[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 54 (Tuesday, March 28, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2032-S2039]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROTOCOL TO THE NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY OF 1949 ON THE ACCESSION OF
MONTENEGRO--Continued
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
(The remarks of Mr. Flake pertaining to the introduction of S. 745
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills
and Joint Resolutions.'')
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SASSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Russia
Mr. SASSE. Mr. President, I rise to comment briefly on Russian
interference in the electoral processes in this country and across the
West and governments of many of Russia's own neighbors.
We are in the middle of a civilization warfare crisis of public trust
in this country. This isn't about the last 2 months. This isn't just
about the last Presidential election. This is fundamentally about the
last few decades of declining public trust in a broad range of our
institutions: the press, political parties, executive branch agencies,
the Congress, and beyond.
Russia is not unaware of our own distrust of each other. Russia is
not unaware of our own increasing self-doubt about our shared values.
Russia is today very self-consciously working to further erode
confidence in our self-government by pulling at the threads of our
public and civic life. Moscow's influence campaigns don't start by
creating wholly new problems out of thin air, but rather by exploiting
fissures that already exist in our civilization. The simplest way for
Russia to try to weaken us is by trying to exploit the places where we
are already weak, the places where we are already distrustful, and the
places where we are failing to pass along a shared understanding of
American values to the next generation.
The sad state of modern politics and the explosion of digital media
are proving to be ripe targets for many of our own internal doubts and
our own discord. We--all of us, Republicans and Democrats, the
legislature and the executive branch--are ill-prepared for the
challenges that are already on our doorstep, let alone what comes next
with the acceleration of these kinds of technologies.
Today in the Wall Street Journal, we in this body were rebuked--
rightly rebuked, I think, and rebuked in a bipartisan way by former
Congressman Mike Rogers. Chairman Rogers, a Republican, served as the
Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee from 2011 through 2015. I
am going to read his op-ed rebuke into the Record today, but I would
humbly ask that all 100 Members of this body calmly and self-critically
consider carefully Chairman Rogers' argument, for his argument is not
fundamentally against Republicans alone. It is not against Democrats
alone. He is offering double-barreled criticism of all of us in the
Congress--criticism of both parties. Why of both parties? Because
Russia's influence campaign is a really big deal. Are we Republicans
listening? Also, because our response to Russia's influence campaign is
not primarily about who you supported last November in the Presidential
election.
Listening to the Democrats, it is sometimes hard to understand if
that side of the aisle remembers that basic fact about what Russia's
influence campaign was up to. Russia's goals in our most recent
election were not initially about one candidate versus another
candidate. We need to underscore this. There are particulars that those
of us who spend time reading classified intelligence know we can't
discuss in this unclassified setting. But the big, broad point is
simple and needs to be shouted, and that is that Putin's fundamental
goals are about undermining NATO. Putin's fundamental goals are about
making us doubt our own values: freedom of speech, freedom of religion,
freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, the right of protest or
redress of grievances.
The Kremlin isn't attempting an influence campaign to make Americans
believe that the sky is green or the grass is blue. He is trying to
undertake an influence campaign to make us doubt our own First
Amendment values. The Kremlin wants us to believe that our society is
as corrupt as the thugocracy that Putin and his cronies are trying to
advance. That isn't true, but if you listen to us in this body, we
regularly do very little to restore the kind of public trust that Putin
is actively working to undermine.
So I ask that each Member of this body would humbly and carefully
consider Chairman Rogers' rebuke to the Congress this morning. This is
from the Wall Street Journal, Chairman Rogers; headline: ``America is
Ill-Prepared to Counter Russia's Information Warfare.''
When historians look back at the 2016 election, they will
likely determine that it represented one of the most
successful information operation campaigns ever conducted. A
foreign power, through the targeted application of cyber
tools to influence America's electoral process, was able to
cast doubt on the election's legitimacy, engender doubts
about the victor's fitness for office, tarnish the outcome of
the vote, and frustrate the new President's agenda.
Historians will also see a feckless Congress--both
Democrats and Republicans--that focused on playing partisan
``gotcha'' and fundamentally failed in its duty to gather
information, hold officials accountable, and ultimately serve
our country's interests.
Whether or not the Trump campaign or its staff were
complicit in Moscow's meddling is missing the broader point:
Russia's intervention has affected how Americans now view the
peaceful transition of power from one president to the next.
About this we should not be surprised. Far from it.
Propaganda is perhaps the second- or third-oldest
profession. Using information as a tool to affect outcomes is
as old as politics. Propaganda was familiar to the ancient
Greeks and Romans, the Byzantines, and the Han Dynasty. Each
generation applies the technology of the day in trying to
influence an adversary's people.
What's new today is the reach of social media, the
anonymity of the internet, and the speed in which falsehoods
and fabrications can propagate. Twitter averaged 319 million
monthly users in the fourth quarter of 2016. Instagram had
600 million accounts at the end of last year. Facebook's
monthly active users total 1.86 billion--a quarter of the
global population. Yet each of these staggering figures
doesn't fully capture the internet's reach.
In February, Russia's minister of defense, Sergey Shoigu,
announced a realignment in its cyber and digital assets. ``We
have information troops who are much more effective and
stronger than the former `counter-propaganda' section,'' Mr.
Shoigu said, according
[[Page S2033]]
to the BBC. Russia, more than any other country, recognizes
the value of information as a weapon. Moscow deployed it with
deadly effect in Estonia, in Georgia and most recently in
Ukraine, introducing doubt into the minds of locals,
spreading lies about their politicians, and obfuscating
Russia's true intentions.
A report last year by RAND Corporation, ``The Russian
`Firehose of Falsehood' Propaganda Model,'' noted that
cyber propaganda is practically a career path in Russia
now. A former paid troll told Radio Free Europe that teams
were on duty around the clock in 12-hour shifts and he was
[personally] required to post at least 135 comments of not
fewer than 200 characters each.
In effect, Moscow has developed a high-volume, multichannel
propaganda machine aimed at advancing its foreign and
security policy. Along with the traditional propaganda
tools--favoring friendly outlets and sponsoring ideological
journals--this represents an incredibly powerful [new] tool.
Now [let's] extrapolate that one step further: Apply
botnets, artificial intelligence and other next-generation
technology. The result will be automated propaganda, rapid
spamming and more. We shouldn't be surprised to see [more] of
this in the future.
Imagine [if you will] an American Senator who vocally
advocates a new strategic-forces treaty with European allies.
Pausing from the article for a minute--it is interesting to note that
is the debate we are actually having in the Senate today. We are
talking about expanding NATO to include Montenegro.
Picking back up:
Moscow, feeling threatened, launches a directed information
campaign to undermine the senator. His emails are breached
and published, disclosing personal details and family
disputes, alongside draft policy papers without context.
Social media is spammed with seemingly legitimate comments
opposing the senator's policy position. The senator's phone
lines are flooded with robocalls. Fake news articles are
pushed out on Russian-controlled media suggesting that the
Senator has probably broken campaign-finance laws.
Can you imagine the disruption to American society? The
confusion in the legislative process? The erosion of trust in
democracy? Unfortunately, this is the reality the U.S. faces
[next], and without a concerted effort it will get [much]
worse.
Congress is too focused on the trees to see the frightening
forest. Rather than engaging in sharp-edged partisanship,
lawmakers should be investigating Russian propaganda
operations and information warfare. They should be figuring
out how to reduce the influence of foreign trolls, and
teaching Americans about Moscow's capabilities. This would go
a long way [toward saving] the republic.
That is the end of the op-ed. Again, this was Chairman Mike Rogers,
who led the House Intelligence Committee from 2011 to 2015, writing an
op-ed in the Wall Street Journal this morning.
Here is what he is really saying. What he is saying is that America
has a future in foreign policy and national security and global
security that is going to have a lot more propaganda, and a body like
this--the Congress generally, but the Senate in particular--has an
obligation to help make sure the American people understand Moscow's
capabilities and their intentions.
Their intentions are to make us doubt our values. Their intentions
are to make us doubt our investment in NATO, the most successful
military alliance of last 2,000 years. Their intentions are to exploit
the ways that we already distrust each other in ways that should be
Republican versus Democratic policy, fighting about particular forms of
government intervention and the economy, for instance, but that are
subordinate to fundamental American beliefs about who we are as a
people and the things that we believe together before we are
Republicans and Democrats.
But if you listen to this body right now, would you have much
confidence that the American people hear people who come together and
believe things that are prepolitical and prepartisan first? Do we have
shared American values that we know how to trumpet? Do we have ways to
celebrate the things that fundamentally make us Americans well before
we are Republicans or Democrats?
I worry that if you watch cable news any given night right now, you
would not, as an American citizen, have that as a takeaway. Instead,
you would hear Americans saying--American public listeners and viewers
to those radio shows and cable shows thinking that the great divide in
the world is between Republicans and Democrats. That is actually not
true.
By voting record, I am the third most conservative guy around here
out of 100, so I care deeply about Republican versus Democratic answers
to most of the policy fights we have. But those things are radically
subordinate to the things we believe in common about the dignity of
people who are created with rights. The government doesn't give us
rights. God gives us rights by nature, and we come together as a
government to secure those rights. The rights of free speech, press,
assembly, and religion are fundamentally American things well before we
get to any of our policy bickering.
Yet, if the Americans listen to us in the Congress most days or most
weeks or most months, I bet their takeaway is that Republican versus
Democrat is the great divide, and we shouldn't trust anybody across
that aisle.
Well, guess what. That is exactly what Putin is trying to do. His
fundamental objective is to make Americans doubt our own values and to
doubt our own civilization so that we fight with each other first,
instead of agreeing as Americans first then fighting about a bunch of
important policy things--but first agreeing who we are as Americans.
The future that we face is a future where there is going to be a lot
more propaganda that tries to exploit our internal divisions to begin
with. It makes it all the more critical that a body like this exists to
help 320 million Americans with a lot of diversity and a lot of
disagreement about really important things. They ought to trust that an
institution like this exists to restore some sense of those shared
values and exists to restore some of that shared trust. Right now that
is not usually what they take away from us in the Congress. So I call
on the 100 Members of this Senate to consider carefully Chairman
Rogers' rebuke of us this morning in the Wall Street Journal.
Thank you, Mr. President.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hoeven). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, I am on the floor to speak in favor of the
pending business before the Senate--to allow for Montenegro to join
NATO as a new member. I have been a proponent of this move for a long
time, having spent time in Montenegro and having chaired for a period
of time the Europe and Regional Security Cooperation Subcommittee of
the Foreign Relations Committee, now serving Senator Johnson as his
ranking member.
I am convinced that NATO will be stronger if Montenegro joins. I am
convinced that our alliance will be stronger if Montenegro joins. It is
a small country with a very small military, but it occupies an
incredibly important space on the world map. It is the only part of the
Adriatic coast that breaks up the current NATO map, and it will provide
a strengthening of our alliance in that region.
Montenegro is ready. It has made significant progress on internal
reform, especially in the area of the rule of law and security sector
reform. The Ministry of Defense has met all of the requirements for
NATO membership. It is moving to modernize its military. It is moving
to try to operationalize itself in a way that it can interact with both
U.S. and European equipment. It is replacing its aircraft that
previously had required Russian spare parts so that they are more
compatible with European and American air equipment. There is still
work that Montenegro needs to do, but now it can continue under the
umbrella of the alliance.
I am very happy that we are taking an important step here to signal
that NATO's open-door policy is still in practice. I think there was
some doubt, frankly, and some concern, after years and years of
Montenegro's desire to join amidst the interest from Georgia and prior
to the crisis in Ukraine, that some of these transatlantic institutions
were closing down. This is a sign that NATO is not only viable but is
still open to those countries that want to join, that want to find
additional safety and security under our umbrella. I am glad we are
going to have a bipartisan vote here in favor of Montenegro's joining
NATO.
I want to make a broader point about our future policy in the
Balkans. It was
[[Page S2034]]
not that long ago that it was a precondition, if you were a Member of
Congress, to be an expert on the Balkans. The United States was at war
in the Balkans, as were Russia and our European allies. It was the
hottest spot on the globe. Thanks to U.S. military might as well as
diplomatic might, the Dayton Peace Accords brought peace and relative
economic prosperity to a region of the globe that has been, frankly, at
the center of almost every major conflict in and around Europe over the
greater part of the last 100 years. It is a moment to celebrate this
period of political and security stability in the Balkans and to
remember that we should not take it for granted. There are still
festering ethnic and nationalist tensions that play out every day in
the Balkans. We see them in small ways.
When I was there, a drone with a map of greater Albania dropped down
into the middle of a football match between the Serbian national team
and the Albanian national team, which was a deliberate attempt to
inflame the Serbians. It seemed like a small thing, but it resulted in
the cancelation of a historic meeting between the Prime Minister of
Albania and the Prime Minister of Serbia.
Just recently, we have seen some breakdown in the progress Serbia and
Kosovo had been making to try to resolve their differences, resulting
ultimately, we hope--we believe--in the recognition of Kosovo's
statehood by the Serbian Government, which is a reminder that bringing
Montenegro into NATO is important for the alliance's sake, but it is
also an important step in continuing to make investments in security in
the Balkans.
It is important for a second reason in that there is another player
out there that is desperately trying to make the Balkans less stable,
and that is Russia. For a very long time, Russia has had legitimate
interests in the Balkans. They have relations with the people of the
Balkan nations, as well as with those governments, but today they have
an interest in trying to destabilize that region, to create a crisis
for Europe, to create a crisis for NATO.
As we all know, Russia fills vacuums of power better than almost any
other player out there. Whether or not we like it, as Members of the
Senate, there is an enormous vacuum in the world right now that is
created by the withdrawal of America. Without a robust State
Department, without coherent U.S. foreign policy, we are just not
players in the world today like we were a year ago. Example A may be
the Balkan region.
The Balkans require attention because there are these simmering
potential conflicts, and the United States has been a force for good
but in ways that most Americans probably do not even know. It required
the constant attention from Vice President Biden, Secretary of State
Kerry, and Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland to make sure
that the Balkans--in particular, the western Balkans--continued their
move toward Europe and rejected offers from Russia for a different kind
of alignment. Weekly big and small interventions allowed the Balkan
nations to feel comfort in a future with Europe and with the United
States. That intervention, that attention, has, frankly, just
disappeared, and the Russians have filled that vacuum.
There was a coup attempt in Montenegro. You do not see a lot of coup
attempts these days in countries in and around Europe, but there was an
attempt to storm the Parliament--an attempt that has been connected to
Russian nationals. Those Russian nationals, according to Montenegro,
have connections directly with the Russian Government. That has not
been confirmed yet, but it is incredibly disturbing to know that
Russian nationals were behind an attempted military coup inside
Montenegro.
We have seen a much tighter joining of the leaders of the Republika
Srpska and Russian interests and operatives in a move toward a
referendum for independence in the Republika Srpska, which is a
component of Bosnia and Herzegovina. It looks suspiciously like the
kind of independence referendums that have threatened to take place in
parts of Ukraine and Luhansk and Donetsk.
There are reports that the same players who are trying to fund and
operationalize independent referendums in Ukraine are also at work
inside Serbia--players with connections back to the Kremlin.
There are reports of a massive increase in Russian media presence in
the Balkans--more offers from Russian TV stations and radio stations to
provide free content to cash-strapped Balkan media outlets.
There are over 100 different nonprofit organizations in Serbia alone,
according to one report, that have financial connections back in and
through Russia.
Russia is filling this vacuum in the Balkans. It is trying to win
friends and trying to create an instability that ultimately would land
at the doorstep of NATO, at the doorstep of Europe, and at the doorstep
of the United States. They are filling that vacuum because we do not
have a presence there today.
Secretary Tillerson has no meaningful experience in the Balkans. He
has no Deputy and he has no Assistant Secretary for the Balkans. When
you pair that next to a proposal that Secretary Tillerson endorses
cutting his budget by 40 percent, you will make America relatively
feckless in that region because it is those funds that the
administration is seeking to cut that are often our linkages to
influence.
In Belgrade, our Ambassador has made enormous progress with a small
amount of money for exchange programs. You look at people in powerful
positions in Serbia today, and many of them are close to the United
States because they have participated in State Department exchange
programs. They have spent time here in the United States getting to
know our country, maybe getting educated here, and they have gone back
to Serbia to be part of the government in order to represent Serbian
interests but with a connection to the United States and to the West
that is important. Those exchange programs are basically eviscerated by
a 40-percent cut. They will not exist any longer. It is a very small
program, but it has not only gotten us important results in the
Balkans, it has contributed to our ability to argue for stability and
to argue for the calming of tensions because it gets doors opened for
the United States.
Without anybody being on call for the State Department in the
Balkans, without any funding in order to try to promote stability and
economic connections between those countries, we cede ground to Russia
every single day. Russia sees vacuums, and they fill them, and we have
created them. We have created a vacuum globally, but we have created a
specific vacuum in the Balkans. It is filled in part by this movement
to join Montenegro with NATO.
I do appreciate the fact that Secretary Tillerson, I believe, and
Secretary Mattis have both recommended to this body that we take up
this matter. I think that was important, and I applaud them for
standing against the recommendations of the Russian Government and for
the accession of Montenegro into NATO, but it is not enough.
I wanted to come to this floor--and I see my great friend and
colleague from Ohio, who is ready to speak--to make the case as to why
this is so important and to make the case that as Russia tries to view
Montenegro as an opportunity to establish a Kaliningrad on the
Mediterranean, we can prevent its happening with this vote and with the
vote of our European allies to join Montenegro with NATO, but it is not
enough. We have to remember that stability in the Balkans is nothing to
be taken for granted. The next global crisis may come from a small act
of tension between neighbors that spins out of control, in part because
the United States is not paying attention and because Russian
intervention in the region, which is bigger and broader now than ever
before, has an interest not in stability but actually ultimately in
instability.
I thank Leader McConnell for bringing this before the body. This is a
chance for us to join together in supporting Montenegro as it joins
NATO. Hopefully, there will be more opportunities for us to work
together to make sure that this administration, to make sure that our
country has a comprehensive policy to continue to build on the NATO
peace accords and double down on the work we do to promote long-term
stability and prosperity in the Balkan region.
[[Page S2035]]
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, first I want to thank my colleague for
coming to the floor today to speak about Montenegro and the importance
of its accession into NATO, as well as for his focus on the Balkans and
for his comment that right now the people of the Balkans and, for that
matter, the people in Ukraine and other countries in eastern Southern
Europe are feeling a lot of pressure. I applaud him for working on a
bipartisan basis over the last couple of years to help us push back
against some of the disinformation and propaganda that is primarily
being promoted by Russia.
In each of these countries--and I know my colleague Senator Murphy
has visited these countries--the first issue I hear about when I go on
a trip to Latvia, where I went recently, and certainly Ukraine and even
Poland is concern about this sort of unrelenting campaign of
disinformation, as we call it; maybe the other term would be
``propaganda.'' We do need to stand up and be counted. The new
department of global engagement at the State Department is beginning to
do that. I know Senator Murphy has had some meetings recently--and I
have, too--where they are starting to get their feet on the ground and
being able to allow people to be able to see the objective truth; in
other words, to sort of separate narratives from reality, to be able to
ensure that we don't have an undermining of these great democracies--
these fledgling democracies, many of them.
So we are talking today, as my colleague from Nebraska did earlier,
about the meddling in our own election here and the effect it is having
on the level of trust in this country, and this is true not just here
but in other democracies. I appreciate Senator Murphy standing up and
being counted on that issue and then today specifically being able to
help Montenegro to have the opportunity to develop its own
institutions. As I said, it is not perfect, but they have made
progress, they have made reforms, and they have followed the directions
many of us have given them to enable them to be responsible members of
NATO. So I thank Senator Murphy for being here today and talking about
that.
Read Aloud Month
Mr. President, I am actually speaking out today about another issue,
which is one that is a little closer to home, and that is about the
importance of reading to our kids. It turns out that this month of
March has been designated as Read Aloud Month, and this group called
Read Aloud is doing fantastic work around the country. They actually
started in my hometown of Cincinnati, OH, so I am a little biased about
them, but what they are doing is incredibly important. It is about
education, it is about the economy, and more importantly, it is about
the lives of young people around the country and the ability to achieve
their dreams. It is about child literacy.
Here is the information. Elementary schools and libraries are talking
about this more and more back home. If you read to your kids when they
are young, they will have a much better chance of succeeding in life.
According to a study that dates back to 1995--kind of a famous study--
by the time a child born into poverty reaches age 3, he or she has
heard 30 million fewer words than his or her peers. Let me repeat that.
A kid who is born into poverty is going to hear 30 million fewer words
by the time he or she is 3 years old. Why does that matter? Why does
this word gap, as they call it, matter? Well, it matters because it
turns out these verbal skills, like other skills, develop as they are
used, and if they are not used, they don't develop. So a lot of kids
who already have the challenge of growing up in poverty are also
burdened with the disadvantage of not developing these verbal skills.
That makes it harder for them to get good grades, harder for them to
develop social skills, and harder for them to get a good job and
ultimately to be able to live out their dreams.
I know Washington, DC, may be the only place on Earth where 30
million sounds like a small number, but it is a big number. It makes a
huge difference. This word gap leads to an achievement gap later in
life based on all the studies. Experts tell us that a child's
vocabulary is reflective of his or her parents' vocabulary. It makes
sense. Kids learn what they see and what they hear.
There is a 2003 study by Elizabeth Martin and Tom Risley studying
word gaps which found that by age 3, before even reaching school age,
children's ``trends in the amount of talk, vocabulary growth, and style
of interaction were well established and clearly suggest widening gaps
to come.'' So having poor reading skills makes it harder to make a
living, it affects self-esteem, and it makes life more difficult in so
many small ways. Think about this: unable to read a manual when you buy
something, unable to read a list of ingredients, unable to read a
newspaper to understand what is going on, to be online.
Millions of our friends and neighbors are struggling with these
consequences every day. According to the Department of Education, about
32 million adults in this country can't read. Think about that. That is
a group nearly 3 times the size of the State of Ohio and maybe 25 to 30
times the size of the Presiding Officer's State--32 million. Too many
of these adults, of course, started off life with the disadvantage of
this word gap, and they never caught up.
That is why this Read Aloud Month is so critical. Parents and other
caretakers need to know they can steer their child in a better
direction--develop vocabulary skills and end the word gap just by
reading aloud to them.
Developing these skills, according to experts, affects the biology of
the brain. Dr. Tzipi Horowitz-Kraus of Cincinnati Children's Hospital--
a great institution in my hometown and one of the top three children's
hospitals in the country, based on U.S. News and World Report. Anyway,
he is an expert on this topic, and this is what he said: ``The more you
read to your child, the more you help the neurons in the brain to grow
and connect.'' So it is physiological.
Dr. Kim Noble, a brain scientist at Columbia University, has found
that this word gap actually translates into a brain-sized gap in the
areas dealing with language.
Dr. Dana Suskind of the University of Chicago has found that more
than 80 percent of a child's brain development occurs by age 3--80
percent--and the effects of the word gap are detected in brain
development in babies as young as 9 months old. These aren't children;
these are babies. Doctor Suskind says that by reading aloud, every
parent has the ability to grow their child's brain.
So certainly before a child can read, before a child can even speak,
it is important to be speaking to that child. Think about that. Think
about the impact you can have. So get out a book and do some reading to
a child, a grandchild, someone who is in the neighborhood, one of your
kids. Do it tonight.
Sometimes when I talk about this, people say: Well, Rob, parenting is
pretty tough. Everybody is busy. Some people are working two shifts.
Both parents are working. Where do you make time for this? Here is my
answer to that: Fifteen minutes a day. That is the goal here. Fifteen
minutes a day makes a huge difference to be able to close that gap.
Others say: We can't afford it. How do you afford to buy these books
if you are going to read all the time? To me, that is pretty simple.
Buy a library card. They are free, usually. If not, they are cheap. You
don't need a lot of new books, but you do need a library card, and that
is very helpful. They helped Jane and me to be able to have books to
read to our kids.
Again, I am very proud Ohio has led on this issue. In 2008, this
group Read Aloud was started in Cincinnati, OH. It has now become a
national movement. It has more than 10,000 grassroots partners--
including daycare facilities, schools and libraries, and rotary clubs--
in all 50 States.
So what can you do to help? I would say that this issue is not going
to be found here in this body. It is not about Washington, DC, doing
anything except encouraging people to do what makes sense, which is to
spend time with your kid, to ensure that if you have a kid in school,
that you know that kid gets the right start in life, to ensure that
everybody has the ability to have a successful life.
[[Page S2036]]
Senator Harris and I introduced a resolution about this recently in
the U.S. Senate. It is called the Read Aloud Month resolution. It
encourages parents and caregivers to read to their kids for 15 minutes
a day. We are asking our colleagues on both sides of the aisle,
Republican and Democratic, to sign off on that resolution. That would
help raise the visibility of this issue.
Again, I hope everybody listening today takes the opportunity to
follow up, to read to a kid, to help ensure they can close that words
gap in their lives and therefore have a better chance of getting better
grades, getting a better job, and achieving whatever their dream is in
life.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, as chairman of the Subcommittee on Europe
and Regional Security Cooperation, I rise today to support Montenegro's
accession to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, also known as
NATO.
NATO is a defensive alliance founded in 1949 to provide collective
security against the threat posed by the Soviet Union. Although the
world had hoped that the threat had subsided with the collapse of the
Soviet Union, under the rule of Vladimir Putin, Russia has become an
ever-growing menace to its neighbors and to world peace and security.
As a result, NATO remains as relevant today as it was in the year of
its founding.
As Defense Secretary GEN James Mattis stated in his January
confirmation hearing, ``If we did not have NATO today, we would need to
create it.''
NATO has evoked article 5 of its charter--which states that an attack
against one member shall be considered an attack against all--only once
in its history, in response to the 9/11 attacks against America. Since
then, our NATO allies have sent their sons and daughters to fight and
die alongside our own in the generational war against radical Islamist
terrorism.
The accession of Montenegro to NATO is important for a number of
reasons. Montenegro has shown that it is committed to NATO and to
making the internal reforms required to remain a member in good
standing. Because of that commitment, Montenegro's membership in NATO
will enhance stability in Europe.
Finally, Russia's alleged support of an attempted coup in Montenegro
must not be rewarded by NATO turning its back on a country that
exhibits such courage in resisting Russia's persistent aggression.
Just a few days ago, I met with Montenegro's Foreign Minister and the
Ambassador to the United States. They expressed their sincere gratitude
that the Senate will be voting this week on their accession and that
Montenegro would be one step closer to aligning itself with the
freedom-loving nations of NATO.
Montenegro is a small country, but it has already demonstrated its
commitment to the international community in implementing internal
reforms. Montenegro has sent members of its military to Afghanistan in
support of the International Security Assistance Force and as a member
of the coalition to counter ISIS.
In the years leading up to its formal invitation to join the
alliance, Montenegro has partnered with NATO members to make a wide
range of changes to strengthen its military, its intelligence
operations, and its rule of law. While it currently falls short of the
goals stated in the 2014 NATO Wales Summit to spend 2 percent of its
GDP on defense, Montenegro has committed to meeting this target by
2024.
Expanding NATO to include nations that desire to join the alliance
and commit to meeting membership requirements contributes to a strong
and stable Europe. It wasn't all that long ago that the Balkans region
was unstable and war-torn, but because Slovenia, Croatia, and Albania
have joined NATO, the Balkans is a far more stable region. Montenegro's
accession will further enhance the stability of the Balkans and greater
Europe.
Finally, I support Montenegro and NATO because it sends a clear
message to Moscow that it cannot deter NATO from expanding the alliance
and it cannot bully countries to prevent them from joining. Russia has
warned Montenegro that it will face consequences if it continues to
pursue NATO membership. As Russia continues its destabilizing actions
throughout Eastern Europe and the world, it is imperative that we send
an unwavering message of strength and resolve by approving Montenegro's
accession to NATO.
In an era defined by polarization, Montenegro's accession to NATO has
been thoroughly bipartisan. I thank my ranking members on the European
subcommittee, Senator Murphy for the current Congress and Senator
Shaheen during the 114th Congress, for their strong support on this
issue. I also thank Chairman Corker and Ranking Member Cardin for their
continued efforts to move this legislation forward, Senator McCain for
being an outspoken supporter of Montenegro's accession, and Leader
McConnell for his willingness to bring the protocol on the accession of
Montenegro to the Senate floor.
It is time for the United States to approve Montenegro's accession to
NATO. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee has twice unanimously
approved this measure, and Secretary of State Tillerson has
communicated this administration's full support for Senate passage.
I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of Montenegro's accession and
hope President Trump will soon sign the protocol on the accession of
Montenegro.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Strange). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Nomination of Neil Gorsuch
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, redundancy is often a virtue, so I am
about to practice redundancy.
Last week, I made a speech on the floor of the Senate about the
upcoming votes in connection with the President's nomination of Neil
Gorsuch to be Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United
States, and I talked about the 230-year history of this body to always
have Presidential nominations for judges--for Supreme Court Justices,
for Federal district judges, and for circuit judges up to 2003 by a
majority vote. Never in the history of this body has the Senate refused
to allow a vote, an up-or-down vote on a Supreme Court Justice.
Because I hear that may be what the Democrats are planning to do--
even though Mr. Gorsuch may be one of the most remarkably talented
nominees in a long, long time--I want to make the address that I made
last week again, and I am going to deliver it word for word in hopes
that someone may actually hear it.
President Trump's nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch to be a member of
the U.S. Supreme Court will be considered on the floor of the Senate
next week. Some have suggested that instead of allowing a majority of
Senators to decide whether to approve the Gorsuch nomination, there
should first be a so-called cloture vote to determine whether to cut
off debate.
Now, you can see what would happen. Cutting off debate requires the
approval of 60 Senators. There are 46 Democratic Senators, so if 41 of
the 46 Democrat Senators vote not to cut off debate, we would never get
to a vote on Judge Gorsuch. We would never get to a vote. In other
words, the 41 Democratic Senators would have filibustered to death the
Gorsuch nomination to the Supreme Court of the United States, a
partisan act that has never happened before in the 230 years of the
Senate.
Filibustering to death the Gorsuch nomination or any Presidential
nomination, for that matter, flies in the face of 230 years of Senate
tradition.
Throughout the Senate's history, approval of even the most
controversial Presidential nominations have required only a majority
vote. For example, in 1991, President George H.W. Bush nominated
Clarence Thomas to be Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme
[[Page S2037]]
Court. The debate was bitter. The vote was narrow. The Senate confirmed
Justice Thomas 52 to 48.
Although Senate rules have allowed any one Senator to try to
filibuster the nomination to death, to insist on a 60-vote vote, not
one did. In fact, Senate rules have always allowed Senators the option
to filibuster to death a Presidential nomination, yet it has almost
never happened.
According to the former Senate historian, with one possible
exception, which I will describe later, the number of Supreme Court
Justices in our country's history who have been denied their seats by
filibuster is zero. The number of the President's Cabinet members in
our country's history who have been denied their seats by a filibuster
is zero. The number of Federal district judges in our country's history
who have been denied their seats by a filibuster is zero. I know that
for a fact because an attempt was made to filibuster one--Judge
McConnell from Rhode Island--and I voted against that, as did other
Republican Senators, because we thought it was wrong to break the
Senate's 230-year tradition of always considering judges by majority
vote, and we prevailed.
We could have done it, but we didn't do it. That is the point.
Next week, the Democrats can filibuster Judge Gorsuch to death, but
they shouldn't do it. They shouldn't do it.
Until 2003, the number of circuit judges in our country's history who
have been denied their seats by filibuster was zero.
Senator Everett Dirksen did not filibuster President Lyndon Johnson's
nominees. Senator Robert Byrd did not filibuster President Reagan's
nominees. Senator Howard Baker did not filibuster President Carter's
nominees. Senator Bob Dole did not filibuster President Clinton's
nominees.
During most of the 20th century, when one party controlled the White
House and the Senate 70 percent of the time, the minority never
filibustered to death a single Presidential nomination.
On the other hand, there have been plenty of filibusters on
legislation--so many that in 1917, the Senate adopted the so-called
cloture rule as a way to end filibusters. The idea is, after you talk
enough, you should bring it to an end, so they had a supermajority for
that purpose. The rule was amended in 1949, 1959, 1975, 1979, and
1986--always in response to filibusters on legislation, never on
nominations. It was the 1975 change that established the current
cloture standard of 60 votes to end debate, except on amendments to the
Standing Rules.
Filibustering a Presidential nomination has always been treated
differently than filibustering a legislative matter. The filibuster of
legislation is perhaps the Senate's most famous characteristic. It has
been called ``democracy's finest show, the right to talk your head
off.''
As the actor Jimmy Stewart says in the movie ``Mr. Smith Goes to
Washington'': ``Wild horses aren't going to drag me off this floor
until those people have heard everything I've got to say, even if it
takes all winter.'' That was Jimmy Stewart talking about his
filibuster.
The late Robert Byrd described the importance of a legislative
filibuster in this way in his last speech to the Senate: ``Our Founding
Fathers intended the Senate to be a continuing body that allows for
open and unlimited debate and protection of minority rights. Senators
have understood this since the Senate first convened.''
In fact, the whole idea of the Senate is not to have a majority rule
on legislation. Throughout Senate history, the purpose of the
legislative filibuster has been to force consensus on issues, to force
there to be a group of Senators on either side who have to respect one
another's views so they work together and produce 60 votes on important
matters. We did that last December in a piece of legislation that the
majority leader called the most important legislation of the Congress,
the 21st Century Cures Act. There were enormous differences of opinion
about it, but because Senator Murray, the ranking Democrat and I, and
the Democrats and Republicans in the Senate and in the House, and
President Obama and Vice President Biden all wanted a result, we formed
a consensus. We resolved our differences, and we agreed on this most
important piece of legislation that will help virtually every American
family by advancing cures for cancer, Alzheimer's, diabetes, and a
variety of diseases.
Nominations have always been treated differently from legislation.
For example, under Senate rule XIV, any Senator can bring legislation
directly to the Calendar of General Orders, bypassing committees. There
is no such power for nominations. There is no rule XIV for nominations.
Senate rules allow debate and, therefore, the possibility of filibuster
on a motion to proceed to legislation. Debate is not allowed on a
motion to proceed to nominations. So there can't be a filibuster on a
motion to proceed to a nomination. In summary, while Senate rules have
always allowed for extended debate or filibusters, the filibuster was
never used to block a nomination until recently.
As I mentioned earlier, it was never used to block a Cabinet
nomination, never used to block a Federal district judge, until 2003,
never used to block a Federal circuit judge, and never used to block a
Supreme Court Justice, with one possible exception. The exception
occurred in 1968 when President Lyndon Johnson sought to elevate
Associate Justice Abe Fortas to be Chief Justice. There was bipartisan
opposition to that idea. When it became clear that the Senate majority
would not agree, President Johnson engineered a 45-43 cloture vote so
that Fortas could save face and appear to have won something, according
to the former Senate Historian. Fortas then asked the President to
withdraw the nomination.
Other than that, never has a Supreme Court nominee been filibustered
to death in the Senate. Other than the Fortas nomination, the
filibuster was never used to block any judicial nomination until 2003
and 2004, when Democrats for the first time decided to use the 60-vote
cloture requirement to block 10 of President George W. Bush's nominees.
I had just arrived in the Senate. I remember it well. I was really
outraged by it because, as for the nominees, it was the right of the
President to name them and the right of the Senate to reject them. But
throughout history it was always by 51 votes. This unprecedented action
by the Senate Democrats produced a threat by Republicans to change the
Senate rules to make it clear that only a majority is required to
approve a Presidential nomination. There was a negotiation, and
eventually five of Bush's nominees were approved, five were blocked,
and the rules weren't changed.
Then in 2011 and 2013, Republicans returned the favor. That happens
around here--a precedent set by that side then becomes a precedent that
this side, then, undertakes. In 2011 and 2013, the Republicans returned
the favor by seeking to block five of President Obama's nominees for
the circuit court by insisting on a 60-vote cloture on each.
Republicans alleged the President was trying to pack the Federal
Circuit Court of the District of Columbia with three liberal justices.
To overcome Republican objections, the Democrats invoked the so-called
nuclear option. They broke the Senate rules to change the rules. The
new rule eliminated the possibility of 60-vote cloture motions for all
Presidential nominations except for the Supreme Court, which is where
we are today.
There have been other examples of minority Senators filibustering
nominations to death, all of them during the last three administrations
and all involving sub-Cabinet nominations. Then, of course, there have
been delays in considering nominations.
My own nomination in 1991 as U.S. Education Secretary was delayed for
51 days--I thought improperly--by a Democratic Senator. President
Reagan's nomination of Ed Meese as Attorney General of the United
States was delayed 1 year by a Democratic Senate. No one has ever
disputed our right in the Senate, regardless of who was in charge, to
use our constitutional duty of advice and consent to delay and examine
and sometimes to cause nominations to be withdrawn or even to defeat
nominees by a majority vote.
But, as we approach the vote next week on Neil Gorsuch on the floor
of the Senate, it is useful to remember that the tradition of the
Senate has been to treat legislative matters one way and Presidential
nominations a different way: to filibuster to death
[[Page S2038]]
legislation, yes; to filibuster to death Presidential nominations, no.
Should the Gorsuch nomination come to the floor soon, as I believe it
will, overwhelming Senate tradition requires that whether to approve it
should be decided by a majority vote and there should be no attempt by
the minority to filibuster the nomination, especially of such a
qualified man.
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. COTTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Johnson). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that,
notwithstanding rule XXII, all postcloture time on Executive Calendar
No. 1, the Montenegro treaty, be expired; that all pending amendments
be withdrawn, the resolution of ratification be reported, and the
Senate vote on the resolution of ratification with no intervening
action or debate; and that if the resolution of ratification is agreed
to, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table
and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendments (No. 193 and 194) were withdrawn.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the resolution of
ratification.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
Resolution of Advice and Consent to Ratification of the
Protocol to the North Atlantic Treaty of 1949 on the
Accession of Montenegro, which was opened for signature at
Brussels on May 19, 2016, and signed that day on behalf of
the United States of America.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the resolution
of ratification.
Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Georgia (Mr. Isakson).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 97, nays 2, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 98 Ex.]
YEAS--97
Alexander
Baldwin
Barrasso
Bennet
Blumenthal
Blunt
Booker
Boozman
Brown
Burr
Cantwell
Capito
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Cassidy
Cochran
Collins
Coons
Corker
Cornyn
Cortez Masto
Cotton
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Donnelly
Duckworth
Durbin
Enzi
Ernst
Feinstein
Fischer
Flake
Franken
Gardner
Gillibrand
Graham
Grassley
Harris
Hassan
Hatch
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Heller
Hirono
Hoeven
Inhofe
Johnson
Kaine
Kennedy
King
Klobuchar
Lankford
Leahy
Manchin
Markey
McCain
McCaskill
McConnell
Menendez
Merkley
Moran
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Perdue
Peters
Portman
Reed
Risch
Roberts
Rounds
Rubio
Sanders
Sasse
Schatz
Schumer
Scott
Shaheen
Shelby
Stabenow
Strange
Sullivan
Tester
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Udall
Van Hollen
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden
Young
NAYS--2
Lee
Paul
NOT VOTING--1
Isakson
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 97, the nays are 2.
Two-thirds of the Senators voting, a quorum being present, having
voted in the affirmative, the resolution of ratification is agreed to.
The resolution of ratification agreed to is as follows:
Resolved, (two-thirds of the Senators present concurring
therein),
SECTION 1. SENATE ADVICE AND CONSENT SUBJECT TO DECLARATIONS,
AN UNDERSTANDING, AND CONDITIONS.
The Senate advises and consents to the ratification of the
Protocol to the North Atlantic Treaty of 1949 on the
Accession of Montenegro, which was opened for signature at
Brussels on May 19, 2016, and signed that day on behalf of
the United States of America (the ``Protocol'') (Treaty Doc.
114-12), subject to the declarations of section 2 and the
conditions of section 3.
SEC. 2. DECLARATIONS.
The advice and consent of the Senate under section 1 is
subject to the following declarations:
(1) Reaffirmation that united states membership in nato
remains a vital national security interest of the united
states.--The Senate declares that--
(A) for more than 60 years the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization (NATO) has served as the preeminent organization
to defend the countries in the North Atlantic area against
all external threats;
(B) through common action, the established democracies of
North America and Europe that were joined in NATO persevered
and prevailed in the task of ensuring the survival of
democratic government in Europe and North America throughout
the Cold War;
(C) NATO enhances the security of the United States by
embedding European states in a process of cooperative
security planning and by ensuring an ongoing and direct
leadership role for the United States in European security
affairs;
(D) the responsibility and financial burden of defending
the democracies of Europe and North America can be more
equitably shared through an alliance in which specific
obligations and force goals are met by its members;
(E) the security and prosperity of the United States is
enhanced by NATO's collective defense against aggression that
may threaten the security of NATO members; and
(F) United States membership in NATO remains a vital
national security interest of the United States.
(2) Strategic rationale for nato enlargement.--The Senate
finds that--
(A) the United States and its NATO allies face continued
threats to their stability and territorial integrity;
(B) an attack against Montenegro, or its destabilization
arising from external subversion, would threaten the
stability of Europe and jeopardize United States national
security interests;
(C) Montenegro, having established a democratic government
and having demonstrated a willingness to meet the
requirements of membership, including those necessary to
contribute to the defense of all NATO members, is in a
position to further the principles of the North Atlantic
Treaty and to contribute to the security of the North
Atlantic area; and
(D) extending NATO membership to Montenegro will strengthen
NATO, enhance stability in Southeast Europe, and advance the
interests of the United States and its NATO allies.
(3) Support for nato's open door policy.--The policy of the
United States is to support NATO's Open Door Policy that
allows any European country to express its desire to join
NATO and demonstrate its ability to meet the obligations of
NATO membership.
(4) Future consideration of candidates for membership in
nato.--
(A) Senate finding.--The Senate finds that the United
States will not support the accession to the North Atlantic
Treaty of, or the invitation to begin accession talks with,
any European state (other than Montenegro), unless--
(i) the President consults with the Senate consistent with
Article II, section 2, clause 2 of the Constitution of the
United States (relating to the advice and consent of the
Senate to the making of treaties); and
(ii) the prospective NATO member can fulfill all of the
obligations and responsibilities of membership, and the
inclusion of such state in NATO would serve the overall
political and strategic interests of NATO and the United
States.
(B) Requirement for consensus and ratification.--The Senate
declares that no action or agreement other than a consensus
decision by the full membership of NATO, approved by the
national procedures of each NATO member, including, in the
case of the United States, the requirements of Article II,
section 2, clause 2 of the Constitution of the United States
(relating to the advice and consent of the Senate to the
making of treaties), will constitute a commitment to
collective defense and consultations pursuant to Articles 4
and 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty.
(5) Influence of non-nato members on nato decisions.--The
Senate declares that any country that is not a member of NATO
shall have no impact on decisions related to NATO
enlargement.
(6) Support for 2014 wales summit defense spending
benchmark.--The Senate declares that all NATO members should
continue to move towards the guideline outlined in the 2014
Wales Summit Declaration to spend a minimum of 2 percent of
their Gross Domestic Product (GDP) on defense and 20 percent
[[Page S2039]]
of their defense budgets on major equipment, including
research and development, by 2024.
(7) Support for montenegro's democratic reform process.--
Montenegro has made difficult reforms and taken steps to
address corruption. The United States and other NATO member
states should not consider this important process complete
and should continue to urge additional reforms.
SEC. 3. CONDITIONS.
The advice and consent of the Senate under section 1 is
subject to the following conditions:
(1) Presidential certification.--Prior to the deposit of
the instrument of ratification, the President shall certify
to the Senate as follows:
(A) The inclusion of Montenegro in NATO will not have the
effect of increasing the overall percentage share of the
United States in the common budgets of NATO.
(B) The inclusion of Montenegro in NATO does not detract
from the ability of the United States to meet or to fund its
military requirements outside the North Atlantic area.
(2) Annual report on nato member defense spending.--Not
later than December 1 of each year during the 8-year period
following the date of entry into force of the Protocol to the
North Atlantic Treaty of 1949 on the Accession of Montenegro,
the President shall submit to the appropriate congressional
committees a report, which shall be submitted in an
unclassified form, but may be accompanied by a classified
annex, and which shall contain the following information:
(A) The amount each NATO member spent on its national
defense in each of the previous 5 years.
(B) The percentage of GDP for each of the previous 5 years
that each NATO member spent on its national defense.
(C) The percentage of national defense spending for each of
the previous 5 years that each NATO member spent on major
equipment, including research and development.
(D) Details on the actions a NATO member has taken in the
most recent year reported to move closer towards the NATO
guideline outlined in the 2014 Wales Summit Declaration to
spend a minimum of 2 percent of its GDP on national defense
and 20 percent of its national defense budget on major
equipment, including research and development, if a NATO
member is below either guideline for the most recent year
reported.
SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS.
In this resolution:
(1) Appropriate congressional committees.--The term
``appropriate congressional committees'' means the Committee
on Foreign Relations and the Committee on Armed Services of
the Senate and the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the
Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives.
(2) NATO members.--The term ``NATO members'' means all
countries that are parties to the North Atlantic Treaty.
(3) Non-NATO members.--The term ``non-NATO members'' means
all countries that are not parties to the North Atlantic
Treaty.
(4) North atlantic area.--The term ``North Atlantic area''
means the area covered by Article 6 of the North Atlantic
Treaty, as applied by the North Atlantic Council.
(5) North atlantic treaty.--The term ``North Atlantic
Treaty'' means the North Atlantic Treaty, signed at
Washington April 4, 1949 (63 Stat. 2241; TIAS 1964), as
amended.
(6) United states instrument of ratification.--The term
``United States instrument of ratification'' means the
instrument of ratification of the United States of the
Protocol to the North Atlantic Treaty of 1949 on the
Accession of Montenegro.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
=========================== NOTE ===========================
On page S2039, March 28, 2017, near the top of the second
column, the following language appears: SIDING OFFICER. The
Senator from North Carolina.
The online Record has been corrected to read: The PRESIDING
OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
========================= END NOTE =========================
____________________