[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 121 (Wednesday, July 18, 2018)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5039-S5042]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                           National Security

  Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, to my colleagues, let me just say that 
we must speak out and act.
  President Trump's appearance with Russia's President Putin--a U.S. 
President capitulating to a strongman dictator, unprecedented in 
American history--compromised America's national security and brings 
into question whether America can be relied upon as the leader of the 
free world.
  With Mr. Trump standing with Mr. Putin while he discredited America's 
investigation into Russian meddling--this is an American President, 
with a dictator, challenging the investigation being done against 
Russia--the President questioned the conclusions of U.S. intelligence 
agencies. He left unchallenged Mr. Putin's lies and illegal military 
invasions.
  In short, Mr. Trump did Mr. Putin's bidding. In Russia, they are 
smiling; at the White House, they are scrambling.
  Congress must speak out and act. Congress must repudiate the 
President's actions to make clear to the American people and the world 
that Russia, directed by Mr. Putin, attacked our free election system 
in 2016 and tried to tip the scales in favor of Mr. Trump.
  Russia illegally invaded the sovereign state of Ukraine and illegally 
annexed Crimea, which the United States must make clear we will never 
recognize. Russia, under Mr. Putin, murders its political opponents and 
journalists. Russia has interfered in the politics of several European 
democratic states.
  Six months ago, I authored, on behalf of the Senate Foreign Relations 
Committee Democrats, a report entitled ``Putin's Asymmetrical Assault 
on Democracy in Russia and Europe: Implications for U.S. National 
Security.''
  I sent a copy of that report to President Trump and hoped that he 
would absorb it and use it in his meeting with

[[Page S5040]]

Mr. Putin. Unfortunately, he either didn't read it or didn't heed the 
advice in that report.
  That report spells out in detail the asymmetrical arsenal that Mr. 
Putin uses. Yes, he uses his military, propaganda, and cyber; he 
supports organized crime and corruption, weaponizes energy, and 
supports fringe political groups, all to attack our democratic system 
of government.
  The report spells out numerous recommendations for steps we should 
take to protect our national security against what Russia is trying to 
do to us. The report spells out several recommendations I just want to 
underscore today. We urge the President to assert Presidential 
leadership and launch a national response, an interagency response, so 
we make it clear that we will not tolerate this.
  Mr. Trump has done just the opposite. He has downplayed any 
significance to what Russia has done, has not allowed us to have a 
coordinated effort with the executive branch, and has fought what 
Congress has tried to do in giving him additional resources in order to 
prepare us against what Mr. Putin is doing.
  The report goes on to further recommend that we expose and freeze 
Kremlin-linked dirty money. The administration has not done that.
  It goes on to say that we should subject state hybrid threat actors 
to an escalating sanctions regime. Here Congress did act. We passed the 
CAATSA statute, which requires--these are mandatory sanctions against 
Russia because of what they did to us in 2016 and what they did in 
regard to the Ukraine and their other activities. This administration 
has not fully utilized those sanctions that are available under the 
legislation we passed.
  The report calls for publicizing the Kremlin's global malign 
influence efforts and building an international coalition to counter 
hybrid threats. Mr. Trump did just the opposite in his most recent 
foreign trip. In his performance in Brussels with NATO and then later 
in London, he not only took the opportunity to criticize two of our 
closest allies, Mrs. Merkel in Germany and Ms. May in London, England--
the U.K.--but he also challenged the unity of Europe, weighing in with 
regard to Brexit and the politics of Brexit. That is not how the 
President brings unity among our allies in order to stand tall against 
the threats of Russia.
  The report goes on to say that we need to build global cyber defenses 
and norms. Congress has appropriated funds; the administration has not 
fully utilized those funds.
  We need to hold social media companies accountable. We see the 
infiltration of Russia into our social media platforms. Europe has 
already taken action to make sure that it identifies and is protected 
against infiltration of foreign entities getting involved in trying to 
influence policy in their country. The United States, under Mr. Trump, 
has not taken similar action.
  First and foremost, we need to recognize Russia for what it is 
today--not the Russian people, but under the leadership of Mr. Putin, 
Russia is an adversary. They are against our system of government, and 
they are trying to bring down our system of government.
  I saw the President's tweet this morning, and I just want to 
acknowledge that we want to have relations with all countries in the 
world. I want the relationship between the United States and Russia to 
be on a better plateau, but it has to be under our terms, not Mr. 
Putin's terms. That is the problem with what the President did in 
Helsinki. He allowed Mr. Putin to control the dialogue and allowed Mr. 
Putin to look as though everything he is doing is reasonable when it is 
not. If you give Mr. Putin space, he will push to fill it, and then he 
will go even further.
  Ten years ago, Mr. Putin saw an opportunity. He saw an opportunity to 
put a wedge in regard to the NATO expansion and the growth of a unified 
Western Front. He saw that opportunity in the independent state of 
Georgia, and he took advantage of that. Russian troops invaded. They 
are still there today, and Georgia is still not part of NATO.
  Mr. Putin's strategy paid off. The Western World gave him that open 
space; he took advantage of it.
  In 2014, Mr. Putin, based upon his experience in Georgia--and also, 
by the way, based upon his experience in Moldova--said ``Well, we can 
do the same in Ukraine,'' and they invaded Ukraine. They took over 
Crimea; they illegally annexed Crimea, and guess what. Ukraine, today, 
is nowhere closer to being a NATO ally as a result of Mr. Putin's 
strategies.
  It worked for him, not for us. That is not in our national security 
interest. The President gives him a pass.
  They tried it in Montenegro. Russia financed operations of a coup to 
try to prevent the parliamentary elections from having a government 
that would ratify NATO. The people of Montenegro stood up and said no. 
They fought it, and they won. Now Montenegro is a NATO ally. We can't 
give this space to Mr. Putin.
  Mr. Putin, not just in the United States, but in Europe, interfered 
in elections. But what happened in 2016 in America? This is a fact; 
this is not subject to debate. We know that Russia, directed by Mr. 
Putin, interfered in our elections. That has been confirmed by our 
intelligence community. It has been confirmed by our own Intelligence 
Committee here in the U.S. Senate. This is not something that you 
debate. We know that is a fact. We understand the President has tried 
to convince the public here in America that may not be true, but those 
are the facts. We know the facts. We are privy to the facts.
  We know that Russia interfered in our elections, but the message from 
Helsinki, President Trump's message to President Putin, is: OK. Let's 
move on. That gives space to Mr. Putin. His calculation: 2018 is fair 
game. I can do whatever I want in the U.S. elections. After all, I know 
the President will be on my side and will not hold me, Russia, 
accountable for interference in the U.S. elections.
  That is certainly not in our interest. Congress must speak out and 
act. We have to protect this country. It is our responsibility. We are 
an independent branch of government. We need to speak out on behalf of 
our Nation.
  Let me just lay out issues that I hope we will work on not only in 
response to the President's summit with Mr. Putin but also because it 
is our responsibility as an independent branch of government to speak 
out for America.
  First, we need to protect the integrity of the Mueller investigation. 
I am not going to prejudge what the Mueller investigation will come in 
with. I have confidence that Mr. Mueller will do his work.
  Mr. Trump has been openly critical over and over and over and over 
again about this investigation. It is outrageous that the head of the 
executive branch of government is trying to compromise the checks and 
balances in our own system, but we have to make sure that the checks 
and balances remain. We have to make sure that we protect the integrity 
of the Mueller investigation.
  Congress needs to pass legislation, and there is legislation that has 
been recommended by our Judiciary Committee that would protect the 
integrity of the Mueller campaign. We should take up that legislation 
and pass it immediately.
  I said that I will not prejudge what Mr. Mueller will come in with. 
We know there are people who have been indicted. We know that Russia 
has been engaged in the election. We know that some Americans were 
involved.
  Was there collusion with the Trump campaign? It will be up to the 
Mueller investigation to give us those findings. But we do know from 
Helsinki that Mr. Trump openly colluded with Mr. Putin in regard to an 
orchestrated message coming out of Helsinki.
  Secondly, Congress needs to exercise its oversight capacity with 
hearings. That is our responsibility.
  I was pleased to see that Senator Corker announced that Mike Pompeo, 
the Secretary of State, will be before the Senate Foreign Relations 
Committee on Wednesday of next week. This meeting is long overdue.
  Let me just remind my colleagues that this meeting is being set up to 
get our very first briefing on what happened in Singapore in the 
President's meeting with Kim Jong Un in North Korea. We haven't had a 
single briefing in Congress on the North Korean summit.
  Now we have Mr. Pompeo coming up here for North Korea. I urge Mr. 
Pompeo and Senator Corker to make sure that Mr. Pompeo is prepared and 
has the time not only to address North

[[Page S5041]]

Korea but also to address what happened in Helsinki. We have a right, 
an obligation, to find out.
  While we are able to question representatives from the executive 
branch in regard to Helsinki, let's make sure that we have a chance to 
talk to Jon Huntsman, our Ambassador to Russia, to get his take, his 
assessment of what happened. We need to talk to our Director of 
National Intelligence as to his assessments. We need to have oversight 
hearings here in Congress.
  Most importantly, we need to understand what happened in the room--
where it happened--where Mr. Putin and Mr. Trump spent over 2 hours. We 
have no information about what happened in that room. We have a 
responsibility as Members of Congress to understand what discussions 
took place, what commitments in regard to our elections, in regard to 
Ukraine, in regard to Syria, in regard to North Korea, in regard to 
Iran. We have a lot of interest in knowing what took place, and we 
should get that information now. That is our constitutional 
responsibility. We need to speak out and act to carry out our 
responsibility.

  This is not a partisan issue. This is a constitutional issue of what 
we do. We are a check and balance in the system. The public expects us 
to act that way and to get that information.
  We should also strengthen the sanctions regime against Russia. I say 
that mindful that the bill we passed last year, the CAASTA bill--I 
worked very closely with my colleagues in drafting that bill--provides 
a whole array of options to President Trump to impose new sanctions 
against Russia for their activities. Many of these sanctions, by the 
way, are mandatory. The President has no discretion. I say that with 
some disbelief because these sanctions have not been imposed yet, even 
though they are mandatory sanctions.
  So Congress needs to speak out and act. We need to speak out to make 
sure these sanctions are indeed imposed, and we have to make sure we 
strengthen the sanctions regime, if the President needs more of a 
reminder or needs additional tools in order to act against Russia. One 
thing we want to make crystal clear is, we don't want to see the 
weakening of any of these sanctions. I think many of us know about 
conversations that took place in the past about Mr. Trump's thoughts 
about easing up some of these sanctions. We have to make sure that, in 
fact, they are not.
  It was interesting that during the summit, there was a conversation 
against Mr. Browder about the Magnitsky sanctions that have been 
imposed by Congress. Browder worked with Senator McCain on that 
legislation. We have to make sure those sanctions remain in place and 
are strengthened, not weakened. That is our responsibility to make sure 
that takes place.
  We must also make sure that we protect the integrity of our election 
system. We have appropriated funds for this. There is legislation that 
is pending by Members of the Senate on both sides of the aisle. We now 
know we are even more vulnerable. We have seen some indictments of late 
that point out what Russia could be doing in the 2018 elections, which 
are only less than 4 months away.
  One of the fundamental principles of our democracy is our free and 
fair elections. We have a responsibility to make sure they are free 
from international tampering and the influence Russia may try to play 
in this election cycle. We need to take concrete steps to make sure 
that is done.
  Lastly, I suggest that the Senate go on record repudiating President 
Trump's actions in Helsinki. The Republican leadership should bring to 
the floor of the U.S. Senate such a resolution. It is our 
responsibility to consider such a resolution.
  By passing such a resolution, we can restore confidence to the 
American people and to the world that the United States, indeed, is the 
leader of the free world.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I oppose the nomination of Andrew Oldham 
to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
  Mr. Oldham is only 39 years old. He checks the Federalist Society 
box, having been a member since law school of that rightwing legal 
group that vets all of President Trump's nominees. Mr. Oldham has spent 
much of his career litigating on behalf of Republican elected officials 
in Texas State government, where he worked on challenges to the 
Affordable Care Act, the DACA and DAPA programs, the Voting Rights Act, 
Fair Housing Act regulations, ``Ban the Box'' regulations on job 
applications, and Clean Air Act regulations, among many others.
  Mr. Oldham's extreme ideology is apparent from statements he has made 
in his personal capacity. At his nomination hearing, he refused to say 
that the landmark Supreme Court case Brown v. Board of Education was 
correctly decided. That was an astonishing moment. Every Supreme Court 
nominee who has been asked this question has said he or she believed 
Brown v. Board was correctly decided. In recent hearings before the 
Judiciary Committee, nominees have answered yes to this question 
without hesitation; yet Mr. Oldham wouldn't answer.
  If a nominee refuses to say that Brown v. Board was correctly 
decided, it certainly raises questions in my mind about the nominee's 
judgment, but that is not all Mr. Oldham has said.
  At his hearing, he refused to say whether he agreed that voter 
discrimination still exists in the United States.
  He gave an interview in 2016 where he described the Supreme Court as 
``the most dangerous branch'' and said ``they often fail to enforce our 
sacred rights that are in the Constitution, while creating rights that 
are not.'' Keep in mind, this is a Supreme Court where the majority of 
justices were appointed by Republican Presidents.
  He gave a speech to the Federalist Society in 2016 where he said, ``I 
have particular things that I think are illegitimate in the way that we 
conduct modern American law.'' He went on to say, ``It's not that I 
disagree with a particular Department of Labor regulation or a 
particular IRS regulation; it is the entire existence of this edifice 
of administrative law that is constitutionally suspect.''
  He also wrote in a law review article that ``the Sherman Act, as it 
is currently understood, is unconstitutional.'' The Sherman Act is one 
of our foundational antitrust laws; it prohibits monopolies and 
restraints of trade.
  Mr. Oldham's views are clearly outside the judicial mainstream. His 
own words and writings show an extreme ideological agenda.
  Of course, like all of President Trump's nominees, he has promised he 
would cast all his views aside if confirmed and simply follow the law. 
But time after time, we have seen these nominees get confirmed to the 
bench and then start interpreting the law to produce outcomes that 
align with their preexisting, Federalist Society-approved views and 
side with corporations and wealthy elites over working Americans.
  Mr. Oldham is ideologically extreme, he has shown instances of 
terrible judgment, and he has said things that would make litigants 
question whether he could be a fair and impartial judge. I oppose his 
nomination.
  Mr. CARDIN. 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. CRUZ. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CRUZ. Madam President, I rise to speak to the integrity of the 
character and the career of Andy Oldham, the President's nominee to be 
a circuit judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
  Andy represents the best of what Texas's legal community has to offer 
to our Federal courts. Andy Oldham was born to high school sweethearts. 
His parents, like his grandparents before them, knew struggles and knew 
hard work.
  Andy's father was raised in a trailer with four other siblings, and 
Andy's grandfather spent years away from his family, first fighting in 
World War II and then in Korea. His mother was raised by her divorced 
mother, and Andy's mother helped manage the household starting at age 
8.
  Growing up in these humble beginnings taught both of Andy's parents 
the value of hard work. His father drove a cement truck and cleaned 
deep fryers in restaurants to pay his way through college. His mother 
was one of

[[Page S5042]]

the first women to attend the University of Virginia. Together, both 
enrolled in the Medical College of Virginia, where his father became a 
doctor and his mother became a dentist.
  Andy's parents had enormous student debts to pay, and so Andy learned 
what it was like to grow up with little as well, but he likewise 
learned the value of an education from his parents.
  Andy went to the University of Virginia on a full academic 
scholarship, graduating with a perfect 4.0 GPA and at the top of his 
class. He then became a Truman Scholar and went on to attend Harvard 
Law School.
  Andy graduated from Harvard Law magna cum laude and clerked for Judge 
David Sentelle on the DC Circuit, one of the most respected Federal 
appellate judges in the country, and then clerked for Justice Samuel 
Alito on the Supreme Court of the United States.
  He then worked as an attorney advisor for 2 years in the Office of 
Legal Counsel in the U.S. Department of Justice under the George W. 
Bush administration.
  Andy then went into private practice at Kellogg Hansen here in 
Washington, DC. From there, Andy went to the Texas solicitor general's 
office to serve as the deputy solicitor general of Texas. I can state 
that office is usually a pretty tight ship.
  After that, he joined Governor Abbott to serve as his legal counsel. 
He is now the general counsel for the Governor and has spent all but 3 
years of his career in public service.
  If I may say, it shows a depth of character and a devotion to his 
country that Andy would stay in public service for so long, so 
dutifully, while forgoing the great rewards that come with private 
practice. He is devoted to the practice of law, and over the years, 
Andy has displayed a keen understanding of the Constitution and how it 
applies and guides us to this very day.
  I am confident Andy will not substitute his own policy preferences, 
his own opinions for the rule of law, but he will instead serve the 
people of Texas and the American people by respecting the law as 
written--as written in the Constitution and as written in Federal law--
passed by this Congress and signed by the President. Our courts and our 
country are well-served by judges with this dedication, wisdom, and 
forbearance.
  In his career, Andy has argued across the country in State and 
Federal courts. He has appeared and argued numerous times before the 
Fifth Circuit, and he has argued twice before the U.S. Supreme Court.
  He has earned widespread praise from both Democrats and Republicans, 
and he was recommended to the Judiciary Committee by esteemed legal 
voices from both the left and right. Andy is respected across the 
political spectrum. I know my colleagues in the Senate will return the 
same respect when they vote today to confirm Andy Oldham as a circuit 
judge of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
  Andy will be the fifth judge we have confirmed for the Fifth Circuit, 
one of the finest courts in the country--a court I have been privileged 
to argue before many times. Andy will be the third Texan and fifth 
circuit judge in the last year and a half, and that, I think, is one of 
the greatest legacies of President Trump and this Republican Senate; 
namely, the confirmation of principled constitutionalists to the 
Federal court; judges who will be faithful to the Constitution and Bill 
of Rights, who will stand steadfastly to protect our fundamental 
liberties, to protect free speech and religious liberty, to protect the 
Second Amendment, the right to keep and bear arms, to protect the Tenth 
Amendment, the fundamental liberties of the people against ever-
expanding Federal power.
  This is a legacy that was front and center as to why the American 
people elected this majority, and it is a legacy that will benefit 
Texans and Americans for generations to come.
  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. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.