[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 53 (Monday, March 27, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1987-S1992]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                               Healthcare

  Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, last week Republicans in Congress came 
within an inch of ripping health insurance away from 24 million people 
in order to give tax breaks to rich people. That collapsed, and it 
collapsed because the American people stood up and said no--no to 
kicking seniors out of nursing homes, no to booting kids with rare 
diseases off of their treatments, no to gutting funding for opioid 
addiction.
  All across this country--in every corner of this country--for months 
people spoke up about how the Affordable Care Act and Medicaid are 
saving their lives and saving their families from financial ruin. They 
poured their hearts out, they raised their voices, and they demanded to 
be heard. Last week they won.
  The collapse of the Republicans' cruel scheme is a huge relief to 
millions of people in this country, but I am not here to celebrate. I 
am here to warn the American people about what is coming next, because 
instead of listening to the American people about what they want, the 
President of the United States has threatened to sabotage healthcare in 
America. It isn't subtle. One hour after the Republicans admitted they 
didn't have the votes in Congress to destroy the Affordable Care Act, 
President Trump sat behind his desk in the Oval Office and told the 
entire Nation that he wants to trigger a meltdown of our healthcare 
system because he thinks that would be helpful to him politically.
  Just so there is no confusion, I want to quote him word for word. He 
said: ``The best thing we can do, politically speaking, is let 
ObamaCare explode.''
  Now let's be clear. It is deeply wrong for the President of the 
United States--whose one and only job is to look out for the American 
people--to root for the failure of our country's healthcare system. It 
is deeply wrong for the President of the United States to announce that 
he is going to drag down our entire healthcare sector--a sector that 
accounts for more than one-sixth of the entire U.S. economy--just so he 
can stand on top of the wreckage and waggle his fingers and say: I told 
you so.
  Healthcare for millions of Americans is not a game. It is not 
entertainment. It is not a reality TV show. Healthcare is literally 
life and death, and it touches everyone in this country from elderly 
grandparents to tiny babies.
  President Trump is responsible for making healthcare in this country 
work. It is his job. He is President of the United States. His party 
controls both Houses of Congress. A legitimate President doesn't clap 
and cheer when things get worse for the American people. A legitimate 
President doesn't pound his chest about sabotaging the health and 
security of the American people because it is politically expedient. A 
legitimate President does his job.
  The President's admission that he wants our healthcare system to 
collapse is a dangerous sign of where things are headed. For 7 years 
Republicans in Congress have rooted against healthcare in this country, 
cheering every stumble and working at every turn to hobble the law and 
make it harder for people to get affordable insurance. President Trump 
cannot repeal the Affordable Care Act on his own, but he can strip 
healthcare from millions of Americans and make it too expensive for 
millions more. He can do that all on his own. In fact, he is already 
working on it.
  A few days after he took office, President Trump signed an Executive 
order directing his agency to use every tool at their disposal to try 
to disrupt the Affordable Care Act. In January, he also pulled down 
government's efforts to get more people signed up for health insurance. 
Why? So fewer people would use the health exchanges, fewer would get 
insurance, and premiums would go up for those who did sign up--all in 
an effort to make ObamaCare fail.
  Senator Patty Murray and I asked the inspector general at the 
Department of Health and Human Services to investigate this reckless 
move, and now an independent investigation has been launched into this 
despicable incident. But the President has more tools at his disposal 
to undercut the Affordable Care Act all by himself. The President can 
redefine what insurance plans have to cover, stripping out critical 
benefits like birth control coverage. The President can withhold 
payments that insurers rely on to keep private health plans affordable. 
The President can allow States to put new conditions on Medicaid, 
conditions like taking away healthcare coverage if a woman doesn't get 
back to work soon enough after giving birth.
  If the President decides to launch an all-out effort to sabotage 
American healthcare so he can manufacture a crisis to score political 
points, he can hurt a lot of people.
  But there is a better way. If Republicans want to work on ideas to 
actually improve healthcare in America, to expand coverage, to expand 
access, or to reduce premiums and out-of-pocket costs, I am eager to 
throw up my sleeves and go to work. For years, Massachusetts has led 
the Nation in bipartisan health reform. We have lots to contribute on 
this, and lots of other Democrats are ready to get to work, too.
  The American people aren't stupid. They know the difference between a 
bill that kicks 24 million people off of their health insurance and a 
bill that actually improves care. They know the difference between a 
President who fights to make health care better and a President who 
plans to sabotage healthcare. They know the difference between a 
fireman and an arsonist. If this President and this Congress continue 
to play politics with the lives of millions of people, I promise you 
that the American people will see it, they will know it, and they will 
rise up once again to fight it.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I take the floor to urge an ``aye'' vote 
on invoking cloture on the issue of Montenegro's admittance into NATO. 
I would point out that 25 of the 28 nations in NATO have already voted 
in favor of Montenegro's accession into NATO. Only the United States, 
Spain, and the Netherlands have yet to weigh in.
  I would like to point out that Montenegro's admittance into NATO is a 
critical test of the alliances's open-door policy. I don't ask my 
colleagues to take my word for it. I would just like to point out that 
our Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, General Curtis Scaparrotti, 
last week declared that Montenegro's accession into NATO is 
``absolutely critical,'' that they have had this desire. They have met 
the map, and they understand NATO'S outreach and ability to bring

[[Page S1988]]

in those who want to determine their own means of government and become 
part of NATO.
  If we were to lose this, it would be a setback to many of the other 
nations and peoples, particularly in Eastern Europe, who were looking 
forward to and have their eyes on the West and becoming part of NATO.
  I would point out to my colleagues that the Russians attach some 
importance to Montenegro because they tried a coup to overthrow the 
government. The Russians tried a coup to overthrow the government of 
this small, beautiful, and strategically important nation.
  I would just point out that our Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson, 
wrote a letter urging Montenegro's membership to be ratified, saying 
that it was ``strongly in the interests of the United States.'' In his 
letter he strongly emphasized that Montenegro's accession to NATO would 
support greater integration, democratic reform, trade, and security and 
stability in the entire Balkans region.
  I won't take too much time in the Senate except to say that I think 
this is more than an accession or non-accession of a small 750,000-
person nation. It is a test in this contest that we are now engaged in 
with Vladimir Putin, who has committed to extending the reach and 
influence of the Russian Government and Russian influence to the point 
where he attempted a coup to overthrow the freely elected government of 
Montenegro. That coup failed, but I can assure my colleagues that if we 
turn down Montenegro, it will not remain the democracy that it is 
today.
  General Breedlove, who is our former commander in Europe said:

       Montenegro is a very strategic place. Can you imagine A2/AD 
     Bubbles in Montenegro?

  I urge my colleagues for a resounding ``aye'' vote in bringing 
cloture to an end and bringing Montenegro into the community of NATO, 
which is needed more now than at any time since the end of the Cold 
War. I, also, by the way, recommend to my colleagues a visit to, 
really, one of the more beautiful countries on Earth.
  I yield for the Senator from South Carolina.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina is recognized.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, for one, I want to let the people of 
Montenegro know that this day has been a long time coming. We would not 
be here had it not been for Senator McCain's constant, persuasive, 
passionate voice, and this day has finally arrived in the Senate.
  As to Senator McConnell, I want to thank him for making floor time. I 
regret we had to do it this way, but when one Senator objects, then, it 
puts the pressure on the rest of us. One Senator can stop legislation 
like this. It was one Senator, and he has every right to do so. But I 
want to thank Senator McConnell for putting aside floor time so that we 
can vote in the Senate to allow Montenegro to be a part of NATO.
  Senator McCain has traveled the world as much as anybody I know. I 
have been to Montenegro with him at least once, if not twice. It is a 
beautiful place. They share our values. They want to move forward in 
terms of their democracy. They want to be part of NATO. They want to be 
part of free markets. They want the rule of law to replace the rule of 
the gun. Montenegro is trying to do everything that Putin hates--where 
you can actually vote for your own leaders, where you can have a 
judicial system that works, where people can walk the streets without 
fear, and where the leadership doesn't steal the country blind.
  I want to let the people of Russia know--for those who went into the 
streets yesterday or the day before to protest the corruption of the 
Putin regime--that you have my undying respect and admiration, because 
I can only imagine how hard that was.
  For the people of Montenegro, I know they have been waiting a long 
time for this day to come because Russia and, generally, Putin have 
been trying to overthrow their government.
  To those people in this body who proclaim they are for freedom and 
liberty, here is what I suggest. If you are not for other people's 
freedom and other people's liberty, you will eventually lose yours. The 
idea that we can be safe and free and not engage the world and sit on 
the sidelines and watch people like Putin turn the world order upside 
down and not be affected is at best naive. It is worse than naive, but 
I want to be nice and say it is just naive.
  What Putin is doing throughout the world is trying to break the backs 
of the world order, NATO, and the European Union. He is trying to drive 
a wedge between the NATO countries, and he will be the biggest 
beneficiary of that. He is trying to break the back of the European 
Union. Alliances of democracy are his worst nightmare. This is a huge 
step in the right direction.
  I want to thank Senator McCain for being the most consistent voice in 
this body, and Senators McConnell and Schumer for allowing this vote. 
But our work is not done because it is one thing to vote in favor of 
Montenegro's entering NATO over Russia's objections. That is not 
enough. Senator McCain and myself, Senators Cardin and Rubio--Democrats 
and Republicans--all have crafted legislation to punish Russia for 
interfering in our elections. And they did. They are trying to break 
the backs of democracy in Ukraine, Georgia, and the Baltic nations. I 
hope the next thing we do in this body, in short order, on Russia is to 
punish them for their efforts to interfere and change and destabilize 
American democracy. I don't think they changed the outcome, but it was 
the Russians who did this to the Democratic Party, and I think every 
Republican should be equally offended.
  I hope we can find some time on the floor, starting in the committee, 
to pass a Russia sanctions bill that, I believe, would get 80 votes. 
This is a great step in the right direction for people in Montenegro. 
It is a rebuke of Putin, but it is not enough.
  Again, I thank Senator McCain for his leadership toward the people in 
Montenegro, and I know he has been worried about what is happening in 
America. I hope he finds some comfort in what we are doing here today.
  I hope the rest of the world, particularly Europe, which is in the 
crosshairs of Putin, will understand that America is coming back and it 
is coming back strongly.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from South Carolina, 
particularly on the issue of Russian sanctions.
  Yesterday, we saw the people of Russia, particularly the younger 
people, demonstrating peacefully in the streets of the cities and towns 
throughout Russia in order to protest the corruption and dictatorship 
of Vladimir Putin. At the time, the leader of the opposition was 
jailed. He was in the process of putting together a study that showed 
that Medvedev, who was Putin's puppet, was one of the wealthiest people 
on Earth.
  I was heartened by the willingness and the courage of the people of 
Russia to stand up and protest a corrupt, dictatorial, and brutal 
government that, unfortunately, they are saddled with.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, one of my chief responsibilities as 
chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is to help protect 
the men, women, and institutions that keep America safe, including not 
only the State Department but the North Atlantic Treaty Alliance.
  NATO was founded in 1949 as an alliance that was committed to the 
collective defense of its members--that an attack on one constitutes an 
attack on all. The alliance's self-defense clause has only been invoked 
once, after 9/11, when our allies deployed with us to Afghanistan.
  Our militaries, in their working together, allow NATO to function. 
NATO members have committed to spending 2 percent of their GDPs on 
their militaries, but only the United Kingdom, Estonia, Poland, Greece, 
and the United States currently hit that goal. While the other members 
are working on growing their defense budgets, I have long held the 
belief that they must do so faster.
  Regardless, part of what makes NATO great is its open doors. States 
that are interested in becoming allies are encouraged to join the 
Partnership for Peace. When those states then meet the criteria for 
membership, they are welcomed into the alliance.
  This process is exactly what occurred with Montenegro. Just after 
becoming

[[Page S1989]]

an independent country in June of 2006, Montenegro joined the 
Partnership for Peace in December 2006. Exactly 3 years later, 
Montenegro obtained its Membership Action Plan. Six years after that, 
NATO recognized that Montenegro had met all of the necessary standards 
for membership and invited the country to begin talks to become part of 
the alliance. Then, in May of 2016, NATO's Foreign Ministers signed the 
protocol to formally open the way for Montenegro to join. As of today, 
every other NATO member has already ratified this treaty and 
Montenegro's inclusion.
  Beyond such procedural steps, Montenegro has long been contributing 
to shared security challenges. For example, Montenegro actively 
supported the NATO-led operation in Afghanistan from 2010 until its end 
in 2014 and now is supporting the follow-on mission to train, advise, 
and assist Afghan security forces. It is important to note that 
Montenegro has taken these steps despite Russia's best efforts to 
undermine their progress every step of the way.
  I thank Senator Ben Cardin; the Europe and Regional Security 
Cooperation Subcommittee chairman, Ron Johnson; and my other colleagues 
on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for their support and 
constructive work during this process.
  We have moved this treaty ratification twice now--once in the last 
Congress and again in January--to demonstrate our commitment to NATO 
and to Montenegro.
  I also thank Senator McCain, both as a former member of our committee 
as well as the chair of the Armed Services Committee, for his 
unwavering support in bringing Montenegro into the alliance.
  Lastly, on behalf of the committee, I urge all of my colleagues to 
support this treaty amendment that serves American security interests 
for a strong NATO.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, President Trump said in his inaugural 
address that we have defended other nations' borders while refusing to 
defend our own. I think he was right. Today, the question is, Will we 
add another commitment to defend yet another foreign country?
  For decades, NATO has been an organization in which the United States 
disproportionately spends our blood and our treasure. The other NATO 
countries have largely hitched a ride on a U.S. train that subsidizes 
their defenses and allows them to direct their revenues to their own 
domestic concerns. In short, Uncle Sam is the Uncle Patsy for the rest 
of the world.
  The question today is, Will adding to NATO another country with fewer 
than 2,000 soldiers be in our self-interest?
  It has fewer than 2,000 soldiers and is a small country in a distant 
part of the world. Will they make you sleep safer at night? The answer 
is an emphatic no.
  There is no national security interest that an alliance with 
Montenegro will advance. If we invite Montenegro into NATO, it will be 
a one-way street, with the United States committing to defending yet 
another country and with you, the taxpayer, being stuck with the bill.
  Even the advocates of Montenegro's joining NATO admit as much. The 
Senate hearing on admitting Montenegro to NATO was really just a 
punching session about Russia. Not one word was said about allowing 
Montenegro into NATO or how it would advance our own national security. 
We were going to send a message to Russia. Even the citizens of 
Montenegro are divided on this. About half of them want to be in NATO, 
and the other half does not want to be in NATO.
  But it is not really about them; it is about us. Is admitting 
Montenegro to NATO good for us? Our national security is our national 
security. Is Montenegro going to defend the United States? Are they of 
any importance to our national security or, perhaps, will they entangle 
us in local, historic, regional conflicts in the area?
  We must ask: Is Montenegro an asset to the defense of the United 
States? That is the question at hand.
  The answer is a simple one. Admitting Montenegro to NATO will do 
nothing to advance our national security, and it will do everything to 
simply add another small country to NATO's welfare wagon.
  Advocates for expanding NATO believe that, unless the whole world 
joins NATO, Russia will conquer the world, but the truth is more 
nuanced. During the Cold War, the myth of Russian might was endlessly 
circulated here at home, and the effect was the production of endless 
munitions and ever-expanding debt. You are still paying the tab for 
that. The Cold War ended, and the Soviet Union failed, not because our 
military might overcame them but because our economic system outlasted 
them. They were defeated. Capitalism defeated socialism.
  If there is one message that Americans should get, it is that 
capitalism is stronger than socialism. We should not flirt with 
political leaders in our country who promote what caused the Soviet 
Union to fail.
  Now we are told we must fear Russia again--fear the Russian bear. 
Yet, if you look closely, you will see that Russian aggression around 
the world and particularly around the former Soviet satellites is an 
attempt to mask a weak economy that runs the same risk of overextension 
that caused the Soviet Empire to collapse. Russia is weak. Russia is 
weak because of corruption, oligarchy, and human rights abuses. If 
Russia continues on this path, it may well encounter the same cataclysm 
that brought down the Soviet Empire.
  Without question, Russia is an adversary, a country that ignores 
international norms, does not respect the territorial integrity of its 
neighbors. Yet someone must ask: Is it in our national interest to 
insist that countries of the former Soviet Union be in NATO?
  The debate today is not just about Montenegro. The same cheerleaders 
for Montenegro's being in NATO want Ukraine in NATO and want Georgia in 
NATO. This is about NATO's expansion in general, and this is a chance 
to have a real debate.
  If both Ukraine and Georgia were in NATO today, we would be involved 
in a world war with Russia. Shouldn't someone speak up? Shouldn't we 
have some sort of national debate before we commit our sons and 
daughters to war in a faraway land?
  One thing is for certain: Russia will always care more about those 
lands than we will. Does that make Russian aggression right? Absolutely 
not.
  Our decision--the decision at hand--is: Are we willing to send our 
sons and daughters to fight in border disputes over Montenegro? Most 
Americans couldn't find Montenegro on the map. Are you willing to send 
your kids there to fight?
  That is what this is about, and this is sluffed over. They are going 
to forbid amendments. I forced this debate. Nobody wanted to have this 
debate. They want to rubberstamp it. They want no debates, and they 
want to send your kids to war with no debate. Today, they will pass 
this over my objections, but they will allow no amendments. When I 
finish this speech, I will ask for an amendment, and it will be denied 
because they do not want to debate whether your sons and daughters go 
to war. I find that appalling. I am ashamed of a Senate that will not 
have a debate and will not have a vote.
  From the very beginning, our Republic was founded on a deep suspicion 
of entangling alliances. Our Founders wanted to do everything possible 
to avoid the endless, chronic wars in Europe. In Europe, for centuries, 
Kings from one nation fought their brothers and their cousins in other 
nations. This meaningless fratricide continued even into the 20th 
century.
  The Founding Fathers were emphatic in their desire to avoid endless 
war. Washington wrote that our true policy was to steer clear of a 
permanent alliance with any portion of the foreign world. Jefferson 
echoed this when he famously wrote of peace, commerce, and honest 
friendship with all nations and of entangling alliances with none.
  Even in modern times, such military heroes as President Eisenhower 
opposed intervention in Hungary, even when the naked aggression of the 
Soviets was appalling. Eisenhower likely may have had no real 
opportunity, though, because the Soviet Union had rolled in with 
200,000 troops and 4,000 tanks.
  At least part of the decision not to go into Hungary in the fifties 
was not for a lack of sympathy for freedom, not for

[[Page S1990]]

a lack of sympathy for self-determination of a country. It was the real 
politic decision of a nuclear confrontation with a nuclear Russia.
  Fast-forward to today. For 16 years, we have been at war in the 
Middle East--16 years. If I had been here, I would have voted for going 
after the people who had attacked us on 9/11. Our justified response, 
though, has drug on and on. There are people who are fighting in the 
war who were not born on 
9/11. The Congress voted after 9/11 to go to war. It voted to go after 
the people who planned and plotted the attacks on the World Trade 
Center. That vote from 15 years ago is used to justify all war that is 
everywhere on the planet.
  There has been no meaningful debate on the wars we are currently 
involved in in the Middle East. We currently fight illegally and 
unconstitutionally in the Middle East because your representatives are 
afraid to have a public debate. They will stifle debate at all costs, 
and they will broker no amendments. They will allow no amendments to 
occur.
  Our unrestricted, unvoted-upon involvement in war everywhere informed 
my opposition to expand NATO. Everyone likes to talk about NATO's 
article 5 obligation to come to the defense of any NATO allies that are 
attacked. That is in the treaty. If Montenegro is attacked, we will 
have to respond, but my concern is that many in Congress believe that 
article 5, in saying that we have to defend Montenegro, farms out to an 
international body this power to declare war, and they do not think 
they have to vote again.
  You don't believe me?
  They have not voted for 15 years for war, and we are still at war. We 
continue to go to new countries for war with no vote. Do you think that 
Montenegro will not be attacked and that there will not be a war 
without a vote? This is their history. Their history is one of not 
obeying the Constitution. David Fromkin puts it this way: ``If it is 
now agreed by treaty that an attack on a . . . NATO ally is deemed an 
attack on the United States, then it can be argued that the President 
is empowered without congressional authorization to send us to war.''

  Don't believe me? We have been at war for 15 years. We have been at 
war with dozens of new tribes, dozens of new countries, with no votes 
on war.
  The most important vote a legislator will ever take is whether to go 
to war. Yet today we will vote for an automatic war if somebody invades 
Montenegro. And mark my words--they won't obey the Constitution. They 
will say: We voted to put them in NATO. Article 5 says we have to 
defend them.
  That is not the law of the land, and we should have to vote in 
Congress. But nobody obeys the law. So if you are worried about whether 
your kids will be sent to the Balkans or whether your kids will be sent 
to Ukraine or Georgia, call your representative and tell them: Stop.
  This is the crux of the debate. Congress has abdicated its role in 
declaring war. For 16 years, we have been at war in the Middle East 
with dozens of different tribes and dozens of countries and yet no 
vote. People say: Well, we should fight ISIS. Well, let's vote on it. 
Let's declare war or not. But you can't tell me that ISIS has anything 
to do with 9/11. They don't. Many of their fighters weren't even born 
then.
  The authorization for war in Iraq was specific to a specific enemy in 
a specific place. So was the authorization after 9/11. The 
authorization for war in Afghanistan was specific. It says: necessary 
and appropriate force against those who planned, authorized, committed, 
or aided the September 11 attacks. It was actually put in the 
authorization for force that it was about 9/11. None of what is going 
on is about 9/11 anymore. They are not the same people. Some of the 
people we are fighting now didn't like those people.
  There is a whole confusing set of religious wars that have been going 
on for 1,000 years in the Middle East. Yet your representatives will 
say: Send me your son, send me your daughter, but we don't have time to 
vote on whether it should be a declared war.
  This vote is now used to justify a war around the globe, a vote from 
9/11--from 15 years ago. It is a lie, and it is a disservice to our 
young men and women to have them fight under false pretenses where the 
Senators don't seem to have time to have a debate. No active war 
anywhere around the globe that the United States is involved with has 
been authorized by Congress.
  We dropped more bombs the other day in Pakistan. We sent a man right 
into Yemen. Raise your hand if you know what the hell is going on in 
Yemen and who is fighting whom and who is our enemy. The one we killed 
the other day was al-Qaida--probably a bad guy. He was actually 
fighting against the Houthis, whom we are also fighting against.
  Who are the good guys? Shouldn't we have a debate? Shouldn't we 
decide whether we are going to war in Yemen? Should we be giving the 
Saudis bombs? They bombed a funeral procession. They killed 150 
civilians and 500 people. We just let it go on. We keep giving them 
weapons. I have tried to stop selling bombs to the Saudi Arabians, but 
the majority up here says: Keep giving them to them. Keep giving them 
the weapons, and let them indiscriminately kill whoever the hell they 
want.
  So NATO--should we expand it? Perhaps what we should do is make it 
clear that the NATO treaty is not a blind, open-ended promise to go to 
war anywhere, anytime.
  Before we go to final passage, I will offer one amendment. This 
amendment will be blocked because they do not want debate and because 
they will be embarrassed if they have to vote against this amendment. 
But realize what this amendment asks. My amendment states that nothing 
in the NATO treaty--particularly the article 5 promise to come to the 
rescue of anyone attacked--none of this can happen without an official 
vote to declare war. So what is my amendment stating? The 
Constitution--article I, section 8--says we don't go to war without a 
vote and a debate. Do you know what they will do to get around it? I 
think we can assume that they are against the Constitution because they 
are not going to allow the amendment. How long would it take? It takes 
15 minutes to vote around here. I am about done speaking. We could have 
one 15-minute vote on an amendment. I would grant back the time if we 
would have a vote, but they don't want to debate it because they are 
embarrassed that they are sending your sons and daughters to war 
without ever debating or voting on it.
  This, to me, is a tragedy. It is sad to me. It makes me ashamed of 
the body that we will do this. Probably what is worse is then they 
clamor to the floor, their mouths agape, ajar, calling other people 
traitors, acting as if I care less about your sons and daughters 
because I want to have a debate on war before we go to war, preventing 
an amendment from happening and then having the gall to come to the 
floor and accuse their philosophic opponents of being traitors and 
being allies with the Russians.
  Is this what we have come to? Is this where we are as America, that 
you can't take a principled stand against war; that you can't stand up 
on principle and say: Are we really going to go to war over Montenegro, 
over Ukraine? Are we really going to go to war over Georgia? And then 
you are accused of not being patriotic to your country.
  I care as much as anybody about our soldiers. When I talk to our 
young men and women who serve, do you know what they tell me? They want 
someone to stand up and have a debate. They will do what they are told. 
Our soldiers are brave, and they will go where they are told, and they 
will obey orders. But the people here who are these mouthpieces for 
war, who think every soldier wants to go to war, I suggest they go out 
and meet the soldiers and ask them whether they want the civilian 
Senators to debate and have a formal declaration of war. That is all I 
am asking for--15 minutes and an amendment that says we will obey the 
Constitution.
  If article 5 says we need to go to war and Montenegro is attacked, we 
will do the proper thing. We will come to the floor of the Senate. We 
are not sending troops to Montenegro without a vote on the floor of the 
Senate. Is that too much to ask for? We will see.
  Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 199 that says we should 
obey the Constitution and that we should declare war before we go to 
war.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Johnson). Is there objection to setting 
aside the pending amendment?
  Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I reserve the right to object.

[[Page S1991]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I work very close with my friend from 
Kentucky. There were some awfully strong things that were just said. I 
don't think they were directed necessarily at me.
  I think there has been a little bit of an evolution here. I know that 
the reason we are having to go through this process of filibustering a 
treaty is the fact that the Senator from Kentucky wanted a vote on an 
unrelated amendment relative to surveillance here in our own country. 
When he was unable to get that agreement, he decided to filibuster a 
treaty. So that is what is happening here.
  I am interested to hear this evolution of why we are having this 
debate. Let me just say, having dealt with this issue firsthand--and I 
know he knows this--this filibuster is about something totally 
unrelated to the amendment that is being offered right now.
  I know the Senator from Kentucky, my friend, knows that I have 
offered authorizations for the use of force. I did so against Syria, 
and I am glad to have a debate on authorizations for the use of force, 
and I think we should. I know the administration is developing a 
strategy around ISIS right now, and when they complete that, it is my 
hope that we will, in fact, update the 2001 AUMF.
  I think it has been stated by past administrations that the 
authorization they are utilizing as it relates to ISIS is legal. I 
believe them to be correct. But I will say that I agree we ought to 
have another debate on the issue of authorizing the fight against ISIS, 
and I hope we will do so as soon as this administration completes the 
process of laying out what their plan is. Then we can debate that and 
then hopefully update that authorization. I don't know what that has to 
do with a treaty with Montenegro. There has been a lot that has been 
said, and I don't know how it necessarily ties together. But the fact 
is, when you enter into an article 5 treaty--which has, by the way, 
passed out of our committee on two occasions--you are, in fact, saying 
under article 5 that a war against one is a war against all and that we 
will come to their defense. So the amendment itself, if we were to vote 
on it, would basically negate that.
  I think the Senator from Kentucky could have had this vote, but the 
fact is that 98 Senators wanted to have this vote--have wanted to have 
this vote for months, I might add--and we have had to come to this 
point of filing cloture.
  So, with that, with good will toward the Senator, with good will 
toward the other 97 Senators here who would like to pass this 
posthaste, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, it is important to know what just happened. 
We closed off the debate, and as far as a filibuster goes, we are 
having a debate and a vote. What they wanted was a rubberstamp and an 
easy passage without debate. We are having a bit of a debate, and that 
is good. Unfortunately, we will not be allowed to amend the bill.
  My amendment is germane to the bill. It has to do with what article 5 
means in the treaty we are signing. What it says is that we will not 
necessarily take article 5 to mean that we are going to war, that we 
would do the constitutional duty, and that is to vote about whether we 
go to war. So the amendment is very clear that we would obey the 
Constitution.
  By blocking the vote, we have to realize that those blocking the vote 
have decided that really it should be automatic, that your sons and 
daughters will be sent to war automatically without a vote, without a 
declaration of war. You say: Well, maybe they don't mean that. Maybe 
they would obey the Constitution.
  They don't now. So everything in evidence shows us that the chance 
that in the future they will obey the Constitution is about zero. But 
so ashamed are they of the fact that we will fight more wars without a 
declaration, without a vote--they won't allow a vote on the amendment 
because they would be voting against the Constitution. So, instead, 
they will block the amendment.
  That is essentially what this debate is about: Are we automatically 
obligated to go to war without a vote by Congress? That is what the 
vote is about. It is incredibly germane. It goes to the heart of the 
bill. It goes to the heart of the NATO treaty. Does article 5 mean you 
automatically go to war, or would you go through the normal processes 
of going to war? Now, some will say: Oh, well, we would never go to 
war. It might not be so bad, but it would be difficult.
  Do you know when we have gone to war? We have actually gone 
unanimously when we have done it the right way. When we were attacked 
on 9/11 and they came to Congress, do you know what the vote was? 
Unanimous. We are not about letting people attack us as a country, and 
I would have voted for that.
  When we were attacked in Pearl Harbor, what did FDR do? The thing 
that great leaders would do--and I am not a huge fan always of FDR, but 
he did the right thing. He came to Congress the next day. I think it 
was on December 8 that they voted unanimously to go to war. That is the 
way it was done once upon a time.
  When you are attacked, people do rally to the country and they rally 
to the flag, but we shouldn't have an automatic stamp that says: We are 
going to war anywhere without any restraint, without any control or 
separation of power.
  So I object strenuously to this, and I wish we were more open in this 
body and in our country to a debate about when we are going to go to 
war.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, before I suggest the absence of a quorum, 
I would like to say that the Constitution calls for treaties to be 
enacted by this body, which is what we are doing today. Everybody 
understands what NATO is and has understood it since the late 1940s. 
This is the kind of treaty that we would like for other people to be a 
member of, and today Montenegro, which has gone through the full 
process of accession, hopefully will be passed through this body.
  This is the last country, by the way--every other country that is a 
member of NATO has voted to cause Montenegro to join NATO.
  I know my friend from Maryland, the ranking member, Senator Cardin, 
has just arrived. I know he has a few words to say. He is a strong 
supporter of Montenegro's accession, as is the vast majority of this 
Senate.
  I will let the comments from the Senator from Kentucky lie. We are 
doing our constitutional duty by passing a treaty that we all 
understood. It has been debated fully in committee. It has been passed 
out twice. I am glad we are doing so. The fact is, this has been 
blocked by one Senator who wanted to vote on something totally 
unrelated to this and was using this as leverage. That is what is 
occurring here, nothing else. We are finally, through cloture, having a 
vote on something that the majority of people in the Senate want to 
pass.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 
7 minutes prior to the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I thank Chairman Corker for the manner in 
which this resolution of ratification has been handled in the Senate 
Foreign Relations Committee. It has been handled in a nonpartisan way. 
We have had hearings, we have had votes, we have had a lot of 
conversations about it, and at last we are going to get a chance to 
vote on the ratification. So I come to the floor to speak in support of 
this resolution of ratification regarding the Protocol to the North 
Atlantic Treaty of 1949 on the Accession of Montenegro.
  I have been a strong supporter of Montenegro's bid to join NATO. It 
will enhance our security, it will strengthen the alliance, and it will 
send a strong message of resolve to Russia as it invades its neighbors 
and seeks to upend the international order. Montenegro's inclusion in 
NATO will have positive repercussions across the continent and will 
send an important message of hope to aspirant countries.
  Last week, I met with Montenegro's Foreign Minister, and he described 
Russia's persistent efforts to weaken support for NATO membership in 
Montenegro. Last October, Russia interfered in the Montenegrin 
elections.

[[Page S1992]]

There was a plot to assassinate the former Prime Minister of Montenegro 
and take over the Montenegrin Parliament. The suspects in that case 
scurried back to Moscow, and the Russian authorities refused to turn 
them over to the Montenegrins or even make them available for 
questioning in Moscow. To this day, Russian-supported NGOs and media 
propaganda continue to rail against Montenegro's NATO membership.
  Russia does not get a veto over decisions of the alliance. We need to 
send a strong message of resolve. This is not an isolated circumstance 
with Russia. We have seen how they interfered in our elections. We have 
seen what they are doing in Europe today.
  We see all these different activities by Russia, and we have to 
protect ourselves. One way we protect ourselves is by making our own 
decisions as to who should be admitted into NATO. Another is that we 
should have an independent commission take a look at what Russia was 
doing in their interference with our elections and what they are trying 
to do in trying to compromise our democratic system of government. I 
think the events that occurred in recent weeks of additional contacts 
that Russia made with members of the Trump administration just 
underscore the importance for that independent commission to take a 
look at what happened.
  I stand here today in support of NATO enlargement. The Senate Foreign 
Relations Committee recently voted by voice vote in support of this 
bid--unanimously, Democrats and Republicans. This is not a partisan 
issue. We have had a request from the President to take up this issue. 
Nearly all NATO members have approved Montenegro's bid. We are among 
the last to ratify, and we must get the job done. Tonight, we can take 
a major step forward in that regard.
  What is the case for Montenegro's membership? Admission of Montenegro 
would mark another important step forward, fully integrating the 
Balkans into international institutions that have helped to contribute 
to peace and stability over the years in Europe. Croatia and Albania 
joined the alliance in 2009 and have been valuable contributors to 
accomplishing NATO's objectives since then. I hope that Montenegro's 
admission will help them motivate the reforms necessary for other 
Balkan countries to join.
  Montenegro has made outsized contributions to NATO missions, despite 
not being a full member. I understand that in Afghanistan, Montenegro 
has rotated 20 percent of its armed forces through the ISAF and the 
resolute support missions. Twenty percent of their force--that is a 
substantial contribution. It also contributed to the peacekeeping 
mission in Kosovo and other NATO missions.
  No country outside the alliance gets a veto over who gets to join, 
especially Russia. So we must send a strong signal. I urge my 
colleagues to pass this resolution and get it to the President so the 
President can deposit the instrument of ratification at NATO in support 
of Montenegro's bid. I urge my colleagues to support the mission.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.