[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 163 (2017), Part 4]
[Senate]
[Pages 4704-4712]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           EXECUTIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

   PROTOCOL TO THE NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY OF 1949 ON THE ACCESSION OF 
                               MONTENEGRO

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I move to proceed to executive session 
to consider Calendar No. 1, treaty document No. 114-12, Protocol to the 
North Atlantic Treaty of 1949 on the Accession of Montenegro.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The motion was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The treaty will be stated.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       Treaty document No. 114-12, Protocol to the North Atlantic 
     Treaty of 1949 on the Accession of Montenegro.


                             Cloture Motion

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under 
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the Treaties 
     Calendar No. 1, treaty document No. 114-12, Protocol to the 
     North Atlantic Treaty of 1949 on the Accession of Montenegro.
         Mitch McConnell, Cory Gardner, Steve Daines, John 
           Barrasso, Joni Ernst, Bob Corker, John Cornyn, Lindsey 
           Graham, Jeff Flake, James M. Inhofe, Roy Blunt, David 
           Perdue, John McCain, Pat Roberts, Tom Cotton, Jerry 
           Moran, Mike Rounds.

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, for the information of Senators, we 
will have the cloture vote on this treaty on Monday night at 5:30 p.m.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  (The remarks of Mr. Markey pertaining to the introduction of S. 708 
are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cassidy). The Senator from Connecticut.


                        American Health Care Act

  Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, at this hour, we still don't know what the 
House of Representatives is going to do. They are amending and changing 
and modifying the reform of one-sixth of America's economy under the 
cover of darkness, trying to secure the votes necessary to fulfill a 
political promise. We await their decision as to how much havoc they 
wreak.
  I wanted to come down to the floor today to address for a moment the 
exceptional process that is occurring right now, as we speak, in the 
House of Representatives and to talk about one of the reported changes 
they are considering before sending the product over to the Senate.
  Just to review for a minute, Speaker Ryan likes to talk about his 
approach to healthcare as a three-pronged approach. Well, the 
Congressional Budget Office, headed by a gentleman handpicked by the 
Republican House conference, agrees that it is a three-pronged 
approach; they just have a little bit different interpretation of those 
three prongs.
  First, they say higher costs--15 to 20 percent spikes in premiums for 
everybody right off the bat and then dramatically higher costs, 
especially for older people, sicker people, and poorer people. If you 
are young and if you are relatively affluent and healthy, you may make 
out a little bit better under this proposal, but if you are not in that 
category, you are going to pay a lot higher costs and get less care.
  This is the headline from the CBO report: 24 million people lose 
health coverage. That is catastrophic. That is the total population of 
17 U.S. States. We just kick them off health insurance without anywhere 
to go other than our emergency rooms.
  Remember, all of this is in order to finance a giant tax cut for the 
rich. I had a chart up here yesterday that showed that in this bill, if 
you make zero to $200,000, you get no tax cut, but if you make over 
$200,000, you get a nice, healthy tax cut. It could be up to $7 million 
on average for some of the wealthiest taxpayers. So there will be 
higher costs for everybody, except for maybe a very small slice of the 
population, but with less care. I mean, it is a nightmare when it comes 
to the number of people who lose care under this bill, all in order to 
finance tax cuts for the wealthy.
  That is the background on what TrumpCare is and what the American 
Health Care Act is. People hate it. I mean, people hate it. There is a 
new poll out by Quinnipiac University that shows stunning numbers. The 
approval numbers for this bill are under 20 percent.
  Republicans kicked the living you know what out of the Affordable 
Care

[[Page 4705]]

Act, and they never got its approval ratings down to under 20 percent, 
as has happened to the American Health Care Act in its third week of 
existence. That is pretty impressive, for 18 percent of Americans to 
approve of a bill that has only been out there for a few weeks. And it 
is not because they don't know anything about it; over 50 percent of 
Americans don't like it, 18 percent support it, and 56 percent don't 
support it. Across demographic groups, across age groups, everybody 
hates this thing because they get it. They are not dumb. They know that 
this is taking healthcare from them and passing along higher costs to 
them in order to finance a tax cut for the rich. It is pretty simple. 
People really didn't need a lot of time to understand it.
  Republicans in the House know that as this thing hangs out there, it 
is getting less popular. It is hard to get less popular than 18 
percent. Those are tough numbers to do worse than. The reason 
Republicans are racing this bill through the process is because they 
know how deeply unpopular it is because they know it is a scam. They 
know it is essentially just taking healthcare from Americans and 
forcing them to pay more in order to finance a tax cut for the rich.
  What is happening today in the House is they are blowing up their 
rules in order to push a bill through that no one will have looked at. 
It is possible that they are going to file a gigantic reform to the 
entire American healthcare system and then call a vote on it within 
hours. Come on.
  In 2009 and 2010, Republicans were blistering critics of Democrats, 
who they said were forcing the Affordable Care Act through the process 
too quickly. But in 2009 and 2010, the House held 79 bipartisan 
hearings and markups on the health reform bill over the period of an 
entire year. House Members spent nearly 100 hours in hearings, heard 
from 181 witnesses from both sides of the aisle, considered 239 
amendments, and accepted 121 amendments.
  This bill was introduced 2 weeks ago. The first time the American 
public ever looked at it was 2 weeks ago, and the House is rushing it 
through today. Two weeks. Fourteen days. Twenty days. Not a year. Not 
79 hearings. Not 100 hours of hearings. And we are talking about 
bringing it up before the Senate for a vote next week, with 20 hours of 
debate on a reordering of one-sixth of the American economy.
  It is really extraordinary how this bill is getting jammed through 
the process because Republicans know that every day it hangs out there, 
more people figure out what it is--a massive transfer of wealth from 
regular, ordinary Americans, through less care and higher costs, to the 
very rich and also insurance companies and drug companies, which get a 
big tax cut.
  On today's modification of the bill, the talk today is that in order 
to make the bill a little bit meaner and a little bit crueler, the 
House is going to remove from the underlying law the requirement that 
insurance companies cover a basic set of what are called essential 
benefits. This change is being demanded by the very, very conservative 
wing of the House Republican conference. They call themselves the 
Freedom Caucus. This is a group of sort of the most radical Members in 
the House of Representatives. They are demanding that these essential 
healthcare benefits be stripped out of the law in order to get their 
votes.
  Let's talk about what these essential healthcare benefits are. 
Basically the law now says that if you are offering an insurance plan 
and you want to call it health insurance, then you have to actually 
offer to cover healthcare. So the essential healthcare benefits--what 
every plan today has to offer in order to be able to call itself 
insurance in this country--are ambulatory patient care, which means 
outpatient care, emergency care, hospitalizations; pregnancy, 
maternity, and newborn care; mental health and substance abuse care; 
prescription drugs; rehabilitation if you get injured; lab services; 
tests; chronic disease management--management for diabetes or heart and 
liver conditions; and pediatric services, services for kids. That is 
it. Those are the essential healthcare benefits.
  Frankly, if you are buying a health insurance plan, wouldn't you 
expect that it would cover your emergency care if you were to go to an 
emergency room? If you are buying healthcare in this country, what good 
is it if it doesn't cover a hospitalization when you get very sick? If 
you are buying an insurance plan in this country, don't you think it is 
going to cover your kids when they need basic pediatric services?
  So what is happening now is something different from healthcare 
reform in the House of Representatives. What is happening now is a 
radical rethink of what healthcare insurance is. If all of a sudden 
health insurers don't need to cover the cost of your hospitalizations, 
don't need to cover mental illness at all, don't need to cover 
addiction coverage at all, then is it really insurance any longer? If 
it is not covering that list of things, what is it covering?
  CBO has an answer for this. CBO says that if there is an insurance 
plan that doesn't cover this list of benefits, they won't count it as 
insurance. So when they are giving you the numbers of people who will 
have insurance or not have insurance after this bill, the nonpartisan 
Congressional Budget Office says: We don't really count it as insurance 
if it doesn't cover basic stuff, such as hospitalizations, outpatient 
services, prescription drugs, and pediatric services.
  So what is happening now in the House of Representatives is really a 
radical rethink of healthcare insurance. Under the law they are 
contemplating passing, healthcare insurance wouldn't need to cover 
anything. You could buy an insurance plan, pay your premium, and then 
be told that it doesn't cover your kid when he gets diagnosed with 
schizophrenia, that it doesn't cover your daughter when she gets in an 
accident and has to go to the emergency room, that it doesn't cover 
your spouse when they get really sick and are hospitalized for 3 days. 
What kind of coverage would that be any longer if it didn't cover that 
list of things?
  Let's be honest. This would be a massive transfer of cost to 
individuals. The No. 1 prong of TrumpCare is higher costs. If insurance 
companies don't need to cover any of these things anymore but you still 
have to buy them, then it is just a massive shift of costs to 
individuals because, remember, TrumpCare penalizes you if you don't buy 
insurance.
  The Affordable Care Act did the same thing, admittedly. The 
Affordable Care Act said: If you don't buy insurance, you are going to 
pay a penalty. But that is why the Affordable Care Act said that 
insurance has to really be insurance. It has to cover stuff because if 
we are going to require you to buy it or we are going to penalize you 
if you don't buy it, then insurance should really be insurance.
  Well, TrumpCare penalizes you if you don't buy insurance. You would 
pay a massive penalty. For a lot of people, the penalty could be $5,000 
if they don't buy insurance. But now the change they are considering in 
the House of Representatives means the insurance product you will be 
forced to buy won't cover diddly.
  By the way, when your insurance company doesn't cover it and you have 
to pick up the cost, it is going to cost you way more money. Everybody 
has probably seen a bill from a hospital. Let's say you had to go in 
and get a colonoscopy. You get your bill, and you always sort of 
scratch your head because you see two numbers--you see the number the 
hospital bills and then you see the number your insurance company pays. 
Often, the number the insurance company pays is like one-third of what 
that hospital billed. Why is that? It is because the insurance company 
is negotiating with the hospital on behalf of thousands of patients, so 
they get that price way, way down. The insurance company only pays a 
fraction of the cost that is billed. If you don't have insurance 
coverage for it, if all of a sudden it is not a benefit in your plan 
because the American Health Care Act told insurance companies they 
didn't have to cover a hospitalization, then you will pay that higher 
price. You don't get

[[Page 4706]]

the insurance company discount. You will pay that higher number. That 
is going to bankrupt people.
  The families in my State, when their child gets hooked on heroin, 
they are going to find a way to pay for that care so that their child 
doesn't become another statistic, another one of the 900 who died in my 
State last year from overdoses. They are going to do everything 
possible to get that child care for that addiction. They will mortgage 
their house, they will sell their house, they will drain their savings 
account, they will sell off every possession they have to make sure 
their child does not die from an overdose and so that child gets the 
care they need. If their insurance company won't cover it, then they 
will do everything necessary to cover it, and you will have a rapid 
increase in the number of people whose lives are ruined, who go 
bankrupt because of their medical costs--something that doesn't happen 
right now because the Affordable Care Act gives you real subsidies to 
afford care. It gives you real help to be able to buy insurance, and it 
requires that insurance companies actually provide you with insurance.
  This is an extraordinary thing that is happening in the U.S. House of 
Representatives right now. Nobody likes this bill. Healthcare experts 
think it is a joke. The American public has roundly rejected it. It is 
getting meaner and crueler every day in order to round up the votes 
necessary to get it passed. Why? Because this bill is not about solving 
any problem in the healthcare system. It doesn't solve a single 
problem. Again, except for this narrow group of younger, healthier, 
affluent people whose premiums will be a little bit less, everybody 
else is worse off. It only solves one problem, a political problem--the 
promise that the Republicans made to repeal the Affordable Care Act. 
But they didn't spend any time thinking about how to actually do it. So 
they are stuck now with an awful bill that nobody likes, that doesn't 
solve a single problem, and that is getting meaner and meaner every 
single day.
  It was bad enough, and now this bill is frankly getting into some 
really radical territory--talking about totally rethinking insurance 
and letting insurance companies offer you a product that covers nothing 
and then it requires you to buy it. Think about that. We are going to 
require you to buy insurance, but the insurance isn't going to cover 
anything. TrumpCare, the American Health Care Act--whatever you want to 
call it--has three prongs: higher costs, less care, and tax cuts for 
the rich.
  We will have an opportunity here in the Senate to get this right. As 
to the House of Representatives, I don't know if they are going to pass 
this. I don't know if it is going to fall apart. But we will have a 
chance to get this right. Republicans and Democrats coming together, we 
can admit together that there are still a lot of things that are wrong 
in our healthcare system.
  In the Affordable Care Act, there are some good parts of it, but 
other parts need improvement. We can come together and decide to tackle 
this problem--the high drug costs, whatever it may be--together and 
reject this partisan, rushed approach in the House of Representatives. 
It does nothing except give us higher costs and less care in order to 
finance tax cuts for the wealthy.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                                 Russia

  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the deep and growing 
concerns about Russia's interference in the United States' 2016 
Presidential election and the implications of Russia's broader malign 
activities for our national security.
  On Monday, we learned from FBI Director Comey that there is an 
investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 Presidential 
election and whether associates of then-candidate and now-President 
Donald Trump were communicating with Moscow. It is absolutely essential 
that Congress and the American people get clear and comprehensive 
answers on, first, what happened; second, what are Russia's strategic 
goals and intentions for further interference in democratic processes 
here and in Europe; and third, what we need to do to counter this 
threat going forward. That is why I have repeatedly called for an 
independent, transparent, special counsel to investigate the legal 
aspects of Russian efforts to influence our election and a bipartisan 
select committee within the Senate to look at all aspects of Russia's 
destabilizing activities here and around the world.
  I am concerned that the politicization of the issue of Russia's 
interference in our elections and its hostile actions against Western 
institutions and values is diverting our attention from what otherwise 
should be recognized as a clear and potent threat to America's 
security. We need to focus on what is critical: Russia is attacking 
American democracy as part of an even broader assault on our 
cornerstone NATO alliance and the post-Cold War international order.
  The threat posed by Russia's actions is not merely ``fake news,'' as 
serious as that phenomenon may be, but a very real, very strategic 
threat to U.S. interests. Russia is testing America and the 
transatlantic community across multiple fronts.
  Today, I will highlight just how broad and fundamental this threat 
from Russia really is.
  What should be clear to everyone is that last year Russia engaged in 
a systematic and strategic effort to influence the U.S. Presidential 
election. While we do not know all the details of Russia's involvement, 
we know that in January the U.S. intelligence community--including the 
CIA, the FBI, and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, 
or the ODNI--issued its assessment that Russia engaged in bold and 
unprecedented efforts to influence and undermine trust in the U.S. 
Presidential election.
  Among the January intelligence report's findings were the following: 
first, that President Putin, in their words, ``ordered an influence 
campaign in 2016 aimed at the U.S. presidential election.''
  The intelligence community also found that ``Russia's goals were to 
undermine public faith in the U.S. democratic process, denigrate 
Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential 
presidency.''
  The report further found that Russia's influence campaign was 
multifaceted and included covert intelligence operations such as cyber 
espionage against U.S. political organizations like the Republican 
National Committee and the Democratic National Committee. It combined 
the release of hacked information with overt propaganda efforts through 
Russian government agencies, state-funded media, third-party 
intermediaries, and paid social media actors, or, as they are referred 
to, trolls.
  Another key finding was that Russia's influence efforts in the 2016 
U.S. Presidential election reflect--in the words of the intelligence 
community--``a significant escalation'' compared to previous 
information operations.
  The intelligence community also warned that these Russian activities, 
including ``cyber-enabled disclosure operations'' likely represent a 
``New Normal'' in Russian conduct toward the United States and our 
allies and partners.
  The intelligence community further assessed that Russia will use the 
lessons learned from the 2016 U.S. Presidential election to influence 
future elections in the United States and overseas. We do not have to 
look very far for evidence supporting this conclusion.
  Russia is alleged to have targeted an April 2016 referendum in the 
Netherlands on a partnership agreement between the European Union and 
Ukraine, which was overwhelmingly rejected by Dutch voters. This year, 
Russia is openly intervening in France's Presidential election to be 
held in

[[Page 4707]]

April. For example, Russia has loaned tens of millions of dollars to 
the far-right National Front Party in France, whose leader, Marine Le 
Pen, has defended Russia's annexation of Crimea and criticized 
international sanctions against Russia.
  Germany, which holds parliamentary elections in September, has also 
been targeted by Russian hackers and trolls--straight out of the 
Kremlin playbook we saw used here last year. Russia is attempting to 
steadily erode the integrity and western orientation of multiple 
Eastern European countries through a variety of state and state-
controlled or state-influenced activities. These coordinated and 
focused Russian operations threaten to undermine the European cohesion 
which underpins the post-Cold War international order. This pattern of 
Russian interference will only intensify with time if it goes 
unchallenged.
  Russia's malign activities also threaten our core security 
relationships with our transatlantic allies and partners. The NATO 
alliance has been the bedrock of our security relationship with our 
European allies. Since the end of the Cold War in the early 1990s, 
countries in Central and Eastern Europe have aspired to integrate more 
closely with the West, whether militarily through NATO membership or 
economically within the European Union, or both. But President Putin 
rejects the post-Cold War international order and seeks to reestablish 
a Russian sphere of influence over his immediate neighbors by weakening 
democracy, collective security, and economic cooperation across the 
region.
  In pursuit of this strategic goal, Putin has demonstrated a 
willingness to use all tools at his disposal, including cyber hacking, 
disinformation, propaganda, economic leverage, corruption, and even 
military force, to violate the sovereignty of Russia's neighbors and 
undermine support for their further integration into Europe.
  Since 2008, in neighboring Georgia, Russia has occupied two regions 
and recognized their independence, which the international community 
widely condemns as a violation of Georgia's territorial integrity. 
Georgia's aspirations since the 2008 Bucharest Summit to join the NATO 
Alliance have been on hold.
  In Ukraine, Russia's illegal annexation of Crimea and its continuing 
support to Russian-led separatists in eastern Ukraine are part of 
Putin's strategy of destabilizing the Kyiv government and blocking 
Ukraine's further integration westward. Putin has repeatedly used 
influence operations to hide the presence of ``little green men'' on 
Ukrainian soil, to spread disinformation about Ukrainian political 
leaders, and to influence financially corrupt Ukrainian oligarchs to 
support Russia. Putin is also using propaganda and other activities to 
try to break western unity in support of the United States and EU 
sanctions intended to pressure Russia to comply with its commitments 
under the Minsk agreements for ending the conflict in Ukraine. It is 
critically important to maintain, and potentially strengthen, these 
sanctions to change Russia's aggressive behavior and get to a peaceful 
political settlement to end the fighting in Ukraine.
  In Montenegro, it appears that Russia has added political 
assassination as a potential weapon to block an Eastern European 
country from pursuing membership in NATO. Last month, the British press 
reported that ``Russian nationalists'' under the direction of Russian 
intelligence officials plotted to assassinate then-Prime Minister 
Djukanovic during Montenegro's elections in October. According to these 
reports, Montenegrin authorities foiled the assassination attempt just 
hours before the plot was to be carried out. This attempted coup d'etat 
represents a new and dangerous level of interference by Russia to 
discourage Montenegro and others from further integrating with the 
West.
  As some of my colleagues have read in the February 14th New York 
Times article, Russia has fielded a missile system that violates the 
Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces, or INF, Treaty--a ground-launched 
intermediate-range nuclear missile that threatens all of NATO. The INF 
Treaty was signed by President Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev in 1987. 
This landmark treaty dramatically reduced Cold War nuclear tensions by 
eliminating an entire class of ground-launched ballistic and cruise 
missiles that could have struck Moscow or Berlin in less than 10 
minutes.
  Now Russia has moved nuclear-capable, short-range, ground-launched 
Iskander missiles to Kaliningrad, a Russian enclave between Poland and 
Lithuania. The Iskander missile's range threatens German borders--
something not seen since the 1980s. The Iskander deployment runs 
counter to a detente that has been in place since 1989, when President 
Bush reduced U.S. conventional forces in Europe--and Russia did the 
same--in order to relieve destabilizing tension in the region and 
lessen the risk of escalation or miscalculation. Furthermore, Russian 
aggression goes beyond the violations of the INF Treaty and the 
Iskander missile.
  During the 2014 invasion of Crimea, Russia practiced snap nuclear 
exercises to test the readiness of its Armed Forces to send a signal 
that there was a nuclear backstop to the invasion. More disturbingly, 
by invading Ukraine, Russia violated the Budapest Memorandum, a 
multilateral commitment in which Ukraine and three other former Soviet 
states pledged to transfer to Russia the nuclear weapons they retained 
after the collapse of the Soviet Union in return for Russian 
recognition of their sovereignty.
  Besides unilaterally reneging on its Budapest commitments, in 2014 
Russia has pulled out of the DOD and DOE--Department of Defense and 
Department of Energy--Cooperative Threat Reduction Programs, which 
secured nuclear materials at storage sites and national borders. Russia 
has some of the largest stockpiles of nuclear materials in the world 
that are vulnerable to insider threats. In 2016, Russia suspended its 
participation in the agreement with the United States to convert 34 
metric tons of weapons-grade plutonium for use as fuel for reactors.
  Since the very beginning of the Cold War, nonproliferation and arms 
control agreements between Russia and the United States have always 
received a high priority from both countries, regardless of how 
relations in other areas went up or down. Russia's recent actions call 
into question whether this can continue.
  Russian actions in Syria pose a further challenge to stability in the 
Middle East and the broader international community. Russia's military 
operations to prop up the murderous Assad regime belies Moscow's claim 
that it intervened to fight violent extremists, including ISIS and al-
Qaida. Russia has provided significant political, economic, and 
military support to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, even as he has 
slaughtered tens of thousands of Syrian civilians and used chemical 
weapons against his own people. Russia has repeatedly exercised its 
veto power in the U.N. Security Council on behalf of the Syrian regime 
in defiance of international standards and U.S.-led peace efforts, and, 
just last month, Russia vetoed a U.N. Security Council resolution 
seeking to punish Syria for using chemical weapons.
  For all of these reasons, we must recognize that Russia's alarming 
interference in our election is only one aspect of a much broader and 
dangerous threat to our core national security interests. Russia's 
malign behavior needs to be investigated fully and in a manner that is 
free of political considerations. We need answers to key questions, 
including:
  What are Russia's overall strategic security goals, and how do 
Russian influence activities in Europe and the United States advance 
those goals?
  What are the tools of Russia's influence? How has Russia used, or 
continues to use, those tools in influencing campaigns in Europe? How 
do Russian activities in Europe compare to what was evident in the U.S. 
Presidential elections last year?
  How has Russia used influence activities in concert with other 
unconventional warfare tactics and operational activities--for example, 
to support proxy forces in Ukraine and elsewhere?

[[Page 4708]]

  What is the threat these Russian influence activities pose to U.S. 
democratic institutions? To NATO? To the European Union? To the post-
Cold War liberal order and value system?
  What are the weaknesses and vulnerabilities in the United States and 
European countries that Russia is successfully exploiting and 
magnifying?
  Finally, how can the U.S. Government counter and deter Russia's 
influence activities, and what capabilities, structures, and other 
resources are needed for these purposes?
  An investigation of these questions would best be conducted by an 
independent, transparent, outside body appointed in a bipartisan 
manner. However, if Congress cannot reach consensus to make that 
happen, then, as a ranking member on the Senate Armed Services 
Committee, I intend to work with the chairman to undertake the 
necessary effort within the committee and across the Senate. I believe 
we can work in a bipartisan fashion on this critical threat to our 
national security. I look forward to shedding light on this issue and 
examining what we need to do as a country to defend ourselves against 
and deter Russian malign influence.
  As a final point, we are focused, of course, on what happened in 
2016--and it is a topic of daily discussions and newspaper articles--
but one of the most sobering factors is that we have an election in 
process right now for 2018. If it demonstrates the same interference, 
Russia could have an effect on that election. Indeed, there are 
indications that they are actually probing State election systems--the 
names of voters, how the States calculate and vote. Nothing has been 
established that would suggest they attempted to influence that 
activity, but the simple probing suggests that we have much to do to 
protect ourselves going forward--indeed, as much as looking back and 
finding out what went on in the 2016 election.
  For these reasons, and many more, we have to work together, as I 
suggested and encouraged, in a bipartisan way to get at the answers--
not just to look backward but to protect ourselves going forward.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Blunt). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                        Terror Attack in London

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, before I begin my remarks on the Supreme 
Court nomination, I want to just say a word about the terrorist attack 
in London yesterday.
  I was devastated to hear that two Utahans, Kurt and Melissa Cochran, 
were victims in yesterday's attack. While Melissa is recovering, I was 
heartbroken to hear that Kurt has since passed away from his injuries.
  I just want to offer our most sincere condolences to the Cochrans and 
ensure that we help them in any way we can.
  I know all our prayers are with the victims and with their families, 
friends, and loved ones.


                       Nomination of Neil Gorsuch

  Mr. President, it is with great disappointment that I rise to address 
the treatment of Judge Neil Gorsuch by my colleagues on the other side 
of the aisle.
  Today marks the close of his confirmation hearing, which began on 
Monday. This hearing was extraordinarily thorough, examining just about 
every facet of his record and his life.
  The nominee himself delivered an outstanding performance, enduring 
more than 20 hours of intense questioning over 2 very long days. He 
displayed an impressive command of the law and the kind of intelligence 
one expects of someone with such stellar credentials. He showed the 
proper understanding of the role of a judge in our constitutional 
system of self-government: to apply, not make, the law. He demonstrated 
this crucial quality both in his affirmative answers and in the times 
he had appropriately refused to prejudge issues that might come before 
him. Throughout, his demeanor was serious, thoughtful, and humble. 
These qualities have defined his service as a judge for the last decade 
and will serve him well on the U.S. Supreme Court.
  As for my fellow Senators, many of them approached this hearing the 
right way, posing questions that gave us real insight into the 
nominee's record and judicial philosophy. Thanks to their hard work, 
Judge Gorsuch has now been vetted as extensively as any nominee to come 
before the Senate in the whole length of my service here. I thank them 
for their careful work and good judgment.
  In particular, I want to single out my friend and colleague Senator 
Grassley. As chairman of the Judiciary Committee, he was charged with 
the monumental task of planning and executing the whole endeavor. He 
performed admirably, and we all owe him our sincere gratitude. He is 
one of the best people here, and he is totally honest and decent.
  Regretfully, I feel compelled to contrast that responsible approach 
of many of my colleagues with the actions of a number on the other side 
of the aisle. Frankly, some of the treatment of Judge Gorsuch has made 
me ill. In him, we have a man who is superbly qualified and who quite 
obviously understands how his job is to say what the law is, not what 
he wishes it might be. In fact, I do not believe any fair examination 
of the whole of his record on the bench can reasonably yield any 
meaningful clues as to what his policy views are. He is the kind of 
nominee whom, in an ideal world, we should be able to confirm by 
universal acclamation. Yet that is not the sort of treatment we are 
seeing--far from it.
  Instead, we see a desperate campaign being waged against him to 
derail his nomination at all costs. This is the sort of approach that 
has long been advocated for by many far-left activists intent on 
attacking in their belligerent ways and stacking the courts with 
ideologues committed to imposing liberal policies without respect for 
what the law and the Constitution actually command.
  As someone with great respect for all of my colleagues--even those 
with whom I often disagree--I had hoped they would resist the siren 
song of their activist base and give Judge Gorsuch a fair shake. 
Unfortunately, I see many of them falling prey to the temptations of 
this scorched-earth approach. Whatever their motivation--be it the 
outcome of the Garland nomination, the apparent unwillingness to accept 
the results of the election, or the desire for judges to push their 
political agenda--many of them appear willing to employ tactics they 
used to recognize, rightly, as inappropriate and even dangerous. In 
doing so, they threaten to inflict lasting damage on the judiciary, the 
Senate, and our politics more broadly.
  Consider their demand that Judge Gorsuch answer politically charged 
hypotheticals about potential future cases. For decades, nominees of 
both parties have refused to comply, so much so that the practice is 
then referred to as the ``Ginsburg standard,'' after current Justice 
Ginsburg, and they had been quite right to do so. To offer an advisory 
opinion that is inconsistent with the Constitution's allocation of 
powers--which give judges the authority to decide only actual cases and 
controversies, not offer broad advisory opinions--is inconsistent with 
the core characteristic of the judicial process, which considers issues 
in the particular legal and factual context of an individual case and 
gives parties the opportunity to make their arguments in full, and it 
asks judges to prejudice themselves when they should be arbiters, 
raising serious due process concerns for future litigants who deserve a 
fair hearing.
  Having participated in 14 confirmation hearings for Supreme Court 
nominees, I fully understand the temptation to ask these kinds of 
questions. Indeed, I have seen many Senators of both parties fall prey 
to the temptation, only to have a nominee politely respond about how it 
would be inappropriate to answer.

[[Page 4709]]

  It is one thing to make the occasional mistake of this variety and 
move on. I have seen it happen countless times, but that is not what 
happened this week. Instead, I witnessed many of my colleagues devote 
almost their entire half hour rounds to posing these sorts of 
inappropriate questions. When Judge Gorsuch responded appropriately and 
explained his inability to answer--oftentimes with an extensive 
explanation of the rationale for doing so--he was lambasted by some of 
my colleagues for his refusal to engage in this dangerous practice.
  Worse yet, these harsh attacks came from Senators who I have seen 
gladly embrace the very same answer from nominees in the past. What 
they once demanded, they now reject. What they once avoided, they now 
embrace. Simply put, it is hard not to interpret their attacks as 
hypocrisy of the highest order.
  This is a completely illegitimate line of attack on Judge Gorsuch, 
and it should be repudiated forcefully.
  Consider also the way in which some of my colleagues misrepresented 
Judge Gorsuch's record. It involved just a few simple steps. First, 
cherry-pick one of the judge's opinions in which a sympathetic victim 
lost; next, gloss over the legal issues at hand that mandated the 
outcome Judge Gorsuch reached; then, fail to mention how he was often 
joined in these opinions by his colleagues appointed by Presidents 
Clinton and Obama; after that, fail to mention the many times Judge 
Gorsuch ruled in favor of litigants similar to the one who lost in the 
case at hand; finally, make a wild assertion and accusation about how 
that case shows how Judge Gorsuch is biased against ``the little guy.''
  We should call these phony attacks for what they are: bogus attempts 
to mischaracterize his record intentionally.
  Any fair analysis of the record Judge Gorsuch has established on the 
bench can lead to only one conclusion: He is the type of judge who will 
reach the result commanded by the best reading of the law, free from 
any political agenda.
  He follows his oath to do justice without respect to persons. As 
Judge Gorsuch himself rightfully put it, quoting Justice Scalia, ``If 
you're going to be a good and faithful judge, you have to resign 
yourself to the fact that you're not always going to like the 
conclusions you reach. If you like them all the time, you're probably 
doing something wrong.''
  There will always be times when the law produces a result we disagree 
with. That is a simple fact of life. Sometimes that is our fault for 
not writing the law better, but the appropriate response is to change 
the law, not to demand that a judge ignore the law to reach a result we 
like.
  As legislators, it is, by definition, our responsibility to change 
the law to produce better, more just results. If my colleagues think a 
law like the Religious Freedom Restoration Act is producing bad 
results, it is their right to try to change it. They can count on me 
fighting tooth and nail to protect religious liberty, but at least they 
will be doing their job as lawmakers, not shirking it and demanding 
that unelected judges do their dirty work, nor impugning the honor of 
good judges like Judge Gorsuch who refuse to ignore the law on behalf 
of a political agenda.
  In Judge Gorsuch, we have a Supreme Court nominee as fine as I could 
ever imagine. He is the type of man we all should be clamoring to step 
into the late Justice Scalia's big shoes. But instead of the best 
traditions of the advice and consent process that many of us have tried 
to live up to, what is he treated to? Hypocritical attacks on the very 
judicial independence that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
claim to prize above all else, misleading attacks that distort his 
record, and now a promise to filibuster his nomination by the minority 
leader. My gosh, what have we come to around here?
  I remember when Justice Ginsburg went through with only three votes 
against her and not much debate, and she refused to answer any of the 
questions that my friends on the other side were demanding of Judge 
Gorsuch and of other Republican judges. Frankly, I stuck up for her and 
felt that was the right thing for her. I have great respect for her 
because of the way she handled those proceedings and others as well. We 
didn't do this in earlier years. It has become so radical around here 
and so political around here that we are besmirching the very people 
who have become the judges in this land and are doing such a good job.
  This is a travesty of the highest order. Judge Gorsuch is a 
brilliant, decent man who has devoted his life to serving his country. 
He has done exactly what we want as a careful judge for more than a 
decade. What does he get when nominated to the highest Court in the 
land? He gets his name dragged through the mud. He gets baited with 
questions we all know he cannot answer, that nobody can answer. If they 
are not trick questions, they are certainly improper, and then he is 
attacked for not answering. He gets his record mischaracterized and is 
accused of cruelty and hardness of heart. He gets the kind of treatment 
that leads him to regret putting his family through what ought to be a 
dignified process.
  It is time to stop this madness, stop the dishonest attacks. Instead, 
let's have a debate worthy of the world's greatest deliberative body 
and confirm this absolutely outstanding nominee.
  If my friends on the other side would treat somebody as respectable 
and highly prized and praised as Judge Gorsuch and treat them the way 
he was treated in some instances in these hearings, may we bar the door 
on the next nominee of this administration. That will be Armageddon, I 
guess, and we can't let this body descend into that sort of 
catastrophe.
  I will insist on our nominees being people of the highest order, like 
Judge Gorsuch, people who will make us all proud, people who will 
respect both sides but who will enforce the law, and people who, when 
it becomes time to change the law, can properly make that decision and 
have the guts to do it. There aren't many cases that have to be 
changed, however. All I can say is there are some that both sides wish 
would be changed, and on both sides.
  All I can say is this: I hope our colleagues will treat this 
President's nominees with greater respect. I have always tried to treat 
their nominees with great respect, and I helped get them through. 
Justice Ginsburg had only three votes against her, if I recall 
correctly. It was very few votes. There are judges who are now on the 
bench who I couldn't support, but I didn't stop them from having a vote 
up or down. Frankly, there are judges on the Circuit Court of Appeals 
whom we allowed to come up and whom I personally would not have 
approved as a President or otherwise but who were picked properly by 
the Democratic President and who had enough good recommendations on 
their side to sit on the bench. I think that is what has made this 
country a great country--that we understand that there are different 
points of view, not just in politics, but with regard to the law 
itself. And all of us have to understand that and realize that when 
somebody's elected President, that person, whether he or she, deserves 
to have fair consideration of the judicial nominees.
  It is no secret that President Obama put almost 50 percent of the 
Federal bench on the bench, and he had a lot of up-and-down votes on 
them. Yes, there were some notable differences and notable debates, but 
by and large, the President got whomever he wanted. And I have to say 
that in the past, Republican Presidents generally got whomever they 
wanted. But in the intervening number of years since Roe v. Wade, we 
have had nothing but big problems that I think have resulted in the 
denigration of the bench and which should never have occurred.
  I hope my colleagues, all of whom I deeply admire and like, will take 
some of these things into consideration and treat Judge Gorsuch with 
the true and deliberate respect that he deserves. I hope they can bring 
themselves to vote for him because he is truly a wonderful man, a great 
father, a wonderful husband to his wife, a tremendous person from the 
West, a fly fisherman, a fellow whom every one of his law clerks deeply 
loves, and a person who, by any

[[Page 4710]]

measure, is one of the brightest judges in the country today. I can't 
really think of anybody who would be brighter than he is or any better 
than he is.
  So Donald Trump picked one of the best people, if not the best person 
in America, for this job, and I hope my colleagues on the other side 
will recognize that in spite of their dislike, and sometimes even 
hatred, for Donald Trump, this is important. And it is important that 
we start handling these matters with greater dignity, greater fairness. 
When we really do disagree, fine; let's have a debate and battle on it, 
and let the chips fall where they may. But not all of these deserve to 
be in that category, and certainly Judge Gorsuch does not deserve to be 
in that category. He is an absolutely outstanding person.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.


     Russia and Calling for the Appointment of a Special Prosecutor

  Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, sovereign nations across the globe are 
brought together by different unifying forces. It can be a shared 
heritage, language, religion, or outside historical forces that led to 
borders drawn decades or centuries ago.
  As a nation, we are unique. We are diverse in every sense of the 
word, but even in these polarizing times, we are overwhelmingly 
unified. We are unified by our belief in democracy, free enterprise, 
and economic opportunity. We are all entrusted in nurturing the ideas 
enshrined in our Constitution--the idea that our system of democratic 
government enables us to work toward a more perfect union. At a time 
when the promise of democracy is receding for far too many around the 
world, we must do everything we can to uphold our country's free and 
fair elections, the foundation of our democracy.
  Our elections should serve as a global benchmark for the peaceful 
transition of power. As President Reagan said, we must be ``the shining 
city upon the hill,'' and we must lead by example. Our elections 
require a strong and steady commitment from our newly naturalized 
citizens; from families whose families fought in the Revolutionary War; 
from volunteers who cover 16-hour shifts to keep polling locations 
open; from country, city, and township clerks.
  The preservation of free and fair elections requires a strong 
commitment from our highest elected official in the land. As Americans, 
we look to the President of the United States to safeguard our 
democracy from foreign adversaries.
  When we are presented with clear and mounting evidence that the 
Russian Government, at the personal discretion of Russian President 
Vladimir Putin, orchestrated a campaign to undermine this most 
fundamental institution and interfere in our election, we should expect 
nothing less than a clear and forceful response from the White House 
that this kind of behavior is simply unacceptable. Unfortunately, what 
we have seen from President Trump and the White House so far amounts to 
little more than confusion, evasion, and a whole lot of smoke.
  President Trump has spoken time and again about wanting to build 
closer ties with Russia. On the campaign trail, he frequently fawned 
over Putin's strength as a leader. In 2013, he asked his Twitter 
followers, ``Do you think Putin will be going to The Miss Universe 
Pageant in November in Moscow--if so, will he become my new best 
friend?''
  While I don't believe that Putin attended the pageant, the nature of 
the Putin-Trump relationship remains an open question. It confuses me 
and quite frankly alarms me that President Trump speaks so fondly of a 
man who brutally cracks down on his political opponents and journalists 
at home while stirring up conflict and aggressions abroad.
  Make no mistake, Vladimir Putin is no friend of the United States or 
of the American people. Our Nation's intelligence agencies agree with 
high confidence that his government orchestrated a campaign to 
undermine the integrity of our recent election, and Putin has sought at 
every turn to destabilize the international order that has kept the 
American people and our allies secure for decades.
  Russia's interference in our election was not an isolated incident. 
It is part of a broader effort to undermine the NATO alliance and 
weaken western democracies. I heard from our French and German allies 
at the Munich Security Conference last month about their concerns that 
Russia will continue to engage in disinformation campaigns in European 
elections. As we aspire to be the free-market driven, democratic ``city 
upon a hill,'' Putin's government works to sow chaos globally in an 
effort to further consolidate power in his nationalist, self-enriching 
regime.
  These attempts to destabilize Russia's neighbors and rivals are not 
limited to cyber space and computer code. These provocations involve 
military aircraft, ships, nuclear capable missiles, heavy artillery, 
drones, and efforts to redraw international borders.
  As a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I believe that 
the highest duty of Congress is to keep Americans safe. Russia's 
dangerous and unprofessional military provocations not only place 
American servicemembers and NATO allies at risk, they endanger civilian 
lives and raise the specter of escalating regional conflict.
  Just last month, Russian aircraft flew within a few hundred feet of 
the USS Porter in international waters in a dangerous mock attack--an 
action the ship's captain called out as ``unsafe and unprofessional.''
  Last summer, while on a congressional delegation to meet with NATO 
allies, I heard directly from Estonian leaders about Russia's blatant 
disregard for their sovereignty. Russian forces kidnapped a border 
guard in Estonian territory and sentenced him behind closed doors to 15 
years in prison, in what a top European Union official called ``a clear 
violation of international law.''
  We have seen the Russians fly reconnaissance and fighter jets in 
international airspace, with their transponders switched off in order 
to avoid detection--at one point, nearly colliding in midair with a 
passenger airplane. NATO has been forced to scramble jets almost 800 
times--let me repeat that: 800 times--in 2016 alone, just to respond to 
Russia's encroachments on NATO airspace.
  As the President speaks glowingly about Putin, Mr. Putin returns the 
favor by deploying a dangerous new cruise missile, in clear violation 
of the Reagan-era Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty. 
Simultaneously, a Russian spy ship has been spotted lurking off the 
U.S. coast, trying to gather intelligence information near the Navy's 
primary east coast submarine base.
  We are also seeing Russia undertake the largest military buildup in 
the Arctic since the end of the Cold War and at a pace faster than we 
ever, ever saw during the Soviet era.
  Russia is reopening defunct military outposts and building new ones 
all across the polar region. There are 13 new Russian airfields that 
are scheduled to open by the end of this year. The Russian military 
recently staged an exercise in the Arctic region with well over 12,000 
troops.
  As the Russians build up their forces in the Arctic, the United 
States is falling behind. Our principal maritime force in the Arctic is 
the U.S. Coast Guard, but they have only one heavy icebreaker, the 
Polar Star, that is capable of keeping Arctic shipping lanes open or 
conducting search and rescue missions year-round. A new icebreaker to 
replace the Polar Star is still a few years away.
  In contrast, the Russians have over 40 icebreakers in their fleet, 
many of them nuclear, with plans for three new icebreakers underway. At 
a time when we should be investing in our Arctic capabilities, the 
Trump administration has been considering deep cuts to the Coast 
Guard's budget.
  Russia's expansionist activities and military probing are not 
occurring in a vacuum. The numerous threats and provocations that I 
have outlined occur as Russia continues to wage war in eastern Ukraine 
in the wake of their illegal annexation of Crimea, destabilizing the 
opportunity for the Ukrainian people to chart their own political and 
economic destiny. There

[[Page 4711]]

are 10,000 people who have lost their lives in this conflict as a 
direct result of Russian aggression.
  Last year, as I traveled with my Senate colleagues to Estonia, the 
Czech Republic, and Ukraine, I learned firsthand about the efforts in 
these countries to strengthen their civil institutions and root out 
corruption, build lasting partnerships, and stand up to Russian 
provocations. While they are doing their part, they continue to look to 
the United States for global leadership.
  This year, U.S. troops deployed to Eastern Europe to demonstrate our 
ironclad commitment to our NATO allies, where they were welcomed with 
open arms. We are working with our partners in Iceland to enhance their 
capabilities to detect and respond to a recent increase in Russian 
submarine patrols.
  I am also proud to stand with the airmen of the 127th Wing of the 
Michigan Air National Guard, who deployed from my State to build on 
their long record of successful cooperation with our partners in 
Latvia.
  When the Kremlin is threatening our allies, buzzing our Navy 
warships, and meddling in foreign elections, now is not the time to 
call into question the commitment or the resolve of the United States 
of America.
  Vladimir Putin's world view is shaped by his time in the KGB during 
the Cold War. He is committed to projecting Russian strength, both at 
home and abroad, through intimidation and aggression. Strength is what 
he respects. If Putin's provocations are not met with a strong 
response, they will continue and likely escalate, putting American 
interests and the American people at risk.
  Top officials in the Trump administration have been dispatched to 
crisscross Europe and reassure the world of our commitments to global 
security. I joined Vice President Pence and Secretary Mattis in Germany 
last month for the annual Munich Security Conference.
  They spoke of America's commitment to NATO and the international 
order, which was built from the ashes of World War II, in an apparent 
attempt to reassure our nervous allies, but our allies are not trying 
to understand the aims of the Mattis administration or the Pence 
administration. They are trying to determine if President Trump will 
stand behind NATO and the institutions that have served as a 
counterweight to Russian aggression for decades.
  The American people are also watching the White House, and they 
deserve to know that those who serve at the highest levels of 
government will always have America's best interests at heart. But 
every week we are faced with mounting evidence that the Trump 
administration and the Trump campaign have ties to Russia and are 
working to cover up their interactions with Russian officials.
  Earlier this week, in testimony before the House Intelligence 
Committee, FBI Director Comey announced that the FBI was 
``investigating the nature of any links between individuals associated 
with the Trump campaign and the Russian Government and whether there 
was any coordination between the campaign and Russia's efforts.'' This 
bears repeating. The FBI Director has confirmed that there is an active 
investigation into coordination between a Presidential campaign and a 
foreign adversary. This is just the latest development in a long string 
of disturbing revelations about President Trump's associates.
  Ousted campaign chairman Paul Manafort has a deep web of business and 
political connections to Russian interests. Other campaign advisers 
have backed off previous claims that they never spoke with Russian 
officials. In fact, the coverup of these interactions has already 
resulted in the first resignation from the Trump administration.
  Not long after President Obama imposed sanctions on the Russian 
officials and military intelligence agencies that were responsible for 
interfering in our election, former National Security Advisor Michael 
Flynn had a secret, off-the-record discussion with Russian Ambassador 
Kislyak, in which he discussed lifting these sanctions under the 
incoming Trump administration.
  Top officials at the Justice Department clearly warned the White 
House that Mr. Flynn was vulnerable to Russian blackmail. He resigned 
only after it became clear that he misled the public and the Vice 
President about the substance of these off-the-record conversations.
  But it doesn't just end there.
  The Attorney General, at best, misled the Judiciary Committee during 
his confirmation hearings about his record of contact with Russian 
officials. He testified under oath that he ``did not have 
communications with the Russians'' during the campaign. When it became 
clear that he had actually met with the Russian Ambassador at least 
twice last year, including in a one-on-one meeting in the final weeks 
of the campaign, he was forced to recuse himself from the Justice 
Department's criminal investigation into this very, very serious issue.
  It has been my experience that, when people are caught covering up 
their meetings and contacts with someone, they usually have something 
to hide. If you have nothing to hide, there is no reason for a coverup.
  The serious national security implications of the Trump 
administration's potential ties with Russia cannot be overstated. This 
is a time when we need to make clear that Russian aggression will not 
stand. Instead, the President has attempted to distract the public 
through unsubstantiated allegations about the wiretapping of Trump 
Tower--an allegation that has been refuted by FBI Director Comey and 
others. President Trump continues to double down by calling into 
question the motives of those who want assurances about integrity in 
our elections.
  Let me be clear. This is not about partisan politics. When there is 
so much smoke, there is probably some fire somewhere. If another 
country is infiltrating our government and political institutions or if 
Vladimir Putin has favors to cash in from officials at the highest 
levels of government, that is a serious problem.
  Russia has endangered our servicemembers, threatened our allies, 
illegally annexed Crimea, engaged in war crimes in their bombing of 
Aleppo, and actively worked to undermine our democracy. These 
revelations are only adding more smoke to the Russia fire, and it is 
clear we need a special prosecutor to investigate.
  The American people expect this investigation to be free from any 
political interference or influence or bias. We need someone to cut 
through the smoke and clear the air. An independent special prosecutor 
should be appointed to examine Russia's campaign to interfere in our 
election as well as any association or coordination between the Trump 
campaign and Russia.
  I also believe that the time has come to create an independent, 
nonpartisan commission to fully investigate Russian interference. 
Earlier today, I cosponsored legislation introduced by Senator Cardin 
that would create such a commission and provide it with the necessary 
subpoena power to get the answers that the American people clearly 
deserve.
  This is not about Democrats or Republicans or about relitigating the 
2016 election. This is about our national security. This commission, 
modeled after the 9/11 Commission, would provide a comprehensive report 
on what occurred last year and make recommendations as to how we can 
best defend the integrity of future elections.
  This is about how we move forward together. This is about how we 
maintain the independence of our government from foreign influence and 
instill faith in Americans that the White House is truly working for 
them.
  This is about moving past months of coverups and finally 
extinguishing this smoldering Russian fire or proving that all of this 
smoke is, truly, just a series of misunderstandings.
  This issue shakes the foundations of our democracy, but our Union has 
survived harder challenges than this.
  At a time when the public's trust in government is called into 
question, we must do everything we can to restore

[[Page 4712]]

faith in the integrity and the impartiality of our institutions.
  Just as we, as Americans, are unified in our faith in democracy and 
economic opportunity, we are unified in our belief in the rule of law. 
Just as we must show strength abroad through our military and our 
alliances, we must show strength at home by rooting out corruption and 
protecting our democratic process.
  All of us--Democrats and Republicans, Congress and the White House, 
our diplomats and our military--must send a clear, unified message to 
authoritarian leaders in Moscow and everywhere else that threats levied 
against the United States will never be tolerated and that there will 
be a price to pay for making them.
  The American people expect us to keep them safe while strengthening 
our Republic against enemies, both foreign and domestic. It is our duty 
to prove that we are up to the job.
  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. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                    Tribute to Ivory Gerhardt Cyrus

  Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, as my colleagues know, I have been 
coming to the floor week after week to recognize an Alaskan who has 
made a difference in his or her community. As I have said repeatedly--I 
am a little biased, of course--I have the honor of living in the most 
beautiful State in the country, but it is our people who truly make it 
special. They are resilient, kind, and giving. And it is the next 
generation that is going to continue to make my State the best place in 
the world to live.
  This week I would like to introduce my colleagues to 18-year-old 
Ivory Gerhardt Cyrus, this week's Alaskan of the Week. Ivory lives in 
Kiana, a beautiful, close-knit Inupiat village of less than 400 people 
on the banks of the Kobuk River in Northwest Alaska. Like many villages 
in Alaska, there are no roads in and out. People travel to Kotzebue, 
which is the closest hub city--it is not very much of a city but a big 
village--about 40 miles away by plane or snow machine, boat, or 
sometimes dog team. That is where Ivory was raised--in Kiana--and 
where, against many odds, she has strived.
  Ivory was born with fetal alcohol spectrum disorder, which made 
getting through school a challenge. She was at times misunderstood, at 
times bullied, and many didn't know how to deal with her properly.
  About 120 kids each year are diagnosed with fetal alcohol spectrum 
disorder in Alaska. When she was in middle school, Ivory began 
committing herself to helping them by speaking out about her own 
experiences and by advocating the way students with behavioral issues 
are treated in school. She was an advocate for them.
  Now she is an honor roll high school senior, graduating this spring, 
and along the way, she has become a State of Alaska trainer for fetal 
alcohol spectrum disorder. She gave a presentation at an international 
conference recently on disability and diversity, and she was named one 
of five recipients of the 27th annual Women of Achievement and Youth 
Awards in Alaska.
  This is what I find most impressive about Ivory: She is passing a 
message of hope and service on to her peers. She started a group, 
encouraging the members of the group to do one positive thing each day. 
The name of the group is appropriately entitled ``One Positive Thing,'' 
or ``OPT.'' That message has spread throughout her community, and now 
villages in Kiana are remembering to do one positive thing each day for 
themselves, their families, and their community. Last year, she held 
her first OPT conference in Kiana for youth all across the region. This 
year, that conference--the next OPT conference, One Positive Thing--
will be held on April 7 and 8.
  Ivory is an exceptional young woman. She is going to go on to do 
exceptional things. Next fall, she plans on attending the University of 
Alaska Anchorage where she plans to continue to do one positive thing 
each day and will bring that positive attitude to the students at UAA. 
She is going to continue to encourage others to do that as well.
  I congratulate her for all of her accomplishments, for being our 
Alaskan of the Week, and congratulations to her parents, Jean and Tom, 
for the wonderful job they have done in raising this exceptional young 
lady.
  Ivory gives us all hope for the future.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________