. That is what is at stake in this process and 
what is at stake in this debate. That is what none of us can allow to 
see erode because of interference by a foreign government, especially 
one that is a thug and war criminal in every sense of the word.
  So our quarrel is not with the Russian people and it is not with 
Russia. I have extraordinary admiration for the Russian people. I have 
extraordinary admiration for the sacrifices and contributions they have 
made throughout history to our culture and to the world. But, 
unfortunately, today their government is run by an individual who has 
no respect for his own people and no respect for the freedom and 
liberty of others, and it is important for our policymakers on both 
sides of the aisle to be clear-eyed and clear-voiced in what we do 
moving forward.
  I thank the Senator for being with us today and allowing us to engage 
in this discussion. I hope we will see more of that in the weeks and 
months to come so we can speak clearly and firmly in one voice that on 
issues involving America and our sovereignty and our system of 
government and decisions we must make, we will speak with one voice as 
one Nation, as one people, as one country.
  I thank the Presiding Officer, and I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________