[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 153 (Monday, September 23, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5620-S5622]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                                Ukraine

  Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, I just listened to the majority leader 
come to the floor and tell Members of the Senate that they should close 
their eyes and box their ears to the current scandal that is engulfing 
the White House and the Trump administration. I heard the majority 
leader accuse Democrats of ``politicizing'' President Trump's demand 
that the Government of Ukraine interfere in the 2020 election. That is 
a laughable charge, and it is not going to silence us on this matter of 
grave importance.
  First of all, I have no idea what it means to politicize something 
these days. News flash: We are politicians. We practice politics. That 
is our job. I get told very often that I am politicizing gun violence 
when I suggest that maybe we should pass laws in order to change the 
daily trajectory of violence in this country. Yet the very reason we 
are here is to protect the safety of our constituents and to protect 
the sanctity of our democracy.
  What we are standing up for right now is the rule of law, and I hope, 
over the course of this week, my Republican colleagues will join us in 
that basic responsibility that Members of the Senate and House of 
Representatives have.
  We see the rule of law slipping away from us right now. We see our 
Nation being turned into a banana republic where the President can do 
anything he wants and turn the organs of state into his permanent 
political machine--his means of crushing his opponents. Today we see 
that many of my Republican colleagues are not just letting it happen 
but facilitating it.
  There has to be a line that the President cannot cross. There has to 
be a moment when we all stand up and say: This has gone too far.
  The President has admitted this weekend to asking a foreign leader to 
open an investigation into one of his political opponents as a means of 
advancing himself politically. That is not allowed in a democracy. That 
fundamentally corrupts the foreign policy of our Nation. It makes us 
all less safe when foreign governments now wonder whether they are 
going to be enlisted into the political operation of the President of 
the United States. This has always been a no-go area for Democratic and 
Republican administrations because we understand the vast power the 
Presidency has. If the President chooses to use that power and the 
leverage he has over people in this country and in other countries to 
do his political bidding, then there is nothing to protect any of us 
from the executive branch.
  The idea that the President can openly admit that he is asking a 
foreign government to get involved in his political reelection 
campaign--and believe that he will get away with it--suggests a belief 
in the impunity surrounding his office. We should all be concerned 
about that.
  At the very least, if my Republican colleagues don't share my grave 
alarm at the disclosures of the last 48 hours, then we should at least 
agree that the whistleblower complaint needs to come before the 
Congress unredacted. There is no fuzzy penumbra around this law. It is 
clear as day. If a whistleblower makes a complaint that is deemed 
urgent in nature, it must be presented to the Congress. The President 
cannot hold it back; the executive branch cannot make it a secret.
  What makes it worse is that the President seems to be playing a game 
with this whistleblower complaint. He seems to be teasing out little 
bits of information that are contained in it here and there in order to 
play to his political advantage. It is even worse than holding back the 
complaint from us. He is now using pieces of it to try to gain 
advantage over his political opponents.
  At the very least, over the next 24 hours, we need to come to a 
conclusion that the law needs to be followed. If the President can 
withhold from us whistleblower complaints that are not flattering to 
him--that potentially implicate him--then what is the point of having a 
whistleblower law? What is the point of having a process to protect 
people who are uncovering corruption in the administration if the 
administration can keep those complaints secret?
  Let's just be honest. If this President gets away with it, the next 
Democratic President can get away with it, and the next Republican 
President can get away with it. We will have lost all of our power to 
see into the wrongdoing of an administration. There will be a day when 
Republicans want to see into potential wrongdoing of an administration 
of the opposite party, but that will be all gone if we don't, at the 
very least, come to the conclusion that we need to see it as the law 
states.
  That is just the beginning because I think--as the President has 
advertised--that complaint is going to show he did, indeed, try to 
pressure a foreign government to conduct investigations into one of his 
political opponents. I think this is a really serious moment for the 
country. I think it is a really serious moment for the prerogatives of 
the article I branch.
  I understand that my Republican colleagues may not be ready to talk 
about consequences for the administration for their wrongdoing, but, at 
the very least, we need to come together and make sure we have all of 
the information necessary.
  By the way, it doesn't end with the whistleblower complaint because 
the whistleblower complaint is likely going to raise even more 
questions that we are going to have to answer. We have a duty to then 
go out and find additional information.
  For many, the President's admission of guilt may be enough to make a 
determination about what the next steps are. But for those who aren't 
persuaded that there have to be consequences for the President's 
admission of corruption, then we should use the organs at our disposal 
to try to figure out the rest of the details surrounding this incident 
or series of incidents. What kinds of contacts have the President's 
representatives been having with the Ukrainian Government? Has the 
State Department been involved in trying to do the President's 
political bidding in and around Ukraine? How many people in the 
administration knew about this? Who tried to stop it? Who has been 
involved in keeping the whistleblower complaint from us? There are so 
many questions that need to be answered here, and it should be our 
responsibility to get to the bottom of all of them.
  I think this is a really serious moment for this country. I think the 
minute the President is able to turn the foreign policy of this Nation 
into a vehicle for his own political advancement is the day that 
democracy, as we know it, slips away from us. If we aren't ready to 
have a bipartisan conversation about consequences and remedies this 
week, then let's at least have

[[Page S5621]]

some bipartisan consensus in the way that this place used to have all 
the time, making sure that we have all of the information necessary to 
move forward.
  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. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up 
to 15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, we have heard some deeply disturbing 
revelations in recent days about President Trump's efforts to tie 
congressionally appropriated security funding for Ukraine hostage to 
its government's willingness to investigate his political opponents 
here at home. The alleged threat by President Trump to withhold vital 
security funding from Ukraine came out last week in press reports about 
a whistleblower complaint from a U.S. intelligence official. These 
revelations suggest a gross abuse of power unlike anything I have ever 
seen during my 27 years of working on U.S. foreign policy. They also 
show Donald Trump once again welcoming a foreign power to influence our 
elections, this time using the power of the White House.
  As of today, the Acting Director of National Intelligence has refused 
to comply with the law that requires him to share this whistleblower 
complaint with Congress. Yet that hasn't stopped multiple members of 
the President's inner circle from all but confirming that the President 
pushed Ukrainian President Zelensky to open an investigation into 
former Vice President Joe Biden. They have, together, engaged in a 
disturbing effort to convince the American people that this sort of 
behavior is somehow normal.
  We first watched the President's personal lawyer admit on CNN that he 
had raised this issue of investigating Biden on the President's behalf. 
Then, yesterday, we saw Secretary Pompeo sink to a new low when he 
defended this behavior on national TV. Then it was the President 
himself who admitted it to reporters--the President himself. I am not 
sure what more evidence we need, folks.
  Where are my Republican colleagues? Where are those supposed 
defenders of democracy and freedom? Where are the advocates for a 
strong relationship with Ukraine? They are silent, shamefully silent.
  For more than 2 months, the President held up $391 million in 
urgently needed security assistance for Ukraine--assistance that was 
appropriated by the Senate with broad bipartisan support. Congress 
didn't pass this funding so that the President could sit on it. We 
didn't pass this funding so that the President could use it as leverage 
to get Ukraine to investigate his political opponents. We passed this 
funding because Ukraine needs our support against relentless Russian 
aggression and because providing that support is in the interest of our 
own national security goals.
  Many of us were certainly not surprised to see this administration 
delay assistance to Ukraine given the President's repeated cowering to 
Moscow on the international stage. Yet, for 2 months, we wondered 
exactly why this money was being held from Ukraine. Now we know. The 
President withheld this money all in the hopes that the Ukrainian 
Government would open a bogus investigation into Vice President Biden's 
son. How is that not an abuse of power?
  I welcome efforts in the House to fully investigate the role of the 
President's personal lawyer in pressuring a foreign country to 
investigate the family of a potential political opponent. I urge the 
Senate to follow suit because a legitimate President would never allow 
his lawyer to override bipartisan support for Ukraine. A legitimate 
President would not let his personal lawyer compel foreign powers to 
interfere in our political process. A legitimate President would not 
withhold congressionally appropriated funding to Ukraine to advance his 
reelection prospects. So I am calling for a series of measures today to 
get to the bottom of this.
  First, I call upon the inspector general of the State Department to 
review the withholding of security assistance for Ukraine. This review 
must include the extent to which the Department was aware of or was 
part of the decision to withhold these funds and whether our foreign 
assistance laws were broken. The inspector general must also examine 
whether the State Department knew why the administration was 
withholding these funds and highlight any communications between the 
White House and the State Department on this matter.
  Second, I call upon the State Department to provide all details and 
records about any support in any form provided from the Department for 
the President's personal lawyer's efforts in Ukraine. We, likewise, 
need to know about any briefings the President's personal lawyer 
provided to Department personnel and his interactions with Ukrainian 
officials.
  Third, I call on the Office of Management and Budget to tell Congress 
why it sat on Ukraine's security assistance for more than 2 months. It 
typically takes the OMB just 5 days to review notifications from the 
implementing agencies. To sit on a notification for more than 2 months 
is unorthodox, unprecedented, and unacceptable.
  Fourth, I call upon the Senate Committees on Foreign Relations, 
Appropriations, Armed Services, and the Select Committee on 
Intelligence to immediately hold hearings on the President's purported 
use of security assistance to pressure Ukraine to open an investigation 
into a political opponent. I urge Chairman Risch to fulfill his 
commitments to hold a hearing on Russia and a markup on Russia 
sanctions soon.
  If President Trump had used money to coerce another person to perform 
some corrupt action on his behalf, we would call it out for what it 
was--extortion. Are we just going to let the President of the United 
States extort foreign leaders? Are we going to let him reshape American 
foreign policy to advance his own personal and political goals? Is this 
not a gross abuse of Presidential power? If not, then what is? These 
committees have a responsibility to ask these questions, and they have 
a constitutional responsibility to do their jobs.
  The Senate, as a whole, has an obligation to get to the bottom of 
this. Do my Republican colleagues really think it is OK to ask a 
foreign power to pursue unfounded allegations against a political 
opponent? Is this the new normal? I hope not. This is behavior that we 
have never seen from an American President. Unfortunately, it is 
behavior that fits into President Trump's broader pattern of 
surrendering to his patrons in Moscow.

  I wish I could say that extorting Ukraine were the only way Donald 
Trump corrupted our national security over the course of the summer, 
but that is just not the case. Last month, President Trump also 
redirected funding for the European Deterrence Initiative to his 
ridiculous border wall. Funding for the European Deterrence Initiative 
helps our allies counter the kind of Russian malign influence that was 
deployed by Putin against our democracy in 2016.
  It is well known by now that President Trump was lying when he said 
that Mexico would pay for the wall. To this day, he refuses to own up 
to this lie, so much so that he is willing to siphon dollars away from 
our military and abandon our most vital democratic allies in Europe to 
pursue a medieval vanity project. It is yet another example of his 
selling out our national security to curry favor with his political 
base.
  Over the past few weeks, my office has heard from several European 
Embassies that are now stuck holding the bill for Trump's wall. While 
you won't hear it from them publicly because they, too, fear a backlash 
from this President, they are offended and angry about this decision. 
It is simply astounding. We are talking about the allies that Americans 
fought and died for in order to defend democracy, worked so hard to 
rebuild after World War II, and continued to protect during the Cold 
War.
  I am sure the Kremlin couldn't be happier. To Putin, this must be a

[[Page S5622]]

stroke of genius. Trump is killing two birds with one stone by 
redirecting these funds. He is dividing us from our European allies in 
the face of Russian aggression and dividing the American people with 
his politics of hate. I have said it before, and I will say it again: 
Investing in Donald Trump's candidacy was the best decision Putin ever 
made. His patron at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue will stop at nothing to 
repay the debt. It might indeed be the only debt businessman Donald 
Trump has ever worked so hard to repay.
  My friends, we have witnessed a real summer of love between Trump and 
Putin. Consider the G7 meeting in France last month. So clearly was the 
United States not the leading voice at the table. So tragically have we 
lost the confidence of our closest allies, and so predictably did our 
President once again make an appeal on behalf of his patron in Moscow 
by repeatedly calling for the expansion of the G7 to include Russia.
  Sometimes I wonder: Does President Trump actually think that Russia 
is a democracy? Does he think that the Russian people live in freedom? 
Does he see Russia as an advanced economy? Does he believe Russia 
shares America's interests?
  I have to say that little surprises me these days, but even I was 
taken aback to see him blame President Obama for Russia's behavior--on 
foreign soil, no less.
  There is only one country responsible for Russia's removal from the 
G8 in 2014, and that is Russia. The Russian Federation was suspended 
from the G8 by its fellow countries because of its invasion and illegal 
occupation of Crimea, which is the territory of the sovereign nation 
Ukraine. Five years later, more than 10,000 Ukrainian patriots are 
dead. That is why Russia does not belong in the G8.
  What has the Kremlin done since 2014 that could possibly justify an 
expansion of the G7? Has it suspended its illegal occupation? Has it 
behaved like a responsible member of the international community? Has 
it respected the sovereignty of other nations? The answers are no, no, 
and no.
  Let's review Russia's behavior since 2014.
  First--and on the top of mind for many of us--was Russia's sweeping 
and systematic interference in our 2016 Presidential election on behalf 
of then-Candidate Donald Trump, as is documented in the special 
counsel's sobering report. Spreading propaganda, manipulating social 
media, and spying on American election infrastructure is not the 
behavior of a G7 country.
  Second was the Kremlin's chemical weapons attack on British soil--a 
blatant assassination attempt against a Putin opponent and his 
daughter. One British citizen was killed, and others required medical 
attention. This is not an isolated case. Just last month, a Russian 
citizen was gunned down in a park in Berlin at the suspected hand of 
the Russian authorities.
  This is not the behavior of a G7 country.
  Third is the Kremlin's complicity in Bashar al-Assad's war crimes in 
Syria. An untold number of Syrian civilians have been killed by Russian 
airstrikes launched in support of Assad. Those responsible should be 
tried in The Hague on war crimes charges. This is not the behavior of a 
G7 country.
  Fourth, in recent weeks, Russian forces have ramped up their pressure 
on the country of Georgia. More than 11 years after Russia's invasion, 
the Georgian people suffer under its ongoing aggression. That is not 
the behavior of a G7 country.
  Fifth is the recent Russian crackdown on demonstrators exercising 
their basic political rights. Throughout the summer, Putin oversaw the 
brutal beatings of children, women, and men and subjected everyday 
Russian citizens to arbitrary arrest and detention. What was their ask? 
What was their plea? That they be able to register their own local 
candidates for their own local elections.
  The Kremlin's ongoing and too often violent oppression of the Russian 
people is not the behavior of a G7 country. No country in the G7 acts 
this way. This behavior is destabilizing, it is aggressive, it is 
authoritarian, and it does not belong at the table of democracies.
  It is truly a disgrace that any American President would so easily 
discount all of what I have just described to win favor with his patron 
and pal.
  Of course, these aren't the only gifts bestowed by President Trump 
during this summer of love.
  Let's not forget how the President has delayed sanctions on Turkey 
over its purchase of the Russian S-400 system. Congress passed these 
sanctions under the Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions 
Act, or CAATSA, in response to Russia's attack on our elections in 
2016. We have these sanctions for a reason. They advance America's 
national security interests. They starve the Russian defense sector of 
much needed international business. By not imposing them, this 
President is both failing to hold Russia accountable and sending a 
dangerous message to other countries that they can buy Russian weapon 
systems without consequence. From the moment we passed CAATSA, this 
administration has resisted every step of the way.
  So let's imagine, for a moment, what a legitimate American President, 
a President who is not a Putin puppet, would do in this situation. How 
would that person protect our country?
  First, a legitimate President would not endanger the relationship 
with a key ally in order to gain political advantage at home. They 
would show solidarity with our democratic allies by providing all 
appropriated security assistance to Ukraine and funding for European 
efforts to counter Russian aggression.
  Second, I am sure they would not welcome Russia back into the G7.
  Third, they would impose CAATSA sanctions on Turkey and send a clear 
message to the world that the United States is serious about imposing 
pressure on the Russian defense industry.
  So let me close. The United States of America must always stand on 
the side of democracy, human rights, freedom, and the rule of law. That 
is why we must secure our elections from the threat of foreign 
interference at home and defend democracies in the face of Russian 
aggression abroad.
  That is why we must demand that security funding appropriated by 
Congress is actually delivered and that the sanctions we craft to 
counter our adversaries are imposed.
  That is why we cannot be silent when an American President extorts 
foreign countries into influencing our elections or welcomes an 
authoritarian strongman's return to the G7.
  I implore my colleagues to use the powers of Article I of the 
Constitution. We have to get to the bottom of these very issues and 
preserve the critical checks and balances we have in our Nation.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory 
quorum call be waived.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.