[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 122 (Thursday, July 19, 2018)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5082-S5090]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                  Immigration and Customs Enforcement

  Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I wish to take this opportunity to express 
my support for the 20,000 men and women of Immigration and Customs 
Enforcement. They work hard every day to keep drugs off our streets, to 
stop human trafficking, to protect our communities from gang violence, 
and, yes, to enforce our immigration laws. Theirs can be a thankless 
job, but they do it with courage, dedication, and professionalism. So 
I, for one, want to say thank you.
  I wish to point out the overwhelming support that House Republicans 
showed for ICE yesterday, which stands in stark contrast to the 
contemptible display put on by House Democrats. On a simple resolution 
merely expressing support for the men and women of ICE, only 18 
Democrats voted yes, 8 skipped the vote, 34 voted no, and 133 Democrats 
voted present, which is the same thing as no. That is a pretty sad 
state of affairs. Thirty-four Democrats condemned the men and women of 
ICE, and 141 Democrats don't even have the courage of their 
conviction--they don't even have the guts to vote yes or no--because we 
all know that Democrats, in their heart of hearts, want to abolish ICE. 
The way they tell it, ICE is a rogue agency driven by hatred and spite 
to tear apart communities.
  Congressman Pocan of Wisconsin said that ICE is ``ripping at the 
moral fabric of our nation.''
  Congresswoman Jayapal of Washington said that ``ICE is out of 
control.''
  Congressman Blumenauer of Oregon calls ICE ``toxic.''
  The senior Senator from Massachusetts said that we should replace ICE 
``with something that reflects our values,'' which I suppose means that 
the 20,000 men and women of ICE don't measure up to the professor's 
definition of our values. I have to ask, isn't the rule of law one of 
those values? Because ICE's job is simply to enforce the law and to 
protect our citizens from crime.
  In the last year alone, ICE arrested more than 125,000 illegal aliens 
with criminal records. Those illegal aliens were responsible for more 
than 80,000 DUIs, 76,000 dangerous drug offenses, 48,000 assaults, 
11,000 weapon offenses, 5,000 sexual assaults, 2,000 kidnappings, and 
1,800 homicides. Yes, that is right, almost 2,000 souls would still be 
on this Earth but for those illegal alien criminals. ICE's 
investigative arm seized more than 980,000 pounds of narcotics last 
year. These men and women are on the frontlines of the war on drugs and 
the opioid crisis in particular. Do the Democrats really believe we 
should put all these efforts on hold?
  This call to abolish ICE is so irresponsible that even some 
Democrats--those not running for President or beholden to the radical 
left--are speaking out against this.
  Jeh Johnson, President Obama's former Secretary of Homeland Security, 
said that it ``is not a serious policy proposal'' and ``would 
compromise public safety.'' He pointed out that even those who opposed 
the Vietnam war wouldn't have demanded that we abolish the Department 
of Defense.
  Eric Holder, President Obama's former Attorney General, said, ``I 
don't think that substantively or politically that makes a great deal 
of sense,'' calling it ``a gift to Republicans.''
  Sarah Saldana, who ran ICE under President Obama, has called it 
``nonsensical.''
  Perhaps the most insightful comment came from former Senator Joe 
Lieberman of Connecticut. He said, ``This makes no sense unless you no 
longer want any rules on immigration or customs to be enforced.'' And 
that, I would contend, is the whole point.
  Those who want to abolish ICE just want open borders. The very bill 
House Democrats have introduced to abolish ICE doesn't even say which 
Federal agency should assume its critical law enforcement duties. They 
leave it up to a commission. The reason, I submit, is that they don't 
really care. Their obsession with open borders is so great

[[Page S5083]]

that they are willing to risk public safety to achieve it. These 
irresponsible politicians should know better. They aren't worthy to 
lead the brave, hard-working men and women of ICE. These officers are 
just trying to do their jobs and to keep us safe. On behalf of a 
grateful nation, I conclude by again extending them my deepest thanks.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority whip.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I join the Senator from Arkansas in 
commending those who are involved in law enforcement, risking their 
lives for the safety of this Nation at all levels--Federal, State, and 
local. They put their badges on every single day and risk their lives 
for us, and that is a fact.
  Within the Department of Homeland Security, there are men and women 
who are conscientiously trying to keep America safe. I commend them as 
well. I believe they are doing their job as they understand it, and 
they are risking their lives many times to achieve it, not only to stop 
the illegal flow of drugs into our country but to deter crime and to 
ferret out criminals where possible. They risk their lives to achieve 
that goal.
  I have not joined in a call for the abolition of ICE, but I will not 
join in a call for the adoration of ICE because of one specific issue. 
The zero tolerance policy of the Trump administration resulted in our 
agents of the Department of Homeland Security forcibly separating 
children from their parents--forcibly separating up to 3,000 children 
from their parents.
  I saw some of those kids separated by that agency. They were toddlers 
and infants. Some were being held by the care workers whom I happened 
to visit in Chicago. They were little babies taken from their mothers--
toddlers, children 5 and 6 years old, separated by this agency under 
the President's zero tolerance policy. There were up to 3,000 of them, 
according to the administration's own estimates.
  Had that happened before? Only rarely, but it became the policy of 
this administration until there was such an uproar in the United States 
and around the world that President Trump reversed his position on zero 
tolerance.
  Reversing the position did not return the children to their parents. 
It took Federal courts to do that--one in particular, in San Diego, 
where the judge called the representatives of ICE, Health and Human 
Services, and all the other agencies involved in these children being 
removed forcibly from their parents and gave them deadlines to return 
the children to their parents. It was then that we discovered something 
about this agency. It was then that we discovered that they didn't keep 
a record of the parents and kids.
  If you place an order online to Amazon or some other source and the 
next day you want to check on the status of your order, you use your 
tracking number, and they will tell you where your package is. There 
was no tracking number when it came to these kids. If you decide that 
you are going to order a pizza and it seems to take a little too long 
and you call the pizza parlor, they can generally tell you where the 
delivery person is. The same thing is true in so many other areas.
  Why, then, did this agency, which my colleagues are now coming to the 
floor claiming such great praise for, ignore the obvious? This agency, 
the Department of Homeland Security, ended up setting free 3,000 
children into care facilities around the United States of America and 
didn't keep records of the parents.
  We asked them several weeks ago, downstairs--all of the agencies, 
including ICE, referred to by the Senator from Arkansas: OK, let's get 
down to basics. How many kids are we talking about?
  They wouldn't give us a number.
  How many kids are under the age of 5? Those are the ones whom you 
have a deadline to reunite under the Federal court order in San Diego.
  They couldn't give us a number.
  Then, how many parents can you identify who actually had their kids 
taken away?
  ICE said: We can identify 10.
  Ten parents, 3,000 kids--I am not making this up. This is exactly 
what they said.
  They said: We have 10 parents in custody. Those are the ones we can 
identify.
  Two weeks passed, and we had another briefing this week. The numbers 
are now more complete. There are some 2,500 kids separated from their 
parents, spread around the United States.
  What happened to the parents who lost their children?
  The explanation from ICE was that they abandoned their kids and left.
  Does that sound reasonable? Does that sound honest? You take the 
child away from the arms of a parent and then the parent says: I am 
leaving the country.
  That might have happened in some cases, for reasons I don't know, but 
it is an outrageous suggestion. What it reflects is incompetency. How 
in the world can you take a child away from a parent, forcibly take 
them away, and not keep an adequate record for their reunification? How 
can you do that? Common sense and common decency suggests that you 
would do it.
  I am not going to join in any resolution applauding that action by 
any Federal agency--the Department of Homeland Security, ICE, or other 
agencies. To me, it is a stain on the reputation of this Nation, one 
that we need to quickly resolve by reuniting these children with their 
families as quickly as possible.
  You see, it isn't just a question of a holiday for these kids. 
Pediatricians have come forward from the American Academy of Pediatrics 
and have said that what we have done is institutional abuse of 
children.
  This separation is not just another day in the life of this 2-year-
old, 5-year-old, or 8-year-old. This separation is something that is 
causing trauma within their own minds.
  Have you read the stories about the reunifications, where some of the 
parents come back, finally get their children, and the children will 
not even come to the parents? They don't quite understand what just 
happened to them. They think the parent might have just decided to give 
them up.
  There they were alone and by themselves at that tender age. Can you 
imagine that for your children or your grandchildren? I can't.
  We did it as part of the official government policy of the Trump 
administration under zero tolerance.
  When some of us come to the floor to question the actions, the 
conduct, the management of ICE, we have good reason to do it. I hope 
for the people within that agency who are doing their jobs 
conscientiously that we can at least be honest in saying that this 
policy is one which doesn't deserve praise and doesn't deserve our 
adoration on the floor of the Senate or the House.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.


                              S. Res. 582

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I rise to speak about a matter of 
extraordinary importance to the future of American democracy and, in 
fact, democracies all over the world. At the Helsinki summit on Monday, 
President Trump embarrassed our country, undermined American values, 
and openly sided with Russia's authoritarian leader, Vladimir Putin, 
against the U.S. intelligence community's unanimous assessment that 
Russia interfered in the 2016 Presidential election.
  Senator John McCain is right when he said: It was--

       [It was] one of the most disgraceful performances by an 
     American president in memory. The damage inflicted by 
     President Trump's naivete, egotism, false equivalence, and 
     sympathy for autocrats is difficult to calculate. But it is 
     clear that the summit in Helsinki was a tragic mistake.

  That is not Bernie Sanders talking. That is former Republican 
Presidential candidate Senator John McCain.
  On Tuesday, after a strong international backlash, Trump, in a 
bizarre statement, claimed he misspoke and, of course, blamed the media 
for reporting what he said, even then he could not help but suggest 
that the electoral interference ``could be other people also'' and not 
just Russia.
  In an interview last night, Trump changed his answer yet again and 
acknowledged, in the meekest way possible, that, yes, Russia meddled in 
our election, and, as the leader of Russia, Vladimir Putin is 
responsible.
  This is a step forward, but it is not remotely sufficient. Who knows 
what tweet the President will release tomorrow? He seems to come up 
with a new response every few hours.

[[Page S5084]]

  Today, we face an unprecedented situation of a President who, for 
whatever reason, refuses to acknowledge the full scope of the threat to 
American democracy. Either he really doesn't understand what is 
happening--and that is possible--or he is under Russian influence 
because of compromising information that they may have on him or 
because he is ultimately more sympathetic to Russia's authoritarian 
oligarchic form of government than he is to American democracy.
  Whatever the reason, Congress must act now. Democrats must act and 
Republicans must act if we are serious about preserving American 
democracy. We must demand--and I know this is a radical idea--that the 
President of the United States represent the interests of the American 
people and not Russia.
  Let us be as clear as we can be. Russia has been interfering not only 
in U.S. elections but in the elections of other democracies--the United 
Kingdom, France, Germany.
  I yield to the Democratic leader.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I want to thank my friend, the Senator 
from Vermont, for this outstanding resolution. It is a resolution. I 
don't see who can object to it. We ask for five things in this 
resolution: that our government accept the assessment of our own 
Intelligence Committees about Russia's interference; that we move 
aggressively to protect our election systems; that the sanctions that 
this body passed 98 to 2 finally be implemented by the Trump 
administration; that there be no interference in Mr. Mueller's 
investigation; and that there must be cooperation.
  Who in America would object to that? Maybe a small group of hard-
right ideologues, but no one else.
  Who in this body will object to it? This is an outstanding 
resolution.
  I know my friend from Vermont would agree with me. We need action in 
addition to resolutions, but this is an excellent start. I urge all of 
my colleagues to support this fullheartedly. Our country is at risk.
  The Senator from Vermont is sounding a clarion call and saying in a 
bipartisan way that we should strengthen our country, not weaken it, as 
the President has done over the last week. I hope this will get 
unanimous support from every Member of this body--whether they be 
Democrat, Independent, or Republican; whether they be liberal, 
moderate, or conservative. If you love America, if you care about our 
security, support this resolution.
  I thank my colleague for yielding.
  Mr. SANDERS. I thank the Democratic leader for his strong efforts on 
this enormously important issue. I want to reiterate that this really 
is not a Democratic resolution. If there is any resolution that should 
be bipartisan, this is it. My Republican colleagues believe in 
democracy. I know that. We believe in democracy. Together, we and the 
American people must make it clear that we will not allow Russia or any 
other country on Earth to undermine our democracy.

  Let's be very clear that Russia has not just been interfering in U.S. 
elections but in elections of other democracies around the world--the 
United Kingdom, France, and Germany, to name just a few countries.
  Russia's goal is to advance its own interests by weakening the 
transatlantic alliance of democracies that arose after World War II, 
while also inflaming internal divisions in our country and in other 
countries. We should also be clear that this interference is directed 
from the very highest levels of the Russian Government. Last week, 
Special Counsel Mueller announced a set of indictments of 12 members of 
Russia's military intelligence service, the GRU. There can be no doubt 
that given the nature of the Russian Government, Vladimir Putin was 
directly involved in this effort.
  But our concern is not only what has already happened; more 
importantly, it is what could happen in the future. What happened in 
2016 was an outrage, but we have to make sure it does not happen in 
2018 and future elections.
  Last week, Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats, a former 
Republican U.S. Senator, raised the alarm on growing cyber attacks and 
threats against the United States in a range of areas--a range of 
areas, not just elections--including Federal, State, and local 
government agencies, the military, business, and academia, saying that 
the situation is at a ``critical point.'' Coats said Russia is ``the 
most aggressive foreign actor, no question, and they continue their 
efforts to undermine our democracy.'' Coats compared the warning signs 
to those the United States faced ahead of the September 11 terrorist 
attacks. This is a clear and present threat to our democratic system 
and those of our allies.
  Ultimately, of course we want a peaceful relationship with Russia. We 
do not want a return to the Cold War, and we surely do not seek any 
type of military conflict. But at the same time, we must be very clear 
that we oppose what Putin is doing, both in terms of his foreign policy 
and his domestic policy.
  On foreign policy, we will not accept Russia interfering in the 
elections of democratic countries, stoking political tensions by 
promoting hatred and suspicion of immigrants and minorities, and trying 
to undermine longstanding alliances between democratic allies.
  In 2014, in violation of international law, Russia invaded 
neighboring Ukraine and annexed the Crimea region.
  Russia has assassinated political opponents abroad, most recently 
through the use of poison in Salisbury, England. The British Government 
concluded in that attack that it was most likely carried out by 
Russia's military intelligence service.
  Domestically, Putin has undermined democracy in Russia, crushing free 
speech, jailing political opponents, harassing and assassinating 
journalists who criticize him, and increasing persecution of ethnic and 
religious minorities.
  On Monday in Helsinki, President Trump had an opportunity to speak 
out on all of these things and more, to confront Putin about these 
destabilizing and inhumane policies. He chose not to.
  Well, here is the main point: If for whatever reason the President of 
the United States is not going to do what is right, Congress must do 
it. Democrats must do it. Republicans must do it.
  The Congress must make it clear--and this is the resolution I am 
introducing and asking for unanimous consent--the Congress must make it 
clear that we accept the assessment of our intelligence community with 
regard to Russian election interfering in our country and in other 
democracies. Does anybody doubt the truth of that?
  The Congress must move aggressively to protect our election system 
from interference by Russia or any foreign power. Does anybody deny the 
importance of that?
  The Congress must demand that the sanctions against Russia, as the 
Democratic leader mentioned, which passed with 98 votes, be fully 
implemented--98 votes on that issue.
  The Congress must make it clear that we will not accept any 
interference with the ongoing investigation of Special Counsel Mueller, 
such as the offer of preemptive pardons or the firing of Deputy 
Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, and that the President must cooperate 
with this investigation. Time and again, I have heard Republicans, 
including leaders, make it clear that there should not be an 
interference in that investigation. There is nothing new here on that 
point.
  Finally--nothing new here, either--the Congress must make it clear to 
President Trump that his job is to protect the values that millions of 
Americans struggled, fought, and died to defend: justice, democracy, 
and equality; that he is the President of the United States and his job 
is to protect the interests of the American people, not Russia.
  Tweets, comments, and press conferences--and I know many of my 
Republican colleagues have been involved in those activities. They are 
fine. They are constructive. But we need more from Republican Senators 
now. It is time for the Senate to rein in the President's dangerous 
behavior.
  If their leadership--Senator McConnell--will not allow votes on this 
extraordinarily important matter, then my Republican colleagues must 
join with Democrats to make it happen, or all of their fine-sounding 
words of concern will become meaningless.


                 Unanimous Consent Request--S. Res. 582

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that, as in legislative 
session, the

[[Page S5085]]

Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 582, submitted 
earlier today. I further ask that the resolution be agreed to, the 
preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made 
and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, Trump derangement syndrome has officially 
come to the Senate. The hatred for the President is so intense that 
partisans would rather risk war than give diplomacy a chance. Does 
anybody remember that Ronald Reagan sat down with Gorbachev and that we 
lessened the nuclear tensions? We need to still have those openings.
  Nobody is excusing Russia's meddling in our elections. Absolutely we 
should protect the integrity of our elections. But simply bringing the 
hatred of the President to the Senate floor in order to say ``We are 
done with diplomacy. We are going to add more and more sanctions''--you 
know what. I would rather that we still have open channels of 
discussion with the Russians. At the height of the Cold War, Kennedy 
had a direct line to Khrushchev, and it may have prevented the end of 
the world.
  Should we be so crazy about partisanship that we now say ``We don't 
want to talk to the Russians. We are not going to have relations with 
the Russians''? We should stand firm and say ``Stay the hell out of our 
elections,'' but we should not stick our head in the ground and say we 
are not going to talk to them.
  I would like to see the Russians leave Ukraine. I think we could do 
it through diplomacy. We are not going to have it if we don't talk to 
them.
  I would like to see the Russians help more with North Korea, with 
denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. We are not going to have it 
if we just simply heap more sanctions on and say that we are not going 
to talk to the Russians and that anybody who talks to the Russians is 
committing treason.
  For goodness' sake, we have the former head of the CIA, John Brennan, 
gallivanting across TV--now being paid for his opinion--to call the 
President treasonous. This has to stop. This is crazy hatred of the 
President. Crazy partisanship is driving this.
  For goodness' sake, we don't excuse Russia's behavior in our 
election, but we don't have to have war. We can still have engagement. 
We have engaged Russia throughout 70 years, while also acknowledging 
the imperfections of their system, the parts of their system we 
vehemently disagree with--the lack of freedom, the lack of human 
rights. Yet we had open channels of negotiation, open channels of 
communication.
  I could not object more strongly to this.
  Mr. President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, the Senator from Kentucky just told us 
that he wants dialogue with Russia, he wants diplomacy with Russia, and 
that he thinks it is important that we communicate with Russia. I 
agree. Who disagrees with that? There is not one word in this 
resolution that suggests that the United States of America should not 
aggressively engage in diplomacy with Russia to ease the tensions that 
exist between the two countries. What the Senator said is totally 
irrelevant to what is in this resolution.
  What this resolution says is that we are going to tell Russia: Stop 
interfering in our elections.
  What this resolution is about is telling Russia to stop interfering 
with the elections in democratic countries all over the world.
  What this resolution is about is saying that we should implement the 
sanctions overwhelmingly voted for by Congress.
  What this resolution is about is that we will not accept interference 
with the ongoing investigation of Special Counsel Robert Mueller.
  What this resolution says is that the President must cooperate with 
the investigation of Mr. Mueller.
  That is what this resolution is about. It has nothing to do with 
ending diplomacy with Russia at all. That is inaccurate.
  I would hope that, if not today, in the very near future, Republicans 
will join Democrats and do the right thing in our effort to preserve 
American democracy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.


                 Unanimous Consent Request--S. Res. 583

  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, we are here to put forward a resolution and 
ask unanimous consent for its adoption. This is the Flake-Coons 
resolution, which Senator Coons will speak on and I will take it from 
there.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I come to the floor with my colleague 
Senator Flake from Arizona to send a strong, clear, and, importantly, a 
bipartisan message to the American people that we stand with the men 
and women of the Department of Justice and the men and women of the 
U.S. intelligence community.
  We support the ongoing investigation into Russian interference in our 
elections, and we must act--and act unequivocally--to hold Russia 
accountable for its actions.
  Just 3 days after the U.S. intelligence community issued a detailed 
and staggering finding that led to an indictment against 12 Russian 
military intelligence officers for interfering in our 2016 election, 
President Trump stood shoulder to shoulder with President Putin and 
failed to challenge Putin's claim that his government played no role in 
the effort to undermine our democracy.
  In fact, when asked, at the time, whether he believed Putin's denial 
or the U.S. intelligence community, President Trump said: ``I have 
confidence in both parties.''
  He has subsequently walked back those comments, but I think it is 
important that the Senate be on the record as saying that our 
intelligence community is clear, our law enforcement community is 
clear, and today the Senate should be clear.
  So today Senator Flake and I are putting forward a resolution that, 
in its language, commends the Department of Justice for its ongoing 
investigation into Russia's interference in our last election--the one 
that led to last week's 11-count indictment, offering the most thorough 
and detailed accounting to date of Russia's complex effort to sow doubt 
and create chaos in the months leading up to our last election.
  The resolution also reaffirms the intelligence community's assessment 
of Russian interference and asserts that Russia must be held to account 
for its actions. This can be accomplished in part by immediately and 
responsibly implementing sanctions provided for in the Countering 
America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act, or CAATSA, which this body 
passed 98 to 2 this summer.
  Finally, following the President's summit with Putin in Helsinki, 
today's resolution calls for prompt hearings and the release of notes 
to better understand what the two leaders discussed and may have agreed 
to during their one-on-one meeting, which ran for over 2 hours.
  I am encouraged by hearings that have already been scheduled, but I 
think it is important that it be clear that our Senate seeks a role in 
engagement and oversight.
  Congress and the American people deserve to know what promises or 
concessions may have been made to President Putin, and thorough 
hearings with senior officials, including Secretary Pompeo, are 
critical.
  This resolution is a first step--a good first step--but we need to be 
clear-eyed. President Putin of Russia will not stop until we stop him. 
We know we face continued threats to our elections in 2018 and beyond. 
Just last week, Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats, our former 
colleague here in the Senate, cautioned that the warning lights are 
blinking red again on cyber attacks against our Nation. He said:

       These actions are persistent, they are pervasive, and they 
     are meant to undermine America's Democracy. Attacks on our 
     country's digital infrastructure [are] made principally by 
     Russia.

  He said:

       Russia is the most aggressive foreign actor and the worst 
     offender.

  So we know that we continue to face hostile threats. FBI Director 
Chris Wray said just yesterday: ``Russia is still working to sow 
division in the United States and continues to engage in malign actions 
against our country.''

[[Page S5086]]

  So we need to join arms and look forward to protecting our next 
election. Today's resolution is an important first step, but I think we 
should work together to take up and pass the DETER Act, introduced by 
Senators Rubio and Van Hollen, to deter Russia from interfering in our 
next election.
  I think we should take up and consider the Lankford-Klobuchar Secure 
Elections Act to strengthen election cyber security.
  Of course, I would like to see my Special Counsel Independence and 
Integrity Act taken up as well. We can build on $380 million invested 
in election security, grants provided by this Congress to the States 
back in March to help bolster their election systems against threats.
  It is important to remember that Putin and Putin's Russia are 
attacking other democratic processes throughout Europe. As Americans, 
as Senators, we need to stand up and fight for our democracy and the 
rule of law.
  I had a memorable conversation with the Ukrainian leader last year, 
who said to me: If you don't defend your own elections, your own 
democracy, how can the rest of us count on you to defend ours?
  This resolution makes clear that, on a bipartisan basis, we intend to 
defend our democracy. Russia's attacks on our last elections where 
attacks on every American--Republicans and Democrats. The threat is 
great, it is pressing, and it demands that we act.
  Today's resolution is a first step and an important one, and I call 
on my colleagues to join us in supporting it. If there is any Senator 
who disagrees with this very basic resolution, I look forward to 
hearing their reasons.
  Let me close by thanking my colleague and friend Senator Flake, from 
Arizona, for having taken the initiative and the lead in introducing 
this important resolution. We may not agree on everything, but we agree 
on this important principle: We should stand up and be counted in 
defense of our democracy.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Delaware, Mr. 
Coons, for helping to get together and working on this resolution and 
for working with his colleagues.
  I hope that we can pass it today. There may be an objection to moving 
forward. If there is, we will bring it back again and again. This needs 
to be passed. The Senate needs to speak here.
  Mr. President, in his dystopian novel ``1984,'' George Orwell wrote:

       The party told you to reject the evidence with your eyes 
     and ears. It was their most final, essential command.

  Well, what we saw on air this week in Helsinki was truly an Orwellian 
moment. What we saw earlier this week in Helsinki is what happens when 
you wage war on objective reality for nearly 2 solid years, calling 
real things fake and fake things real, as if conditioning others to 
embrace the same confusion. Ultimately, you are rendered unable to tell 
the difference between the two and are at critical times seemingly 
rendered incapable of thinking clearly--your mind a hash of conspiracy 
theory and fragments of old talking points deployed in response to a 
question no one even asked. Ultimately, you fail to summon reality in 
the face of a despot in defense of your country.
  It wasn't a hard question. An American President was invited by a 
reporter to denounce the Russian attacks on our elections and, in doing 
so, to defend the country that he was elected to lead. This should have 
been not much of a test at all for any American President. Yet it was, 
and our President failed that test.
  The findings of our intelligence community regarding the Russian 
aggression are not matters of opinion, no matter how powerful and 
strong Putin's denial. To reject these findings and to reject the 
excruciatingly specific indictment against the 12 named Russian 
operatives in deference to the word of a KGB apparatchik is an act of 
will on the part of the President.
  That choice now leaves us contemplating a dark mystery: Why did he do 
that? What would compel our President to do such a thing?
  Those are questions that urgently beg for an answer, and it is our 
job to find that answer. But what isn't a mystery is that, by choosing 
to reject objective reality in Helsinki, the President let down the 
free world by giving aid and comfort to an enemy of democracy. In so 
doing, he dimmed the light of freedom ever so slightly in our own 
country. Such is the power that we vest in the Presidency. Such are the 
consequences when a President does not use that power well.
  I can add no further to the extraordinary and thoroughly justified 
response of my fellow Americans from across the political spectrum to 
the events in Helsinki, ranging from heartbreak to horror. But I will 
say that if ever there was a moment to think of not just your party but 
for the country, this is it. This is not a moment for spin, deflection, 
justification, circling the wagons, forgetting, moving on to the next 
news cycle, or for more of Orwell's doublespeak. No, when the American 
Government offers an onslaught on unreality, it puts the whole world at 
risk.
  That is the lesson of Helsinki. That is the dose of reality that hit 
hard. We have indulged myths and fabrications and pretended that it 
wasn't so bad, and our indulgence got us the capitulation in Helsinki.
  We in the Senate who have been elected to represent our constituents 
cannot be enablers of falsehoods. This bipartisan resolution from the 
Senator from Delaware and me, which we have here today, commends the 
Department of Justice for its thorough investigation that has led to 
the indictment of 12 Russian operatives who on behalf of the Russian 
Government interfered in the 2016 election. It acknowledges that such 
efforts by the Russian Government to undermine our elections, as 
confirmed by our own Director of National Intelligence, continue.
  Specifically, the Flake-Coons resolution rejects the denial of 
election interference by Russian President Vladimir Putin, something 
that our President failed to do when given the opportunity in a public 
forum in Helsinki on Monday.
  This resolution calls for the full and immediate implementation of 
mandatory sanctions, passed by a vote of 98 to 2, to deter and punish 
election interference by the Russian Government.
  If there are waivers that are needed--and there are some needed for 
the Indian Government, for example, for weapons they purchased from the 
Russian Government or for hardware--there is a waiver process already 
in law for that, and I would support that.
  Finally, the resolution calls on the relevant committees of the 
Senate to exercise oversight, including prompt hearings and obtaining 
relevant notes and information to understand what commitments were made 
by the President in the summit and the impact it will have on our 
foreign policy going forward.
  The Russian Ambassador last night said that ``important verbal 
agreements were made.'' We need to know the details of those 
agreements.
  Empirical, objective truth has taken a beating for the last 18 
months. I said from this pulpit in January that ``the dissemination of 
untruths has the effect of eroding trust in our vital institutions and 
conditioning the public to no longer trust them.''
  As we saw in Helsinki on Monday, entertaining the untruths of a 
dictator has the same effect. Passing this resolution will let our 
constituents, the administration, our allies, and our adversaries know 
that here in the Senate we do not entertain the deceit of dictators.
  The truth is that Russia interfered in our elections in 2016, and 
these efforts continue. Accepting that truth is the first step in 
preparing us to confront this malign activity. Let's pass this 
resolution.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the 
consideration of S. Res. 583, submitted earlier today. I ask unanimous 
consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, 
and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid on the 
table with no intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The majority whip.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, let me 
first thank the Senator from Arizona and

[[Page S5087]]

the Senator from Delaware for expressing all of our concern about 
Russian interference in the 2016 election. It is absolutely clear they 
did, and the President has said as much on a number of occasions.
  Now, I agree, in Helsinki he was less than clear about that, but he 
came back and said that he misspoke and reaffirmed his earlier position 
that, yes, the Russian Government had attempted to interfere in the 
election, although nobody disputes the fact that they were unsuccessful 
in changing a single vote or affecting the outcome. Ironically, the 
very same investigation which has made clear that the Russians did 
attempt to disrupt the election has also made clear there is no 
evidence of collusion that anybody has uncovered to date.

  My concern with this resolution is that it is purely a symbolic act, 
and what we need to do is not just offer symbolic resolutions on the 
floor. We need to do the hard work Senators have to do through regular 
order. In other words, our committees that have jurisdiction over these 
issues ought to be permitted to call the witnesses and ask the hard 
questions and develop the record before we go on record as to a 
resolution like this.
  I would point out that the indictments that were referred to, 
apparently, according to published reports, Rod Rosenstein, the Deputy 
Attorney General, asked the President before Helsinki if he should 
withhold the announcement of those indictments or go ahead and release 
them before the summit. The President said: No, go ahead.
  Anybody who read the 29 pages of the indictment, issued at the 
request of Robert Mueller by a grand jury in the District of Columbia, 
knows there is chapter and verse of how Russians attempted to interfere 
with the election. It is a good and important read. The President knew 
that before he went to Helsinki. That gives me some confidence that he 
did, indeed, misspeak, especially in light of his subsequent 
affirmations of Russian interference in the election.
  I happen to be privileged to sit on the Senate Select Committee on 
Intelligence. We have been conducting a bipartisan investigation of the 
Russian matter for the entire time the President has been in office for 
the last year and a half. We already issued some preliminary reports. 
The way to do our work is through bipartisan committee work--have the 
witnesses come and testify, ask them hard questions, and render our 
judgment.
  I know Secretary Pompeo is coming before the Senate Foreign Relations 
Committee sometime next week. He ought to be asked hard questions. I am 
confident he will respond to those questions. That is how we get the 
information we need.
  Let me just say that I think we should consider sanctions--not some 
sort of sense-of-the Senate resolutions that have no sting or no 
impact, certainly no deterrent effect on what we all want, which is to 
discourage Russian involvement in our 2018 elections. That is why the 
majority leader today asked the chairman of the Banking and Foreign 
Relations Committee to hold hearings and recommend additional measures 
that could respond to or deter Russian malign behavior. We ought to do 
our work through our committees of jurisdiction.
  When we rush to judgment and do resolutions like this, we can 
inadvertently make mistakes. Let me point out one that is in this 
resolution. There is a reference to Countering America's Adversaries 
Through Sanctions Act, which passed the Senate 98 to 2, to deter and 
punish election interference by the Russian Federation. There is a 
provision in the current conference committee on the Defense 
authorization that would issue a waiver of that act to our partner 
India. If we want to encourage countries like India to come partner 
with the United States of America--the world's largest democracy and 
the world's oldest democracy--then we ought encourage that movement 
toward us and away from the Russian Federation. I worry there is no 
reference in here to the waiver provision in the Defense authorization 
conference committee that India has asked for and that Secretary Mattis 
has requested Congress grant.
  All I am asking for is a little bit of caution in the rush to issue a 
resolution. No. 1, I don't think we acknowledge the full picture, but 
we also don't commit our work to the committees that have jurisdiction 
over these matters to do it carefully, thoughtfully, and in a 
bipartisan way so we come up to the best solution to the problem.
  I think this is the wrong way to go about it. I think our committees 
ought to continue to do their work--Senate Select Committee on 
Intelligence, the Armed Services Committee, the Foreign Relations 
Committee, and the Banking Committee. We ought to come up with the 
right kind of bipartisan answer, which I think could well include 
sanctions against the Russian Federation to deter them from meddling in 
our 2018 elections and beyond. I am confident they will continue until 
we stop them from doing so.
  I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Fischer). Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. FLAKE. Madam President, I think it is regrettable this was 
objected to. We will bring it back. The majority leader said this is 
just a symbolic vote. It is. Symbolism is important.
  Obviously, we have underlying sanctions we ought to fully implement. 
If there are waivers needed, there is already a waiver process in the 
NDAA authorization. I support those waivers with regard to India. This 
does not affect that. This says, in a symbolic way, that we in the 
Senate don't buy Vladimir Putin's rejection or his denial of election 
interference.
  That was put in question this week, whether our government believes 
that or not. We in the Senate should stand and say: We don't believe 
it. We know the intelligence is right. We stand behind our intelligence 
community. We need to say that in the Senate.
  Yes, it is symbolic and symbolism is important. Our agencies of 
government need to know that we stand behind them. That is what this is 
about.
  I hope we will pass this. I note, regretfully, that there has been an 
objection to it, but we will bring it back. I believe this should pass, 
and I believe it ultimately will pass.
  I yield back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that 
notwithstanding Senate rule XXII, postcloture time on the Bounds 
nomination expire at 1:45 p.m. today; further, that if confirmed, 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. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                Unanimous Consent Agreement--S. Res. 584

  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that 
following disposition of the Bounds nomination, the Senate resume 
legislative session and proceed to the immediate consideration of a 
Schumer resolution that is at the desk; further, that the Senate 
immediately vote on the resolution; that if agreed to, the motion to 
reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no 
intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.


                              S. Res. 583

  Mr. COONS. Madam President, I join my colleague from Arizona in 
briefly remarking on my regret that our resolution was not adopted 
today.
  It does call for the full implementation of mandatory sanctions as 
discussed at some length. It does not call for the reckless 
implementation of mandatory sanctions.
  There is a significant range of sanctions already provided for in 
this law, adopted 98 to 2 by this body, that have not yet been adopted. 
I recognize that this resolution, standing strong behind the Department 
of Justice, the intelligence community, and its ongoing investigation 
is, as was referenced, a symbolic act, but there are moments when 
symbolism and standing together are important.
  I look forward to continuing to work closely with my colleague and 
friend from Arizona to ensure that this resolution is adopted, that the 
American people and the men and women of our Federal law enforcement 
agencies and our intelligence community understand that this body 
strongly supports them and their work and sees clearly the ongoing and 
continuing threat to

[[Page S5088]]

our democracy posed by President Putin and Putin's Russia.
  Thank you.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, first, before I talk about the 
resolution Senators Menendez, Schatz, and I have authored that will be 
voted on at 1:45 p.m., I would like to say a few words about the work 
the Senators from Delaware and Arizona did and my severe disappointment 
that there was objection from the Republican leadership.
  The bottom line is very simple. President Trump has put our country 
in a foreign policy crisis. President Trump has weakened the security 
of this country. A resolution is the minimum we can do. We should be 
acting.
  The idea that we cannot even pass a resolution in this body because 
of the objection on the other side, when this was done in a bipartisan, 
careful way by the Senators from Arizona and Delaware, shows something 
very bad. Our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are so cowered 
by a President that they cannot stand up for national security. They 
cannot stand up to Vladimir Putin, just as the President seems not to 
be able to.
  I have one more point. From what I am told, one of the major 
objections from the other side was that Congress wished the 
contemporaneous notes from that secret 2-hour meeting be made 
available. That is key.
  What are they hiding? What are they afraid of? The American people 
have a right to know what went on in that meeting, particularly when 
President Putin gets up and talks about some agreements that it seems 
not even our high-ranking officials in the State and Defense 
Departments and intelligence agencies know about. This is amazing.
  We have come to a really low moment in this body when a bipartisan 
resolution that is rather modest and limited--I had talked to the 
Senator from Delaware. He knows I wanted much more in this resolution, 
but in an effort to get something done, we limited it.
  In my view--the view of most Americans--the notes should be made 
available. The translator should be made available. The translator 
wasn't specifically referred to in this resolution, but when they 
talked about relevant people coming, my view--and I believe the view of 
the Senator from Delaware--was that would include the translator. I am 
not sure if it was the view of the Senator from Arizona. It doesn't 
matter. We are not even passing this resolution.
  I have to say, this was a moment for bipartisanship. This was a 
moment for America pulling together. This was a moment, when the 
President doesn't served the country well, that Americans of all 
parties, all ideologies come together and fill that void and undo the 
misdeeds that occurred in Helsinki.
  Unfortunately, because of weakness, fear--my guess is, if you looked 
inside the hearts and minds of every Member on the other side, all but 
maybe one or two would feel this is the right resolution, but they are 
afraid. Fear will not get us anywhere. Letting a bully push us around, 
meaning President Putin, as he pushed President Trump around, will not 
serve this country well. It is a sad moment that this resolution was 
rejected.


                              S. Res. 584

  Madam President, before I yield to my good friend, the hard-working 
and very able ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee, I want 
to talk about our resolution which we are going to vote on. Lord knows 
what would happen if we couldn't have even gotten a vote on that.
  The idea that an American ambassador, who served us so well, should 
be brought before Putin and his minions to be questioned, when there is 
no charge against him, no issue against him--it is not like the 12 
Russians who are indicted for trying to interfere with our elections. 
It is not even an analogy. There is not an evenness. President Trump 
amazingly called this an ``incredible offer.'' Our President is saying 
that one of our Ambassadors being hauled before an authoritarian regime 
that twists the truth, that lies at will, that even seems to kill 
people they want to with poison in other countries is an incredible 
offer?
  Well, this resolution is a fine resolution. It will pass. It doesn't 
undo what just happened. It doesn't make up for the fact that our 
colleagues are afraid to take real action, even a resolution that 
posits action in terms of the major misdeeds at Helsinki. At the very 
least, we are protecting the integrity of the men and women who serve 
us, because if today it is the Ambassador, tomorrow it could be 
somebody in the military or somebody in the intelligence agencies or 
elsewhere.

  This resolution is very clear. What it says is, when President Trump 
called Putin's offer an ``incredible offer,'' he was incredibly wrong. 
No President can put one of our fine servants at risk who has worked 
hard, in this case, for the diplomatic corps. This resolution is a bare 
minimum of what we should be doing here. I am glad it will be on the 
floor, and I suspect it will pass--hopefully, unanimously.
  I yield to my colleague from New Jersey.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I am very pleased to join with the 
distinguished Democratic leader in coauthoring this resolution.


                              S. Res. 583

  Madam President, before I speak to it, I do want to speak to the 
Flake-Coons resolution.
  Certainly, I would have supported it; although, I believe it is the 
minimum of what this body should be expressing after what we saw in 
Helsinki. This is a moment for bipartisanship and for patriotism 
because what I saw in Helsinki speaks to the opposite of standing up to 
preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.
  In the majority whip's objection to the resolution coming to a vote, 
I find it interesting that, among other things, he was talking about 
our having more sanctions against Russia, which I will speak to 
shortly. We are in the midst of developing a new, strong package of 
sanctions as it relates to Russia. So I embrace and welcome him to that 
effort if he seeks to actually see real sanctions against Russia.
  We have sanctions. There are sanctions that passed by 98 to 2 in this 
institution and that passed overwhelmingly in the House of 
Representatives, which forced the President to sign it as a result of 
there having been overwhelming votes. These were sanctions that were 
largely mandatory but have not been fulfilled. So we could start off by 
having a robust engagement of the existing sanctions.
  I am not quite sure how we start being tough on Russia. One of the 
elements of those sanctions was to go after Russia's sales of defense 
weapons. Yet here we are, and we are already looking for waivers. There 
is a difference between a country that, maybe, has a long history of 
buying Russian military equipment, but the S-400--a new anti-defense 
system--is a new version. That is not a legacy issue. I am not sure how 
we are going to tell one country it can buy the S-400 but tell another 
country it can't. It doesn't work. That is how sanctions begin to 
crumble at the end of the day. Yet I welcome the response that we 
should be having new sanctions.


                              S. Res. 584

  Madam President, as it relates to this resolution, it is outrageous 
that the White House would not instantaneously and firmly dismiss a 
proposition that Russian prosecutors question a former U.S. Ambassador. 
Again and again, we have seen President Trump take Vladimir Putin's 
word. It is unconscionable that this White House would give anything 
other than a full-throated defense of America's Foreign Service, like 
Ambassador Mike McFaul, who has served our country with honor and 
distinction.
  The reason Putin doesn't like Mike McFaul is that as our U.S. 
Ambassador, he stood up for democracy and human rights in Russia; he 
stood up to the Russian regime; and he promoted American values and 
ideals. He spoke truth to power inside Russia. That is why Putin wants 
him. Congress shouldn't have to tell America's President to stand up 
for America's public servants and its diplomatic corps, but apparently 
we have to.
  President Trump has repeatedly dismissed Russia's attack in 2016 and 
shrugs off the threat it poses today, despite all of our intelligence 
agencies and the Director of National Intelligence, just days ago, 
saying there are red blinking lights about Russia's continual 
engagement and interference in

[[Page S5089]]

the elections that will take place 110 days from now.
  This week, he has continuously and directly contradicted his own 
national security advisers and, instead, has embraced the line of Putin 
and Russian intelligence. Now, I know they have been trying to clean it 
up. Yet he has said it so many times and in the same way he said it in 
Helsinki. That is what he really believes. Now for him to say something 
that is different--wrong time, wrong continent, not too much. He has 
spouted talking points that have sounded like they have come straight 
from the Kremlin. He has shown a willingness to accede to Putin's 
requests to interrogate Americans, a willingness to accept Putin's 
denials about Russian interference, a willingness to attack NATO allies 
like Montenegro, and a willingness to be a supplicant to Putin's views.
  The President keeps claiming he has been tough on Russia. No. It is 
Congress that has been tough on Russia by its passing CAATSA, the 
Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act, with broad and 
deep bipartisan support. Yet the White House hasn't taken it seriously. 
It has ignored a series of mandates in the law. The clear tone and 
intent that came from the Helsinki summit was one of accommodation, not 
of pressure.
  I don't see any other way forward, other than through further 
congressional action, to forcefully call out and address the 
administration's willful paralysis to Putin's abhorrent behavior. To 
date, our efforts have been transformative, but just as the 
administration has been prepared to find ways that allow Putin to 
circumvent the law and to avoid implementing mandatory provisions of 
CAATSA, we must be equally prepared to adjust and adapt by closing 
those loopholes.
  That is why I will soon introduce comprehensive legislation to 
increase pressure to actually implement the law and increase pressure 
on Russia for its aggression against the United States and our allies. 
Among the considerations we have for this new legislation are to 
increase sanctions on Russia's energy sector, to increase sanctions on 
its cyber sector, to increase pressure on Russia's oligarchs and those 
who are closest to Putin, and to look at Russia's sovereign debt as a 
target.
  We cannot wait to see whether Russia will attack us in the 2018 
election. We know it is in the midst of making that a reality, and we 
need to ramp up the pressure. We can't afford to wait.
  Based on this President's behavior, we also need to protect our 
institutions here at home. That is why we want to include protections 
for the Office of Special Counsel. The President has done more to 
target Bob Mueller than he has to go after Vladimir Putin, and this 
must stop. This effort must be bipartisan, which is why I look forward 
to working with my Republican colleagues who truly want to see us fight 
back on Russia and nearly all of whom voted to increase sanctions on 
Russia last year and place more authority for sanctions alleviation in 
the hands of Congress. They were right to support such measures in July 
of 2017, and God knows it would now be right to step up and defend 
America's interests.
  It is time to show the American people that we can be patriots, not 
just partisans. It is time to show the world that we can put our 
country over party. It is time that we defend America's democratic 
institutions against Russia's continued aggression. I look forward to 
the resolution and its vote, and I urge everyone to join us in 
approving it.
  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. GRASSLEY. 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. GRASSLEY. Madam President, we will vote today on the confirmation 
of Ryan Bounds to the Ninth Circuit. He has been nominated to fill the 
vacancy left by Judge O'Scannlain. Mr. Bounds once served as a law 
clerk to Ninth Circuit Judge O'Scannlain.
  Mr. Bounds is highly qualified to serve on the Ninth Circuit. A 
native of Oregon, he attended Stanford University and Yale Law School. 
He has dedicated his career to public service and has served in 
government for the past 14 years. The last 8 years were as an assistant 
U.S. attorney in Oregon.
  I have listened to my colleagues on the other side voice their 
opposition to Mr. Bounds. Interestingly, none of them cite anything Mr. 
Bounds has done in his legal career as a reason for opposing his 
nomination. Instead, they focus on two things. First, they say we 
shouldn't confirm Mr. Bounds because his home State Senators didn't 
return their blue slips. Second, they say some of Mr. Bounds' college 
writings were insensitive. So I am going to start with point No. 1 on 
which they base their opposition to him.
  As I have explained so many times on the floor of the U.S. Senate and 
in the Senate Judiciary Committee--and I don't know how many times to 
the multitudes of journalists who are on the Hill--my blue-slip policy 
is the same as all but 2 of my 18 predecessors who were chairmen of the 
Judiciary Committee over the 100-year history of blue slips. Like 
Chairmen Ted Kennedy, Joe Biden, and Orrin Hatch, I will hold hearings 
for circuit court nominees who have negative or unreported blue slips 
if the White House has consulted with the home State Senators, and I 
will not allow Senators to abuse the blue-slip courtesy for political 
or ideological reasons.
  In the case of Mr. Bounds, the White House sought the Oregon 
Senators' input, seriously considered the one candidate suggested by 
the Oregon Senators, and waited several months for the Senators from 
Oregon to establish their judicial selection committee, which is quite 
a tradition in that State. The selection committee itself even 
recommended Mr. Bounds. Yet the Oregon Senators still didn't return 
their blue slips.
  They say it was because Mr. Bounds didn't disclose some of his 
college writings to the selection committee. There is a very good 
reason he didn't--the selection committee never asked for his college 
writings. In fact, Senator Wyden's staff instructed Mr. Bounds not to 
disclose them. Moreover, the Oregon Senators refused to ever meet with 
Mr. Bounds during this whole process.
  It has been misleadingly said this will be the first time in modern 
history we will have confirmed a judge without there having been at 
least one positive blue slip from the two State Senators. My Democratic 
colleagues have only themselves to blame. The way the blue slip used to 
be enforced was through the 60-vote filibuster, and that was done away 
with in November 2013, led by the then-Democratic majority and Senator 
Reid.
  For example, Chairman Hatch held hearings for five nominees in 2003 
and 2004, despite there being the lack of a positive blue slip from 
either home State Senator. These nominees were voted out of 
committee. Then Senate Democrats blocked these nominees on the floor by 
using the 60-vote filibuster. But my Democratic colleagues abolished 
that filibuster, as I said, in 2013 for the reason that they needed the 
votes and the freedom to pack the DC Circuit with liberal judges who 
would uphold Obama's regulatory schemes.

  Leading this effort was none other than Senator Merkley of Oregon, 
who argued that 41 Senators shouldn't be able to block a Senate 
majority from confirming judges. Now they have a different point of 
view. Now he argues that he alone should have the right to block Mr. 
Bounds from even getting a hearing in the Judiciary Committee.
  In November of 2013, I told my Democratic colleagues that they would 
regret abolishing the filibuster just to stack the DC Circuit Court of 
Appeals with their friends. Now, obviously, today, as they consider the 
Bounds nomination, they know they made a mistake.
  Turning to the only other criticism my colleagues have made about Mr. 
Bounds, which is in regard to his college writings, I don't believe 
that misguided statements made in a college newspaper 25 years ago 
should disqualify Mr. Bounds. I hope we don't live in a world where 
controversial things that we write in college end our careers forever. 
This is especially true with our kids and grandkids now in the era of 
social media.
  For example, a few years ago, just when the same thing came up on 
Justice Wright going to the Minnesota

[[Page S5090]]

District Court, I voted and supported her despite very controversial 
writings she had in law school. We shouldn't assume that views 
expressed years ago during college and law school represent the nominee 
today.
  Mr. Bounds testified that he regretted much of what he wrote in those 
op-eds.
  We received numerous letters in support of Mr. Bounds' nomination 
from people who have known him personally throughout his life. We 
received a letter from some of his classmates at Stanford. And before I 
quote, it is kind of like--these sound like they were his friends in 
the dormitories. I never was a dormitory student, but I imagine you 
really get acquainted with people there. This is what they had to say 
about Mr. Bounds:

       We have become aware of a handful of controversial op-eds 
     and articles Ryan wrote for The Stanford Review during that 
     time. None of us believes that these writings reflect Ryan's 
     character, either then or now. All of us remember our dorm-
     mate fondly.
       We are a diverse bunch. Yet Ryan never failed to treat all 
     of us with courtesy, respect, and civility, regardless of our 
     respective genders, sexual orientations, skin colors, 
     religions, ethnicity, or any other characteristics.
       There is not, and never has been, a racist, sexist, 
     homophobic, or bigoted bone in Ryan Bounds's body.

  Mr. Bounds has also been a community leader, promoting diversity and 
equality. As a member of the Multnomah Bar Association's Equity, 
Diversity, and Inclusion Committee, Mr. Bounds spearheaded programs to 
expose underprivileged young people to the legal profession. He 
mentored young scholarship recipients and helped those same people 
navigate law school admissions and law school. He expanded low-cost CLE 
offerings and organized anti-harassment and anti-discrimination 
training.
  Mr. Bounds is imminently qualified to serve on the Ninth Circuit. His 
college writings do not represent who he is today. His professional 
accomplishments and exemplary public service speak much more loudly to 
his character and integrity.
  I strongly urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support 
Mr. Bounds' confirmation today.