[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 128 (Monday, July 29, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5121-S5125]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                                 MEDIA

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, the outraged industrial complex needed 
a new target, and that is where I come in--Mitch McConnell--the hawkish 
foreign policy conservative who has spent decades pushing back on 
Russia every way I can think of, was accused of what amounts to treason 
by multiple media outlets within a couple of hours.
  These absurd smears weren't thrown out there by anonymous Twitter 
accounts or fringe bloggers. Oh, no. This modern-day McCarthyism was 
pushed by big-time outlets. The smear that I am ``a Russian asset'' ran 
in the opinion pages of the Washington Post. The accusations that I am 
``un-American'' was broadcast on MSNBC.
  This is the state of leftwing politics in 2019. It is like an 
inflationary crisis but with outrage instead of dollars.

[[Page S5122]]

These people have worn out the volume knob so badly that they have 
nothing left but the most unhinged smears. Welcome to modern-day 
McCarthyism--McCarthy-like tactics out in the open for everyone to 
see--in Dana Milbank's column in the Washington Post and on a major 
cable channel run by NBC.
  What started all this? Here was my crime--bless me, for I have 
sinned: Last week, I stopped Democrats from passing an election law 
bill through the Senate by unanimous consent, a bill that was so 
partisan it only received one Republican vote over in the House. My 
Democratic friends asked for unanimous consent to pass a bill that 
everyone knows isn't unanimous and never will be unanimous, so I 
objected.
  These theatrical requests happen all the time in the Senate. I 
promise that nobody involved, including my friend the Democratic leader 
who made the request, actually thought he would get a Republican Senate 
to instantly unanimously pass a bill that got one Republican vote over 
in the House. This kind of objection is a routine occurrence in the 
Senate. It doesn't make the Republicans traitors or un-American; it 
makes us policymakers with a different opinion, but the outraged 
industrial complex doesn't let a little thing like reality get in their 
way. They saw the perfect opportunity to distort, tell lies, and fuel 
the flames of partisan hatred, and so they did.
  It started with the angry lies on MSNBC. The host lied and said I 
have dismissed Russia's interference in our 2016 election as ``a 
hoax.'' Of course, I have never said any such thing--ever. I have 
spoken extensively and often about Russia's unacceptable interference 
in 2016. I have constantly discussed all we have been doing to correct 
the Obama administration's failures to respond more assertively to the 
Russian threat, including on election security.
  So let me make this crystal clear for the hyperventilating hacks who 
haven't actually followed this issue. Every single Member of the Senate 
agrees that Russian meddling was real and is real. We all agree that 
the Federal Government, State governments, and the private sector all 
have obligations to take this threat seriously and bolster our 
defenses.
  Claims to the contrary--claims that anybody here denies what Russia 
did on President Obama's watch--are just lies. They are not partisan 
distortion, not clever spin, just total fabrications.
  At least this show is honest about what it offers--and it isn't 
journalism. Immediately after the host finished his angry string of 
false claims and calling me ``un-American,'' another panelist chimed in 
to applaud the remarks, and here is what he said:

       We are at war. It's time for the Democrats to wake up. . . 
     . [And] we're not necessarily going to play fair.

  ``Not necessarily going to play fair''--well, I should say not. Let's 
remember how deep MSNBC waded into the conspiratorial fever swamp over 
the past 2 years.
  They gave airtime to individuals like one guest who has publicly 
tweeted, among other things, that a former White House adviser was 
close to being executed for espionage and that Chief Justice Roberts 
had sent the Marshal of the Supreme Court to the White House to 
threaten the President. That is utter nonsense. They hosted these kinds 
of conspiratorial voices.
  Just a few days ago, one former host at the network pointed out that 
``MSNBC built segment after segment, show after show on building 
anticipation for a big reveal,'' but then the Mueller report took some 
of their most unhinged stories right off the table.
  Then, just last week, the special counsel's in-person testimony 
disappointed the political left yet again, so the conspiracy theories 
needed a new target.
  A few hours later came the Washington Post column. It was authored by 
Dana Milbank, a pundit who spent much of the Obama administration 
carrying water for its failed foreign policies and excusing President 
Obama's weakness on Russia. Here is the headline: ``Mitch McConnell is 
a Russian asset''--a shameful smear and based on more lies.
  Mr. Milbank repeatedly claims that I have blocked all efforts to 
raise our defenses against Russian meddling. The truth is, I have 
championed the coordinated work between Congress, the administration, 
and the States, which are primarily responsible for our elections, and 
the Senate has passed several major provisions on this subject this 
year. I have spoken frequently on the floor about the need to keep up 
the progress and to stay vigilant. What is more, one of the specific 
pieces of legislation he claims I have blocked is something I literally 
have never opposed. His online column links directly to a bill, and it 
is something I have never opposed.
  You would think a columnist leveling these kinds of smears would at 
least consult a fact checker before accusing an elected official of 
``aiding and abetting'' Vladimir Putin, but, alas, it is not even a 
competent hit piece, just sloppy work.
  Ironically, Mr. Milbank has frequently written pieces lecturing 
Republicans who he feels has impugned others' patriotism. Back in 2013, 
the same guy wrote a piece insisting that ``in America, a political 
opponent is not the enemy.'' In 2015, he criticized ``nutters'' for 
questioning the President's patriotism and said that ``such beyond-the-
pale-rhetoric'' had to be thrown out ``to have a civilized debate.'' So 
you get the picture.
  When a liberal politician is being criticized, these leftwing pundits 
become choir boys calling for civility and decency and high mindedness, 
but when it is time to smear somebody on the other side, oh, they are 
delighted to lead the charge.
  As recently as 2017, this very columnist wrote:

       [L]et's pause to remember: We are all the American people. 
     And we all love our country.

  As all of our colleagues know, I have spoken at length about Russia's 
attack on American democracy. I worked to ensure that Congress sent 
hundreds of millions of dollars to the States to improve their defenses 
and applauded the whole-of-government efforts that the administration 
continues to carry out with States and localities.
  Good news may not sell any newspapers, boost ratings, or help with 
Democratic fundraising, but the facts are the facts. The facts are that 
this administration has made huge strides--huge--on election security 
since 2016. They made a noticeable impact in securing the 2018 election 
and are vigilant and proactive as we head into 2020.
  A few weeks ago, every Senator had the opportunity to attend an all-
Members classified briefing that I helped to organize detailing the 
major work that has been underway since 2016. I have been in a lot of 
classified briefings over the years. It is not exactly common for 
Members to break out in spontaneous applause, let alone bipartisan 
applause, but that is exactly what happened in that classified 
briefing. Behind closed doors, Democrats joined Republicans in 
applauding the progress made since 2016.
  This administration--thanks in large part to our friend and former 
colleague, DNI Dan Coats, whom I was very sorry to hear is stepping 
down--has increased and improved our intelligence collection on these 
threats. It has built better and more functional relationships with 
State election authorities. It has enlisted more help from the private 
sector to identify and counter foreign influence campaigns. It has 
worked more closely with foreign allies and partners who face similar 
threats from Russia. It has imposed real costs on Russia for its 
misdeeds and cut down on the ability of Russian intelligence to operate 
inside our country.
  In particular, the Department of Homeland Security has employed 
special capabilities in all 50 States for detecting malign cyber 
activity. It has deployed cyber security advisers all across our 
country. It operates the National Cybersecurity and Communications 
Integration Center and supports the Elections Infrastructure 
Information Sharing and Analysis Center.
  Among its many offerings to the States, DHS offers cyber security 
assessments, detection and prevention tools, training, and career 
development for election officials, all free of charge. Using the 
hundreds of millions of dollars Congress sent to the States, which I 
proudly voted for and supported, the authorities who actually conduct 
our elections on the frontlines have gotten themselves better prepared.
  This is a long list of significant achievements--achievements that my

[[Page S5123]]

Democratic colleagues applauded and cheered behind closed doors when 
the administration briefed us a few weeks ago. But in public? In public 
and in front of the cameras, some of my colleagues quickly pivoted 
right back into hysterical accusations that only fan the flames of this 
modern-day McCarthyism.
  These pundits are lying when they dismiss the work that has been 
done. They are lying when they insist I have personally blocked 
actions, which in fact I have championed and the Senate has passed. 
They are lying when they suggest that either party is against defending 
our democracy. This work is essential, and it will continue.
  Over 2 years ago, I asked Chairman Burr and the Intelligence 
Committee to take a hard bipartisan look at all aspects of the Russian 
threat in 2016 and the steps the Obama administration took or failed to 
take to defend against it. Here was the headline in December 2016 from 
NBC news: ``McConnell Backs Senate Investigations of Russian Hacking.'' 
We wanted a serious, detailed investigation, and not a political 
sideshow. I am impressed and grateful for the nonpartisan work of the 
committee staff under the leadership of Chairman Burr and Vice Chairman 
Warner. The committee's reports on the various aspects of the threat 
are now being released. They will add vital context and analysis and 
inform on what to do about this ongoing threat.
  I am sure all of us will be open to discussing further steps that 
Congress, the executive branch, the States, and the private sector 
might take to defend our elections against foreign interference. Any 
further legislation must be informed by this detailed report and by all 
the steps the government has already taken.
  At the same time, you can be sure that I have spoken out against 
Democrats' efforts to seize on the crisis and use it to advance their 
other long-held partisan goals for the political process. Some of these 
changes they have sought since long before the 2016 meddling--long 
before it. So, no, I am not going to let Democrats and their water-
carriers in the media use Russia's attack on our democracy as a Trojan 
horse for partisan wish list items that would not actually make our 
elections any safer. I am not going to do that.
  My opposition to nationalizing election authorities that properly 
belong with the States is not news to anybody who has followed my 
career or knows anything about Congress. Even the New York Times' 
editorial board noted over the weekend that while they certainly don't 
agree with all my views, they are principles going back decades, and 
the Times had to admit the Democrats are ``playing politics'' by 
introducing legislation with--listen to this--``no chance of passing 
the Senate [that] serves only to harden partisan divisions.'' That is 
the New York Times this weekend.
  So my differences with Democrats on complicated matters of election 
law are the kind of disagreements we used to be able to have without 
mainstream media outlets screaming that one side is traitorous. This 
Congress and this entire country only works when we refuse to let 
baseless smears displace real debate.
  Benjamin Franklin said we have this Republic if we can keep it, and, 
among other things, keeping our Republic means we can't let modern-day 
McCarthyism win.
  So here is my commitment: No matter how much they lie and no matter 
how much they bully, I will not be intimidated. For decades, I have 
used my Senate seat to stand up to Russia and protect the United States 
of America. I am proud of my record. I am proud that it is right there 
in black and white, and liars cannot gaslight it away.
  In the 1980s, as a freshman Senator, I proudly stood with President 
Reagan on missile defense and other aspects of his Soviet policy. While 
the liberal media was shrieking that the Reagan-Bush foreign policy 
wouldn't work, I was honored to support them with my vote and then 
watch communism crumble.
  Then, in the 1990s, I used my place on the State, Foreign Operations, 
and Related Programs Subcommittee to sound the alarm when President 
Clinton was too soft on Russia. Here is the Wall Street Journal on 
December 1994: ``Kentucky Senator, Handed Keys to Foreign Aid, To Be 
Most Potent Foe of Clinton's Russia Policy.'' Here is what that article 
said: ``But the real challenge to the administration's policy is 
[McConnell's] plan to attach stiff political conditions to that aid. . 
. . threatening a cutoff unless Russia stops meddling in its neighbor's 
affairs.''
  Let me say that again. As early as the 1990s, I was on record as 
laser-focused on Russia's meddling beyond its borders and making sure 
the Russians were held accountable.
  I ask unanimous consent that the December 13, 1994, article from the 
Wall Street Journal entitled ``Kentucky Senator, Handed Keys to Foreign 
Aid, To Be Most Potent Foe of Clinton's Russia Policy'' be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

             [From The Wall Street Journal, Dec. 13, 1994]

Kentucky Senator, Handed Keys to Foreign Aid, To Be Most Potent Foe of 
                        Clinton's Russia Policy

                        (By Carla Anne Robbins)

       Washington--Jesse Helms may breathe more fire, but the 
     comparatively understated Mitch McConnell is the senator who 
     will be the most potent foe of the Clinton administration's 
     Russia policy.
       As new Republican chairman of the key Senate appropriations 
     subcommittee overseeing Russian aid, Sen. McConnell will have 
     his hands on the foreign-aid money levers. He brings to that 
     task a deep mistrust of Russia's Boris Yeltsin matched only 
     by his skepticism of Deputy Secretary of State and Russia 
     policy architect Strobe Talbott, whom he describes as ``the 
     brightest, best-educated man I've ever met [who's] been most 
     consistently wrong.''
       The senator from Kentucky is determined to wean the U.S. 
     from what he dismisses as ``Strobe-Talbot-Russia-
     First(ism).'' Just yesterday, Sen. McConnell gave some idea 
     of what he has in mind when he unveiled his plan for 
     overhauling the American foreign-aid system. He pledged to 
     earmark spending on the former Soviet Union to ensure that 
     the lion's share of a shrinking aid package goes to countries 
     other than Russia.
       But the real challenge to the administration's policy is 
     his plan to attach stiff political conditions to that aid, 
     ``linkages'' in Cold War parlance, threatening a cutoff 
     unless Russia stops meddling in its neighbors' affairs.
       Sen. McConnell says that while his efforts to ``write 
     Russia policy into the foreign-aid bill'' have been 
     frustrated until now by a Democratic majority, ``I think it's 
     reasonable to assume that that's not going to happen this 
     year.'' Republican skepticism about Russia will only increase 
     because of Mr. Yeltsin's decision this week to send tanks 
     into the separatist region of Chechnya.
       In a sign of the aggressive role he now intends to play, 
     Sen. McConnell yesterday upstaged both Sen. Helms, who will 
     run the Foreign Relations Committee, and the Clinton 
     administration by releasing his own version of a new foreign-
     aid budget. He proposed doing away entirely with the Agency 
     for International Development, the nation's principal 
     foreign-aid agency, and making free-market policies rather 
     than human rights or absolute need the standard for deciding 
     who gets help. ``In the past, development assistance has 
     focused on relieving the symptoms of poverty and despair,'' 
     he said. ``But by any standard, the fact is most poor 
     countries are still poor.''


                          cutting back on aid

       Overall, Sen. McConnell's program calls for cutting foreign 
     aid by some 20%, with only the Middle East, the former Soviet 
     Union and Eastern Europe escaping cuts that deep. Sen. 
     McConnell made clear that the only reason the former Soviet 
     Union would get $750 million under his plan, just $100 
     million less than currently, is his intention to send a 
     significant portion of that money to former Soviet Republics 
     such as Ukraine and Armenia, not to Russia.
       A well-described Internationalist who has supported aid to 
     Russia in the past, Mr. McConnell is likely to have great 
     credibility in a Republican-controlled Congress fearful of 
     being tarred isolationist but also deeply skeptical about 
     foreign aid and Messrs. Yeltsin and Talbott.
       Mr. McConnell and the Appropriations Committee may also 
     have more real power than Sen. Helms and his Foreign 
     Relations Committee, which is supposed to write foreign-aid 
     bills but hasn't succeeded in getting one passed since 1986. 
     The job won't get easier under a divisive figure such as Sen. 
     Helms. That leaves the task of actually parceling out foreign 
     aid to the appropriating committees. Mr. McConnell's House 
     counterpart, Alabama Rep. Sonny Callahan, who has tried to 
     kill Russia aid before, will be supportive.


                        taste of battles to come

       The administration got a taste last summer of battles to 
     come with Mr. McConnell. At his urging, the Democratically 
     controlled Senate voted to cut off all U.S. funds to Russia 
     unless its troops pulled out of Estonia by their promised 
     withdrawal date of Aug. 31. The provision was struck in a 
     conference committee, but only after frantic lobbying by 
     administration officials who warned that

[[Page S5124]]

     brinksmanship would actually harden nationalistic feelings in 
     Moscow and make a withdrawal less likely. The Russians pulled 
     out on time, with both Sen. McConnell and the White House 
     claiming victory.
       Mr. Talbott says that he's puzzled by the charges of 
     Russia-firstism. He notes that some 55% of U.S. aid to the 
     former Soviet Union this year will be spent outside of 
     Russia. Ukraine, in particular, will receive about $200 
     million, significantly more than the $150 million earmark 
     proposed earlier this year by Sen. McConnell.
       Mr. Talbott also makes no apologies for his enthusiastic 
     support of Russian reform, which he says ``unarguably'' will 
     make life better for Russia's neighbors and the U.S. ``It's 
     not a question of `what's good for Russia,' but whether 
     Russia continues to develop in a manner that's good for 
     American interests and values and standards of international 
     behavior,'' he says. ``If Russia does continue to develop in 
     that manner it will also be good for the other countries in 
     the region.''
       Mr. Talbott and others also warn against ``mechanistic and 
     punitive linkages,'' which he says are unlikely to alter 
     specific Russian actions and could end up souring what he 
     describes as a fundamentally sound relationship.


                      republican internationalists

       Despite all the Russia-bashing and Talbott-bashing on 
     Capitol Hill, and a recent bout of U.S.-bashing by Mr. 
     Yeltsin, President Clinton shows no signs of giving up on the 
     Russian leader. The administration's fiscal 1996 foreign-aid 
     request for the former Soviet Union, which goes to Congress 
     next month, will likely be close to this year's $850 million 
     appropriation, with Russia again receiving about 45% of the 
     total.
       To get their package through, officials say they will rely, 
     as they have for the previous two packages, on the support of 
     a large cadre of Republican internationalists including 
     incoming Senate Majority Leader Robert Dole, House Speaker 
     Newt Gingrich, Sen. Richard Lugar and, they hope, Sen. 
     McConnell.
       But whether that support is still there is far from 
     certain. Indeed, anti-Russian sentiment has been growing on 
     both sides of the aisle ever since Russian nationalists 
     scored big wins in last December's Parliamentary elections 
     and the Central Intelligence Agency unmasked longtime Russian 
     spy and senior CIA analyst Aldrich Ames. Ongoing quarrels 
     with Moscow over Bosnia and the future of NATO will only feed 
     those doubts in months to come.
       Partisan jockeying may only make matters worse. The more 
     President Clinton claims his Russia policy as a success, the 
     more tempting it will be for presidential aspirants such as 
     Mr. Dole to criticize the policy and Mr. Talbott, whose 
     Brahmin manner, first-friend status and unstinting defense of 
     the Russians makes him an easy target. Even Mr. Gingrich, who 
     became a sudden convert to action in Bosnia after Mr. 
     Clinton's recent retreat, may be tempted to switch sides in 
     the Russian debate.
       But even the less emotional and less partisan legislators 
     are having serious doubts as well. Sen. Lugar, a longtime 
     champion of Russian aid, says that three years of hard 
     experience show that spending such money effectively in 
     Russia is even harder than voting for it in Washington.
       Pointing to a large backlog of appropriated but as yet 
     unspent funds--of the nearly $2 billion in economic aid 
     promised to Russia from 1992 to 1994, less than $500 million 
     has so far been spent--Mr. Lugar suggests that the 
     ``appropriators may simply ask what's the point of 
     appropriating any more.''

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, on the other end of the Clinton 
administration, I used hearings to grill Democratic officials who were 
soft on President Yeltsin and optimistic about President-elect Putin. I 
didn't share Democrats' faith that Putin would be our friend.
  I ask unanimous consent that two excerpts of my committee statement 
from the April 4, 2000, Senate Committee on Appropriations, 
Subcommittee on Foreign Operations hearing be printed in the Record.

       There being no objection, the material was ordered to be 
     printed in the Record, as follows:

 Senate Comittee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Foreign Operations 
                      Hearing on USAID Programs--

       Excerpts from opening statement of Sen. Mitch McConnell:
       ``First, we should support immediate and unrestricted 
     access for humanitarian relief works, human rights 
     investigators, and the media. President-elect Putin says he 
     supports the dictatorship of law. Accepting the presence of 
     these organizations will tell us whether the president 
     intends to emphasize dictatorship or the accountability of 
     laws. Based on the UN High Commissioner's trip this week, 
     he's coming up a bit short.''
       ``We should act with clarity, principle, and purpose. If 
     Russia rejects that agenda, it rejects the core freedoms and 
     virtues which define democracies. I see no wisdom in shoring 
     up dictators, even if you do dress them up as democrats.''

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, regardless of who was in the White 
House and regardless of which way the political winds were blowing, I 
have consistently treated Russia like the threat that it is. Even under 
a Republican administration, I spoke out when I was afraid the United 
States wasn't doing enough to stop the erosion of democracy and the 
rule of law in Russia.
  A conference report that I coauthored in December 2003 stated: ``The 
managers remain gravely concerned with the deterioration and systematic 
dismantling of democracy and the rule of law in Russia.'' We pushed 
President Bush's administration--a Republican administration--to do 
more.
  And, of course, I helped lead the charge against the Obama 
administration's completely feckless Russia policies. President Obama 
mocked his 2012 opponent for taking Russia too seriously. His 
administration sought a naive reset with the Kremlin, and for 8 years, 
I helped to lead the charge against that weakness.
  In 2010, I stood with John McCain and Jon Kyl to oppose the New START 
Treaty, a watered-down placeholder for the sort of tough stance we knew 
was necessary. As Vladimir Putin was building up his missile arsenal, 
we even had to push President Obama to commit to deploying capable 
missile defenses to Europe.
  In 2012, I firmly supported sweeping legislation to authorize heavy 
sanctions following the killing of Sergei Magnitsky in a Russian 
prison. The Obama administration flinched and tried to tiptoe around 
our legislation to avoid messing up their charm offensive, but we 
backed him into a corner, and the President signed the bill into law.
  In 2014, I and other Republicans constantly pressed President Obama 
to get tougher on Russia with respect to Putin's aggression in Ukraine.
  I ask unanimous consent that the news article dated March 4, 2014, 
entitled ``McConnell: Obama's `Passive' Foreign Policy `Is A Mistake''' 
be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                             [Mar. 5, 2014]

   Mitch McConnell: Obama's `Passive' Foreign Policy: `Is a Mistake'

                         (By Sabrina Siddiqui)

       WASHINGTON--Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) 
     laid into President Barack Obama's grasp of foreign policy 
     Wednesday, although he stopped just short of blaming Obama 
     for the crisis in Ukraine.
       In recent days, a growing number of Republicans have 
     directly pointed fingers at Obama over Russian President 
     Vladimir Putin's aggression in Ukraine. GOP Sens. John McCain 
     (Ariz.) and Lindsey Graham (S.C.), as well as Rep. Mike 
     Rogers (Mich.), have all said that the president's attempt to 
     reset U.S.-Soviet relations showed he was both naive and too 
     trusting of Putin.
       McConnell was asked during his weekly press conference if 
     he agreed with his Republican colleagues' assessment, to 
     which he responded with a lengthy critique of Obama's overall 
     handling of foreign policy.
       ``I would put it this way: Can you think of any place in 
     the world where we're better off now than we were when he 
     came to office?'' McConnell said, before tracing Obama's 
     global approach to his 2009 address in Cairo, Egypt, which he 
     interpreted as ``questioning American exceptionalism and the 
     uniqueness of our own country.''
       ``And he's acted in such a way, almost amounting to 
     passivity in many instances,'' he continued. ``We're not 
     suggesting here that the use of force is appropriate on very 
     many occasions . . . but there's a widespread kind of lack of 
     respect of U.S. opinion.''
       ``It's no wonder that Putin looks at the United States and 
     sort of concludes that no matter what he does, he doesn't pay 
     a price for it,'' McConnell added.
       The Kentucky Republican was pressed again to state whether 
     or not he believed Obama is to blame for Putin's move to 
     heighten Russia's military activity in the Crimean region. 
     Once again, McConnell implied as much without explicitly 
     holding the president responsible.
       ``I think a passive approach to foreign policy, which 
     basically means not asserting American interests, is a 
     mistake,'' he said. ``Some leaders are going to exercise 
     power [and] will push limits as far as they can if they think 
     that there's no push back.''
       McConnell added that he was ``hard pressed to think of 
     foreign policy successes'' under the Obama administration, 
     but nonetheless emphasized the need for Congress to work with 
     the White House on providing economic assistance to the 
     Ukrainian people.
       ``We need to work with the administration to try to 
     undergird, if you will, reinforce the new administration in 
     Ukraine in every way that we can,'' he said.
       Moments after McConnell spoke, Senate Majority Leader Harry 
     Reid (D-Nev.) came to Obama's defense and pointed to former 
     President George W. Bush's infamous declaration that he had 
     looked into Putin's eyes and seen his soul.
       ``I've not heard Obama say that. In fact, I've heard Obama 
     speak out very clearly

[[Page S5125]]

     about that what Putin has done is wrong,'' Reid said.
       He added that it was unclear what the ``right wing'' 
     Republicans attacking Obama were seeking from the president.
       ``Did they think that he should do an Iraq move maybe?'' 
     Reid said. ``I don't understand what they're saying. I think 
     that the cautious direction of the president has been very 
     good in Ukraine.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, since 2017, I have continued reminding 
everyone that Putin is not our friend. Russia is going to continue 
trying to meddle. We need a comprehensive strategy to contest Russian 
aggression, and alliances like NATO are critical for standing up to our 
adversaries.
  Once more, for good measure, I ask unanimous consent that the news 
article dated August 15, 2018, entitled ``U.S. Senate's top Republican 
likens Russia to `old Soviet Union' '' be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                           [August 15, 2018]

     US Senate's Top Republican Likens Russia to `Old Soviet Union'

                             (By Joe Gould)

       Washington--Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., 
     isn't ready to get cozy with Russia, comparing it to ``the 
     old Soviet Union'' on Tuesday.
       A month after the Helsinki summit between U.S. President 
     Donald Trump and his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin, at 
     which Trump discredited U.S. intelligence and American 
     policies isolating Moscow, the powerful Senate leader showed 
     he was on a separate track.
       ``The Russians are not our friends. They try to create 
     problems in every way they can,'' McConnell said in a news 
     conference at Fort Knox, Kentucky, set up to tout the $716 
     billion National Defense Authorization Act that Trump signed 
     into law Monday.
       ``I think the Russians are acting like the old Soviet Union 
     used to act,'' McConnell said, pointing to its alleged 
     meddling in U.S. and European elections and its 2014 
     annexation of Crimea from Ukraine. (Louisville-based Spectrum 
     News posted video of the presser.)
       Without mentioning it directly, McConnell displayed his 
     differences with Trump and Sen. Rand Paul, the junior senator 
     from Kentucky and an outlier in the Senate when it comes to 
     Moscow. Paul, who visited Russia this month, said the 
     politics in America around the issues are poisoning the 
     chances for cross-Atlantic dialogue.
       Trump's openness toward Russia has fueled tensions over the 
     separation of powers. Trump issued a signing statement for 
     the NDAA that claimed some provisions mandating tough action 
     on Russia would actually impinge on the powers of the 
     executive branch.
       ``This signing statement is troubling because, yet again, 
     the President is showing the world he cannot be trusted when 
     it comes to standing by U.S. commitments and promoting our 
     interests over--his own,'' the Senate Foreign Relations 
     Committee's ranking member, Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J., said 
     in a statement. He called on Trump to ``unequivocally stand 
     strong for the United States and our allies and against 
     Kremlin aggression.''
       The Senate has taken a few bipartisan shots at Trump on 
     Russia, voting overwhelmingly to affirm support of NATO and 
     unanimously to oppose giving the Kremlin access to U.S. 
     officials. Still, Senate GOP leaders blocked a bipartisan 
     measure to reject Putin's denial of election interference, 
     mandate immediate enactment of sanctions passed by Congress 
     last year and ask Senate committees to hold hearings into the 
     summit's private meeting between Putin and Trump.
       On Tuesday, McConnell lauded the NDAA's aid for Fort Knox 
     (home to Army Human Resources Command), its authorized end-
     strength boost, and its recognition of America's tense 
     relationships with Russia and China.
       ``It would have been denying reality and in a sense putting 
     our head in the sand not to have a significant increase in 
     military spending,'' McConnell said, acknowledging Defense 
     Secretary Jim Mattis' advocacy to Trump and Congress for 
     added spending.
       ``In fact, we gave the Department of Defense exactly what 
     they asked for,'' McConnell added. The Senate leader also 
     praised Trump's tough stance against China on trade.
       ``We'd rather not be adversaries, but we don't have a 
     perfect relationship either,'' McConnell said of Beijing. 
     ``The Chinese have become more aggressive on the military 
     side, which has been unusual for them in the past.''
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I don't normally take the time to 
respond to critics in the media when they have no clue what they are 
talking about, but this modern-day McCarthyism is toxic and damaging 
because of the way it warps our entire public discourse. Facts matter. 
Details matter. History matters. And if our Nation is losing its 
ability to debate public policy without screaming about treason, that 
really matters.
  In the middle of the 20th century, the original McCarthyism hurt 
America's strength and diminished our standing in the Cold War by 
dividing us against ourselves and letting lies, innuendo, and baseless 
accusations crowd out reasonable politics. The frenetic politicized 
witch hunt distracted from legitimate efforts to contest the Soviet 
Union, including more sober efforts to root out real Soviet agents in 
our midsts. In short, McCarthyism did the Russian's work for them. 
McCarthyism did the work for the Russians.
  Now, here we are in 2019. Again, Putin and the Russians seek to 
provoke fear and division in our country, to undermine faith in our 
institutions, to exacerbate our political divisions until we tear 
ourselves apart, and, once again, it seems there are some who blindly 
take the bait.
  American pundits are calling an American official treasonous because 
of a policy disagreement. If anything is an asset to the Russians, it 
is disgusting behavior like that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.

                          ____________________