[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 163 (2017), Part 4]
[Senate]
[Pages 4847-4858]
[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

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
proceed to executive session to resume consideration of Executive 
Calendar No. 1, the Montenegro treaty, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

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


                           Amendment No. 193

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I have an amendment that is at the desk 
that I ask the clerk to report.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will state.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. McConnell] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 193.

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the end add the following:
       ``This Treaty shall be effective 1 day after 
     ratification.''

  Mr. McCONNELL. I ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.


                 Amendment No. 194 to Amendment No. 193

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I have a second-degree amendment at the 
desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. McConnell] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 194 to amendment No. 193.

  Mr. McCONNELL. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       Strike ``1 day'' and insert ``2 days''.

  Mr. McCONNELL. 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. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                   Recognition of the Minority Leader

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader is recognized.


                Russia and Trump Campaign Investigation

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon on a few topics. 
First, on the investigation into the Trump campaign's potential ties to 
Russia, this is a matter of such gravity, we need to get it right. 
There should be no doubt about the integrity and impartiality of the 
investigation, either in the executive branch, where the FBI and 
Department of Justice are looking into it, or in Congress, where the 
Intelligence Committees of both Chambers are conducting an 
investigation.

[[Page 4848]]

  Unfortunately, the House Intelligence Committee has come under a 
cloud of suspicion and partisanship. A few months ago, Chairman Nunes 
spoke to reporters at the request of the White House to tamp down 
stories on the links between the Trump campaign and Russia, which is 
exactly what his committee now must investigate. This past week, 
Chairman Nunes broke with the committee process and tradition to brief 
the President on information he had learned but hadn't yet shared with 
the committee. We have learned this morning that Chairman Nunes was at 
the White House the day before that event--doing what? We don't know. 
It could very well be the case that Chairman Nunes was briefing members 
of the administration about an investigation of which they are the 
subject.
  Chairman Nunes is falling down on the job and seems to be more 
interested in protecting the President than in seeking the truth. You 
cannot have the person in charge of an impartial investigation be 
partial to one side. It is an inherent contradiction, and it undermines 
decades of bipartisan cooperation on the Intelligence Committee, which 
handles such sensitive information paramount to national security. It 
undermines Congress as a coequal branch of government meant to hold the 
executive branch accountable for its actions, and it corrodes the 
American people's confidence in our government.
  If Speaker Ryan wants the House to have a credible investigation, he 
needs to replace Chairman Nunes. Congress was meant by the Framers to 
be separate and equal, and I sincerely worry that under his direction, 
Mr. Nunes is pushing the committee into a direction of obsequiousness 
and not one that is asking the hard questions and getting the important 
answers.
  There has always been a grand tradition of bipartisanship on the 
Intelligence Committee. When Members go into the SCIF, the room where 
they get secure briefings, they check their partisanship at the door. 
Chairman Nunes is right on the edge of doing permanent damage to that 
grand tradition of bipartisanship. Chairman Nunes seems to be more of a 
partisan for the President than an impartial actor. He has not been 
cooperating like someone who is interested in getting to the 
unvarnished truth. His actions look like those of someone who is 
interested in protecting the President and his party, and that doesn't 
work when the goal of the committee is to investigate Russia and its 
connection to the President and his campaign.
  Without further ado, Speaker Ryan should replace Chairman Nunes.


                               TrumpCare

  Mr. President, on another matter, the failure of TrumpCare this past 
Friday was a good day for the American people. We can finally put to 
bed the disaster of a bill that was TrumpCare, which would have 
resulted in spottier coverage, 24 million fewer Americans with health 
coverage, and higher costs, premiums, and deductibles for the middle 
class, the working poor, and older Americans, all to finance close to 
$600 billion in tax breaks for wealthy Americans. Americans should 
breathe a sigh of relief that TrumpCare will not become law. We are 
happy that it is gone. We can finally move on.
  As I have said many times, we Democrats, provided our Republican 
colleagues drop ``replace'' and stop undermining the ACA, are willing 
to work with our Republican friends to improve the existing law. No one 
ever said the Affordable Care Act was perfect. We have ideas to improve 
it; hopefully, our colleagues on the Republican side do as well. I hope 
once ``replace'' is dropped and the ACA is no longer undermined by the 
administration, we can sit down and talk about it.
  Unfortunately, the administration has already done several things 
that undermine the law and hurt the people. During the final weeks of 
open enrollment, the Trump administration discontinued the public 
advertising campaigns that encouraged people to sign up for insurance. 
The administration is working behind the scenes to give insurers 
flexibility to offer Americans less coverage for the healthcare they 
need, and the Executive order that President Trump issued directing 
agencies to facilitate the repeal and replacement of the ACA has 
destabilized the marketplace. Now that TrumpCare is off the table, the 
President should rescind the Executive order.
  Today, I am urging the President and his entire administration to 
immediately cease all efforts to undermine the ACA. People's lives are 
at stake.
  The President should not hope that the healthcare system for tens of 
millions explodes. He should not want premiums to go up on his watch. 
He should not hope that Americans lose treatment for opioid addiction 
on his watch. This approach is wrong, and wrong in two ways: First and 
foremost, it is wrong because it hurts people. The President must be a 
leader. It is not leadership for the President to hurt people and 
actively work to undermine our Nation's healthcare system simply 
because he is angry that he didn't get his way on repealing the ACA. 
That is not Presidential, that is petulance.
  Secondly, this approach will not work politically. Donald Trump is no 
longer an outsider; he is President. The American people are looking to 
him to help solve their problems. If he doesn't, it is going to hurt 
him and his party. Pointing the finger of blame isn't going to solve 
anyone's problems. That strategy is not only bad for the American 
people and beneath the Presidency, it will backfire politically. He is 
in charge. People want him to make their lives better, not make them 
worse because of some political anger or vendetta.
  I know many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle do care 
deeply about fixing the Nation's healthcare problems, and we are ready 
to do that with them in a bipartisan way. But, of course, repeal must 
be taken off the table, and the President must stop hurting citizens by 
undermining the Affordable Care Act.


                               Tax Reform

  Mr. President, finally, on tax issues, now that the jig is finally up 
on healthcare, our Republican friends have signaled they will turn to 
taxes. I hope they have learned the lessons of TrumpCare. One of the 
reasons TrumpCare failed so spectacularly was that Republicans tried to 
rush and ram it through via a reconciliation process, even though it 
was deeply unpopular with the public. The last poll showed only 17 
percent of Americans supported TrumpCare, so that means a large number 
even of Trump supporters were opposed to it.
  Why was it so unpopular? Probably because TrumpCare would have given 
the wealthiest among us a monster tax cut while hammering older 
Americans and the middle class with higher costs for less care.
  So I say to my friends on the other side of the aisle: If you try to 
pass a Republican tax plan using the same reconciliation method in 
order to get a huge tax break for the wealthy and already profitable 
and powerful corporations, it will fail. The American people are not 
crying out for tax breaks on the wealthiest Americans. God bless the 
wealthy. They are doing just fine without the tax breaks, but thus far 
it seems our Republican colleagues are headed in that direction.
  Even though the President campaigned as a populist, his 
administration has been all hard-right, pro-corporate, pro-special 
interests, totally against the working people. If the President and 
Republicans in Congress continue in that direction, proposing policies 
that shift burdens off the wealthy and powerful, not aiming to help the 
middle class and working families, their efforts will continue to fail, 
and it will turn tax reform into a partisan issue. The White House says 
tax reform isn't partisan, but it surely will be if they propose 
massive tax cuts only for the wealthy. My prediction: If Republicans go 
down that road, the Republican tax scheme will meet the same fate as 
TrumpCare. I hope they will not go down that road; I hope they will 
not.
  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.

[[Page 4849]]


  Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                         Border Adjustment Tax

  Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, last week TrumpCare died, and lots of 
people are trying to figure out exactly what happened. In my view, it 
was not a lack of strategy; it was not a lack of effort; it was not a 
lack of personal relationship between the Speaker and the President. It 
died because the policy stank. It died because people actually--left, 
right, and center--decided that cutting Medicaid by $900 billion in 
order to provide a tax cut for the wealthiest Americans of the exact 
same amount was just not a good idea in policy or in politics.
  Now that TrumpCare has crashed and burned, Republicans are 
essentially going to try to do the same thing--tax cuts for the rich. 
Yet, this time, instead of funding it by cutting Medicaid, they are 
going to charge people more for groceries. Here is their proposal: They 
want to cut taxes for corporations again. That is what they want to do. 
Whether one is talking about infrastructure or whether one is talking 
about healthcare or whether one is talking about so-called tax reform, 
their solution to everything is to cut taxes for corporations. They 
want to cut taxes for corporations again, but this time American 
families will pay for it through taxes on groceries and the other stuff 
they have to buy on a day-to-day basis.
  We have seen this before. It is a giveaway for corporations and the 
wealthiest among us, but, as usual, they have to find a pay-for, a way 
to make the arithmetic work, a way to pay for it. They are going to 
keep proposing so-called solutions for healthcare, infrastructure, or 
in this case tax reform, but they are basically the same proposal. It 
is a subsidy for Wall Street. It is because they cannot help 
themselves.
  This particular giveaway will cost the average American family 
thousands of dollars. Families will have to pay more for gas, medicine, 
clothes, cars, food. That is how a so-called border adjustment tax 
works. Everything one buys in the United States will be taxed, and 
everything outside of the United States will not be taxed. The sort of 
principle behind that is that somehow we are going to stimulate exports 
and disincentivize imports. It is not just that you are paying more on 
the stuff that is imported; it is that everything in the United States 
that you purchase you will have to pay more for in order to incentivize 
exports. But all you are doing is charging the American people more. 
This is essentially a sales tax.
  I talked to members of my staff, and they were trying to get into the 
sort of technocratic, legal details about whether it is technically a 
sales tax or a value-added tax or a border adjustment tax that fits 
into some other legal category. But for a regular person, it does not 
matter what you call it; if you pay more and the government is 
collecting it, it is an increase in taxes.
  They are going to dazzle you with complexity, and I think some in the 
House Republican leadership are very skillful at trying to make this 
more complicated than it is. They are trying to dazzle you with 
complexity so you do not know what they are doing. They are raising 
taxes on groceries and all of the stuff you buy. That is their version 
of tax reform.
  I can understand. The Tax Code is awful, it is a mess, and we have 
been trying to do tax reform for I think 30 years. It is not 
unreasonable for the average American to say ``Yes, you ought to reform 
the Tax Code,'' but, remember, when they talk tax reform, they want you 
to have to go to the store and buy a steak, a hotdog, a head of 
lettuce, gasoline, pillows, diapers, paper--whatever you need--and it 
is going to cost more with so-called tax reform. If they succeed, the 
average American family could pay up to $1,700 more per year in order 
that corporations can get their tax cuts. Think about what $1,700 means 
for families across the country. For a family of four, with two kids in 
middle school, $1,700 pays for a few months' worth of groceries. In 
Hawaii, $1,700 will cover rent for a month, and in lots of other 
places, it will cover rent for 4 or 5 months. For some people, it pays 
a year's worth of an electric bill. In the State of Hawaii, it will pay 
for 4 or 5 months of your electric bill.
  We know for certain this will hurt consumers, but on a macroeconomic 
level--in other words, for the entire country--we have no idea what a 
border adjustment tax would actually do in terms of our international 
relationships.
  I understand. I voted against the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the 
trade promotion authority. I have been very, very concerned about the 
extent to which we have not been getting the better of these trade 
deals, especially when it comes to people who are in unions across the 
country. But we do not want to engage in a trade war. We do not want to 
screw up American manufacturing, American farming. We have no idea what 
the impact would be. Even if one is willing to accept increasing the 
cost of goods in the United States for some theoretical possibility 
that this will incentivize exports, we have no idea what it is going to 
do to the American economy overall. Even in the best-case scenario, 
entire industries will fall apart.
  Take tourism. In 2016 alone, tourism supported nearly 5.5 million 
American jobs directly and almost 10 million more in industries like 
restaurants and retail. The tourism industry pumps $2.6 billion into 
our economy every day. That is more than $30,000 per second.
  I will say one other thing about tourism. As we worry about 
automation, as we worry about artificial intelligence, as we worry 
about a global economy that is going to eviscerate some of our core 
industries, tourism is one thing that cannot be taken away from us. If 
people want to go to Los Angeles, if people want to go to Cleveland, if 
people want to go to Hawaii, if people want to go to St. Louis, MO, or 
Kansas City, MO, or Florida, these are jobs that cannot be taken away. 
So if you want to infuse cash into an economy, create a tourism 
economy--all of these jobs and all of this revenue will be under threat 
if this works out the way they want it to work out because the dollar 
will be so strong that Americans will want to travel abroad and 
foreigners will want to travel far, far away from us.
  Why are we punishing consumers and small businesses? Why are we 
putting entire industries at risk? House Republicans will tell you it 
is because they think the corporate tax is too high, but here is the 
truth: Right now, major corporations have huge teams of tax lawyers who 
set up fake shell companies so that they get around paying Federal 
taxes at all, or they abuse loopholes to drastically lower what they 
owe to the U.S. Government. That is why we see some corporations that 
end up paying zero dollars in Federal income tax year after year even 
though they are making a healthy profit in the United States.
  Together, Republicans and Democrats should be going after these tax 
dodgers. Instead of just getting rid of loopholes, they have decided to 
tax consumers. This makes no sense, and that is why we have to stop it.
  Last week, we saved healthcare for 24 million Americans because 
people across the country of all political persuasions stood up to 
fight. This week, the fight goes on. Once again, far too many people 
are in the crosshairs. I believe strongly that so long as we continue 
to stand together, we can win this one too. A huge tax cut for the 
wealthy cannot be funded by increasing the cost of groceries.
  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. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lankford). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

[[Page 4850]]




                    Nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, earlier today in the Senate Judiciary 
Committee, we considered the nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch to serve 
as the next Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court. According to Judiciary 
Committee practice, that nomination was held over for a week, which 
means that Judge Gorsuch will be voted out of the Senate Judiciary 
Committee on April 3, and it will be available for floor action 
thereafter.
  As the Nation--and perhaps even the world--knows, we held lengthy 
hearings last week to review his qualifications, his experience, and 
his approach to judging. I have to say that he really impressed 
everybody who approached this whole issue with an open mind about 
whether he was qualified to serve on the High Court. But unfortunately, 
as those of us who work in the Senate know, there has already been a 
threat by the Democratic leader to filibuster his nomination.
  It is really important for the country to recall that there has never 
been a successful partisan filibuster of a nominee to the U.S. Supreme 
Court. Sometimes people want to talk about Abe Fortas in 1968, but 
ultimately Abe Fortas, who was nominated to be Chief Justice of the 
Supreme Court by his friend and mentor, Lyndon Johnson, asked to 
withdraw his nomination after one failed cloture vote and ultimately 
ended up resigning from the Supreme Court of the United States in 
disgrace. It is hardly a precedent for what Democrats have said they 
are going to do with regard to this good man and this good judge, Neil 
Gorsuch.
  I understand my friend the Democratic leader has a tough job. He has 
a split caucus--those who want to take Democrats over the ledge and 
those who would like to try to find some way to work out a reasonable 
accommodation. Unfortunately, he is under a lot of pressure from the 
radical groups on the left to do whatever he can to tank this superb 
nominee. Again, this would be unprecedented in American history.
  It is true that Democrats in 2013 did the so-called nuclear option, 
which has established a new precedent in the Senate with regard to 
lower court judges--circuit court judges and district court judges--
along with Cabinet nominees. Ironically, the so-called Reid precedent 
of 2013 has kind of come back to bite them a little bit, as President 
Trump now has been able to see all of his Cabinet members confirmed 
with 51 votes, or, in the case of one, 50 plus the Vice President.
  I was glad to see a quote from a report in a Vermont publication from 
our friend the senior Senator from Vermont, the former chairman of the 
Judiciary Committee, in which he said he wasn't inclined to filibuster 
the nomination of Judge Gorsuch and that he deserves a minimum of an 
up-or-down vote. So I hope others will follow the lead of Senator 
Leahy, who has been in the Senate a long time in the majority and in 
the minority. He realizes it is important to maintain a certain level 
of tradition and decorum here in the Senate, because usually what goes 
around comes around. Unfortunately, this new precedent of filibustering 
Supreme Court Justices, if allowed to happen, is going to continue to 
be very damaging to the Senate and even to the country.
  I hope he is still of that same mind--that he is not inclined to 
filibuster the nomination of Judge Gorsuch. If he takes that position, 
I know he will influence a lot of colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle because of his distinguished record of service in the Senate and 
in the Judiciary Committee.
  I look forward to the committee approving Judge Gorsuch's nomination 
next week and then taking that nomination up on the Senate floor and 
confirming the nomination of Neil Gorsuch to serve as the next 
Associate Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court.


                               ObamaCare

  Mr. President, last week, a lot of attention was focused on the House 
of Representatives and their efforts to fix our Nation's healthcare 
system.
  We have said for a long time that ObamaCare needs to be repealed and 
replaced. I stand by that comment, and I know many of our colleagues do 
as well. But I want to make something else clear. The failure of 
ObamaCare isn't a problem for Democrats or Republicans alone. It is a 
problem for the entire country, and particularly those who find their 
premiums going up by double digits every year, their deductibles 
unaffordable, or even choices drying up because insurance companies 
simply have withdrawn from the individual market. Our colleagues on the 
Democratic side have repeatedly recognized the problems with ObamaCare, 
even though they pushed it through on a partisan vote 7 years ago.
  The fact of the matter is that the President promised: If you like 
your healthcare policy, you can keep it; if you like your doctor, you 
can keep your doctor; and, premiums for a family of four will go down 
by an average of $2,500. None of that has proven to be true. People 
were misled into believing that ObamaCare would somehow be the gold 
standard for healthcare in the country, and people are being hurt now 
by high premiums, high deductibles, and fewer choices. Indeed, 30 
million people remain uninsured in this country because of the cost or 
the fact that they just decide that they don't want to buy government-
mandated healthcare. They either pay a penalty through the IRS or they 
simply get a hardship exemption. There are 30 million people currently 
uninsured, more or less, under ObamaCare.
  I want to remind our colleagues on the other side that they 
understand ObamaCare needs some work, and many of them have made 
repeated calls to fix it. Last year, for example, the junior Senator 
from Wisconsin said of ObamaCare:

       There were things obviously that need perfecting, need 
     revisiting. Even if it were perfect, over time we would have 
     to make adaptations, and so I think we would absolutely want 
     to strengthen it.

  Not even our colleague, the junior Senator from Wisconsin, is saying 
ObamaCare is delivering 100 percent on the promise. She is saying it 
needs some work.
  The senior Senator from Indiana has echoed this sentiment. He said:

       I supported the Affordable Care Act because I wanted to 
     help working- and middle-class families to have access to 
     healthcare. That doesn't mean the law is perfect, and it 
     doesn't mean that we don't still have work to do. That's why 
     I'm working with my colleagues to make this bill stronger.

  We haven't seen any proposals from our friends across the aisle on 
how to fix the law, which they concede is far from perfect. Instead, 
what we have seen is their standing back, watching Republicans trying 
to do this by ourselves and coming up short last week in the House of 
Representatives. To my mind, that is not commendable behavior on their 
part. I thought we all came here to the U.S. Senate to try to do things 
and fix problems for the constituents we represent. It is purely 
partisan to say: We know ObamaCare is falling apart, and it is not 
delivering as we promised. And, oh yes, you Republicans can try to fix 
it, but if you don't have the votes to do it, we are just going to sit 
back and applaud or react with glee from a partisan perspective because 
our political opponents somehow came up short when it came to the votes 
in the House.
  The truth is, ObamaCare didn't bring massive relief for working- and 
middle-class Americans. For many, it made life more difficult with 
skyrocketing premiums, losing their plans and the doctors they wanted, 
and having fewer options to choose from.
  I will quote one of our colleagues on the other side of the isle, the 
junior Senator from North Dakota. Her website says: ``With any major 
legislation, there are improvements that need to be made so that it 
works as well as possible, and that holds true for the healthcare 
reform law,'' speaking of ObamaCare.
  She goes on to say that she is committed to ``correcting the parts of 
the healthcare reform law that do not make sense, improve on others, 
and implement new ideas to improve on healthcare costs and improve 
quality.''
  I am grateful to our colleague from North Dakota for her honesty and 
open take on where things stand with respect to ObamaCare, but that is 
just a start. What we need to do now is work

[[Page 4851]]

together to try to address the failings of ObamaCare where it is not 
delivering as promised and where even our colleagues across the aisle 
have said that it needs to be fixed in order to make sure that people 
have access to affordable, accessible quality healthcare. They don't 
have that now.
  My point is that ObamaCare was a bill sold to the American people 
under false pretenses by the previous administration, and it has proved 
to be a disaster for many people. I was reading an article--I think it 
was either in the Washington Post or the New York Times today--about a 
woman in Texas who runs a hair care salon and who has intentionally 
kept her number of employees under the threshold under which 
ObamaCare's employer mandate would be invoked. So rather than spending 
time focusing on growing her business and improving her business, she 
has consciously kept it smaller, with fewer employees, because she 
knows that the burden of complying with the ObamaCare employer mandate 
will ultimately make her business less profitable. And when her 
business is less profitable, it means she can hire fewer people and 
perhaps can't pay the wages or the benefits she would like to pay her 
employees.
  So I would just say to our colleagues across the aisle that I 
understand you think you had a pretty good day last week when the 
Republicans couldn't pass the healthcare plan on their own in the 
House, but I don't think this is a time for people to enjoy other 
people's failed efforts to try to improve the status quo. It is a 
mandate, I believe, for all of us to work together to address the flaws 
that we know exist--that they admitted exist--to try to do better when 
it comes to affordable, accessible healthcare for the American people.
  This law will fail. Insurance companies will withdraw from the 
market, and the individual market serving roughly 18 million people 
will literally dry up and go away. Imagine how those families are going 
to be impacted.
  I wouldn't want to be somebody who said: Well, I had an opportunity 
to fix it; yes, I had an opportunity to address your concerns when it 
came to affordable healthcare, but for partisan political reasons, I 
simply stood down and did nothing and literally washed my hands of it.
  So before this law collapses--and it will--I hope our colleagues 
across the aisle will start offering their ideas and their solutions to 
bring better healthcare to families across the country. That is what I 
think our constituents expect of us. That is in the finest tradition of 
the U.S. Senate, and our constituents deserve no less.
  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. RUBIO. 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. RUBIO. Mr. President, I am pleased that in the Senate we are 
about to take a vote on ratifying the protocol of the accession of 
Montenegro to NATO.
  What I wanted to do was to take a few moments to explain to people 
why I think this is an important vote and an important moment for our 
security as a nation but also to protect our interests abroad and that 
of our allies.
  We all know that NATO--the North Atlantic Treaty Organization--was 
started right after World War II. It was primarily designed in the Cold 
War to confront the threats posed by the Soviet Union and its allies in 
the Warsaw Pact. Of course those threats have changed since the end of 
that Cold War.
  Here is what hasn't changed. What hasn't changed is the need for 
America and her allies in a strong way to remain engaged in the world. 
That need has not changed. What has not changed is the need for 
democracies to be able to come together and collectively defend not 
just their interests but the interests of all people around the world 
where freedom is threatened. The difficult, painful lesson of history 
is that dictators and tyrants are never pleased with what they have. 
They always want more. They always need more. That is why it is so 
important that those nations on Earth--luckily and in a blessed way, 
more people than ever before find themselves living in societies where 
the people get to choose their leaders.
  These alliances we have around the world--NATO being chief among 
them--help advance our strategic and economic interests, but most 
importantly, they help to keep our country safe.
  There is a lot of talk about how much countries are paying into NATO, 
and it is true that the United States is by far the largest contributor 
to NATO. I think that is a combination of two things: one, decisions 
that were made by some of our allies in Europe on how they want to 
spend their government's money, and the other is just the reality that 
we are the United States of America, and as the United States of 
America, we will always find that we are always making a 
disproportionate share and contribution on everything, from global aid 
to fight off hunger and disease, to collective security.
  While we can urge our allies, encourage our allies, and ask our 
allies to make a greater contribution to their own defense, we should 
not fall into the trap of diminishing what they are doing and what they 
have done.
  First of all, in Europe today, many of our NATO allies are increasing 
their defense spending. They are doing so in response to Russia's 
aggression in Ukraine and its increased aggression elsewhere in the 
region. Their soldiers are joining ours in deploying to Central and 
Eastern Europe to reassure our allies who are facing aggression and 
potential aggression from Vladimir Putin.
  With all this talk about NATO and money and how much everyone is 
giving, I think it is important to take a moment to also understand 
that our NATO allies have fought beside us and have died beside 
Americans in Afghanistan, where more than 1,100 soldiers of the NATO-
led coalition paid the ultimate price with their lives. It is important 
to note this because on September 11, 2001, Paris was not attacked, 
Berlin was not attacked, and London was not attacked on that horrible 
day; yet these nations and others, our partners, invoked a shared 
commitment that led them to stand beside us on the other side of the 
world in an effort to prevent another attack like September 11 from 
taking place again on American soil or anywhere in the world.
  Montenegro is not even a member of NATO yet. Yet it sent hundreds of 
servicemembers to join the American-led coalition in Afghanistan.
  I have always argued that when our alliances, such as NATO, are under 
pressure from our potential adversaries and foes, we need to continue 
to expand and allow countries that meet the standards set by the 
alliance to join. That has never been more important than it is now, 
given the uncertainty and security challenges we face in Europe, 
especially as Vladimir Putin continues his aggression and continues to 
threaten stability in the region.
  To be frank, Putin would love nothing more than to destroy NATO. In 
fact, you can see him trying to do that on a regular basis. He has 
tried to divide these countries, turn them against each other. He 
supports candidates throughout Europe who would take their countries 
out of NATO, constantly calling into question its viability. Vladimir 
Putin wants countries like Montenegro to remain in his sphere of 
influence and what I would call his sphere of threat, as his recent 
attempts to deploy his asymmetrical tools to influence Montenegrin 
politics have shown. That is why it is so important that we are moving 
to ratify Montenegro's access to NATO and to strengthen our 
relationship with Montenegro through NATO.
  As the Senate and as a country, we are sending a clear message to 
Vladimir Putin that we will not accept the establishment of a Russian 
sphere of influence over countries that desire to ally themselves with 
the free and democratic community of nations.
  Today, I have tried to refrain from using the term ``Russian'' sphere 
of influence or ``Russia'' because the fact is,

[[Page 4852]]

as I said to someone earlier today or yesterday, there is a difference 
between Russia and Vladimir Putin, and the events of the last 48 hours 
remind us of that. We are watching as many Russians who also desire to 
join the community of nations have turned out in cities and in places 
across Moscow and in other places in the thousands. They have turned 
out to protest the rampant corruption that fuels the Putin regime. And 
the Putin regime, as all totalitarian regimes do, has cracked down. 
They have arrested and detained hundreds of peaceful protesters. I ask 
you to compare that to Montenegro, whose membership in NATO will help 
the United States and Montenegro deepen our already strong bilateral 
relationship.
  The stakes here are extraordinarily high for the United States and 
for our European allies. The Senate needs to send a strong message of 
solidarity with those in Europe who are standing up to the anti-
democratic tactics of Vladimir Putin and his cronies.
  That is why today I will be proud to cast my vote in support of 
Montenegro's accession into NATO, and I hope my colleagues here in the 
Senate will do the same and join me in doing so as well.
  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.
  Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                               Healthcare

  Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, last week Republicans in Congress came 
within an inch of ripping health insurance away from 24 million people 
in order to give tax breaks to rich people. That collapsed, and it 
collapsed because the American people stood up and said no--no to 
kicking seniors out of nursing homes, no to booting kids with rare 
diseases off of their treatments, no to gutting funding for opioid 
addiction.
  All across this country--in every corner of this country--for months 
people spoke up about how the Affordable Care Act and Medicaid are 
saving their lives and saving their families from financial ruin. They 
poured their hearts out, they raised their voices, and they demanded to 
be heard. Last week they won.
  The collapse of the Republicans' cruel scheme is a huge relief to 
millions of people in this country, but I am not here to celebrate. I 
am here to warn the American people about what is coming next, because 
instead of listening to the American people about what they want, the 
President of the United States has threatened to sabotage healthcare in 
America. It isn't subtle. One hour after the Republicans admitted they 
didn't have the votes in Congress to destroy the Affordable Care Act, 
President Trump sat behind his desk in the Oval Office and told the 
entire Nation that he wants to trigger a meltdown of our healthcare 
system because he thinks that would be helpful to him politically.
  Just so there is no confusion, I want to quote him word for word. He 
said: ``The best thing we can do, politically speaking, is let 
ObamaCare explode.''
  Now let's be clear. It is deeply wrong for the President of the 
United States--whose one and only job is to look out for the American 
people--to root for the failure of our country's healthcare system. It 
is deeply wrong for the President of the United States to announce that 
he is going to drag down our entire healthcare sector--a sector that 
accounts for more than one-sixth of the entire U.S. economy--just so he 
can stand on top of the wreckage and waggle his fingers and say: I told 
you so.
  Healthcare for millions of Americans is not a game. It is not 
entertainment. It is not a reality TV show. Healthcare is literally 
life and death, and it touches everyone in this country from elderly 
grandparents to tiny babies.
  President Trump is responsible for making healthcare in this country 
work. It is his job. He is President of the United States. His party 
controls both Houses of Congress. A legitimate President doesn't clap 
and cheer when things get worse for the American people. A legitimate 
President doesn't pound his chest about sabotaging the health and 
security of the American people because it is politically expedient. A 
legitimate President does his job.
  The President's admission that he wants our healthcare system to 
collapse is a dangerous sign of where things are headed. For 7 years 
Republicans in Congress have rooted against healthcare in this country, 
cheering every stumble and working at every turn to hobble the law and 
make it harder for people to get affordable insurance. President Trump 
cannot repeal the Affordable Care Act on his own, but he can strip 
healthcare from millions of Americans and make it too expensive for 
millions more. He can do that all on his own. In fact, he is already 
working on it.
  A few days after he took office, President Trump signed an Executive 
order directing his agency to use every tool at their disposal to try 
to disrupt the Affordable Care Act. In January, he also pulled down 
government's efforts to get more people signed up for health insurance. 
Why? So fewer people would use the health exchanges, fewer would get 
insurance, and premiums would go up for those who did sign up--all in 
an effort to make ObamaCare fail.
  Senator Patty Murray and I asked the inspector general at the 
Department of Health and Human Services to investigate this reckless 
move, and now an independent investigation has been launched into this 
despicable incident. But the President has more tools at his disposal 
to undercut the Affordable Care Act all by himself. The President can 
redefine what insurance plans have to cover, stripping out critical 
benefits like birth control coverage. The President can withhold 
payments that insurers rely on to keep private health plans affordable. 
The President can allow States to put new conditions on Medicaid, 
conditions like taking away healthcare coverage if a woman doesn't get 
back to work soon enough after giving birth.
  If the President decides to launch an all-out effort to sabotage 
American healthcare so he can manufacture a crisis to score political 
points, he can hurt a lot of people.
  But there is a better way. If Republicans want to work on ideas to 
actually improve healthcare in America, to expand coverage, to expand 
access, or to reduce premiums and out-of-pocket costs, I am eager to 
throw up my sleeves and go to work. For years, Massachusetts has led 
the Nation in bipartisan health reform. We have lots to contribute on 
this, and lots of other Democrats are ready to get to work, too.
  The American people aren't stupid. They know the difference between a 
bill that kicks 24 million people off of their health insurance and a 
bill that actually improves care. They know the difference between a 
President who fights to make health care better and a President who 
plans to sabotage healthcare. They know the difference between a 
fireman and an arsonist. If this President and this Congress continue 
to play politics with the lives of millions of people, I promise you 
that the American people will see it, they will know it, and they will 
rise up once again to fight it.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I take the floor to urge an ``aye'' vote 
on invoking cloture on the issue of Montenegro's admittance into NATO. 
I would point out that 25 of the 28 nations in NATO have already voted 
in favor of Montenegro's accession into NATO. Only the United States, 
Spain, and the Netherlands have yet to weigh in.
  I would like to point out that Montenegro's admittance into NATO is a 
critical test of the alliances's open-door policy. I don't ask my 
colleagues to take my word for it. I would just like to point out that 
our Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, General Curtis Scaparrotti, 
last week declared

[[Page 4853]]

that Montenegro's accession into NATO is ``absolutely critical,'' that 
they have had this desire. They have met the map, and they understand 
NATO'S outreach and ability to bring in those who want to determine 
their own means of government and become part of NATO.
  If we were to lose this, it would be a setback to many of the other 
nations and peoples, particularly in Eastern Europe, who were looking 
forward to and have their eyes on the West and becoming part of NATO.
  I would point out to my colleagues that the Russians attach some 
importance to Montenegro because they tried a coup to overthrow the 
government. The Russians tried a coup to overthrow the government of 
this small, beautiful, and strategically important nation.
  I would just point out that our Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson, 
wrote a letter urging Montenegro's membership to be ratified, saying 
that it was ``strongly in the interests of the United States.'' In his 
letter he strongly emphasized that Montenegro's accession to NATO would 
support greater integration, democratic reform, trade, and security and 
stability in the entire Balkans region.
  I won't take too much time in the Senate except to say that I think 
this is more than an accession or non-accession of a small 750,000-
person nation. It is a test in this contest that we are now engaged in 
with Vladimir Putin, who has committed to extending the reach and 
influence of the Russian Government and Russian influence to the point 
where he attempted a coup to overthrow the freely elected government of 
Montenegro. That coup failed, but I can assure my colleagues that if we 
turn down Montenegro, it will not remain the democracy that it is 
today.
  General Breedlove, who is our former commander in Europe said:

       Montenegro is a very strategic place. Can you imagine A2/AD 
     Bubbles in Montenegro?

  I urge my colleagues for a resounding ``aye'' vote in bringing 
cloture to an end and bringing Montenegro into the community of NATO, 
which is needed more now than at any time since the end of the Cold 
War. I, also, by the way, recommend to my colleagues a visit to, 
really, one of the more beautiful countries on Earth.
  I yield for the Senator from South Carolina.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina is recognized.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, for one, I want to let the people of 
Montenegro know that this day has been a long time coming. We would not 
be here had it not been for Senator McCain's constant, persuasive, 
passionate voice, and this day has finally arrived in the Senate.
  As to Senator McConnell, I want to thank him for making floor time. I 
regret we had to do it this way, but when one Senator objects, then, it 
puts the pressure on the rest of us. One Senator can stop legislation 
like this. It was one Senator, and he has every right to do so. But I 
want to thank Senator McConnell for putting aside floor time so that we 
can vote in the Senate to allow Montenegro to be a part of NATO.
  Senator McCain has traveled the world as much as anybody I know. I 
have been to Montenegro with him at least once, if not twice. It is a 
beautiful place. They share our values. They want to move forward in 
terms of their democracy. They want to be part of NATO. They want to be 
part of free markets. They want the rule of law to replace the rule of 
the gun. Montenegro is trying to do everything that Putin hates--where 
you can actually vote for your own leaders, where you can have a 
judicial system that works, where people can walk the streets without 
fear, and where the leadership doesn't steal the country blind.
  I want to let the people of Russia know--for those who went into the 
streets yesterday or the day before to protest the corruption of the 
Putin regime--that you have my undying respect and admiration, because 
I can only imagine how hard that was.
  For the people of Montenegro, I know they have been waiting a long 
time for this day to come because Russia and, generally, Putin have 
been trying to overthrow their government.
  To those people in this body who proclaim they are for freedom and 
liberty, here is what I suggest. If you are not for other people's 
freedom and other people's liberty, you will eventually lose yours. The 
idea that we can be safe and free and not engage the world and sit on 
the sidelines and watch people like Putin turn the world order upside 
down and not be affected is at best naive. It is worse than naive, but 
I want to be nice and say it is just naive.
  What Putin is doing throughout the world is trying to break the backs 
of the world order, NATO, and the European Union. He is trying to drive 
a wedge between the NATO countries, and he will be the biggest 
beneficiary of that. He is trying to break the back of the European 
Union. Alliances of democracy are his worst nightmare. This is a huge 
step in the right direction.
  I want to thank Senator McCain for being the most consistent voice in 
this body, and Senators McConnell and Schumer for allowing this vote. 
But our work is not done because it is one thing to vote in favor of 
Montenegro's entering NATO over Russia's objections. That is not 
enough. Senator McCain and myself, Senators Cardin and Rubio--Democrats 
and Republicans--all have crafted legislation to punish Russia for 
interfering in our elections. And they did. They are trying to break 
the backs of democracy in Ukraine, Georgia, and the Baltic nations. I 
hope the next thing we do in this body, in short order, on Russia is to 
punish them for their efforts to interfere and change and destabilize 
American democracy. I don't think they changed the outcome, but it was 
the Russians who did this to the Democratic Party, and I think every 
Republican should be equally offended.
  I hope we can find some time on the floor, starting in the committee, 
to pass a Russia sanctions bill that, I believe, would get 80 votes. 
This is a great step in the right direction for people in Montenegro. 
It is a rebuke of Putin, but it is not enough.
  Again, I thank Senator McCain for his leadership toward the people in 
Montenegro, and I know he has been worried about what is happening in 
America. I hope he finds some comfort in what we are doing here today.
  I hope the rest of the world, particularly Europe, which is in the 
crosshairs of Putin, will understand that America is coming back and it 
is coming back strongly.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from South Carolina, 
particularly on the issue of Russian sanctions.
  Yesterday, we saw the people of Russia, particularly the younger 
people, demonstrating peacefully in the streets of the cities and towns 
throughout Russia in order to protest the corruption and dictatorship 
of Vladimir Putin. At the time, the leader of the opposition was 
jailed. He was in the process of putting together a study that showed 
that Medvedev, who was Putin's puppet, was one of the wealthiest people 
on Earth.
  I was heartened by the willingness and the courage of the people of 
Russia to stand up and protest a corrupt, dictatorial, and brutal 
government that, unfortunately, they are saddled with.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, one of my chief responsibilities as 
chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is to help protect 
the men, women, and institutions that keep America safe, including not 
only the State Department but the North Atlantic Treaty Alliance.
  NATO was founded in 1949 as an alliance that was committed to the 
collective defense of its members--that an attack on one constitutes an 
attack on all. The alliance's self-defense clause has only been invoked 
once, after 9/11, when our allies deployed with us to Afghanistan.
  Our militaries, in their working together, allow NATO to function. 
NATO members have committed to spending 2 percent of their GDPs on 
their militaries, but only the United Kingdom,

[[Page 4854]]

Estonia, Poland, Greece, and the United States currently hit that goal. 
While the other members are working on growing their defense budgets, I 
have long held the belief that they must do so faster.
  Regardless, part of what makes NATO great is its open doors. States 
that are interested in becoming allies are encouraged to join the 
Partnership for Peace. When those states then meet the criteria for 
membership, they are welcomed into the alliance.
  This process is exactly what occurred with Montenegro. Just after 
becoming an independent country in June of 2006, Montenegro joined the 
Partnership for Peace in December 2006. Exactly 3 years later, 
Montenegro obtained its Membership Action Plan. Six years after that, 
NATO recognized that Montenegro had met all of the necessary standards 
for membership and invited the country to begin talks to become part of 
the alliance. Then, in May of 2016, NATO's Foreign Ministers signed the 
protocol to formally open the way for Montenegro to join. As of today, 
every other NATO member has already ratified this treaty and 
Montenegro's inclusion.
  Beyond such procedural steps, Montenegro has long been contributing 
to shared security challenges. For example, Montenegro actively 
supported the NATO-led operation in Afghanistan from 2010 until its end 
in 2014 and now is supporting the follow-on mission to train, advise, 
and assist Afghan security forces. It is important to note that 
Montenegro has taken these steps despite Russia's best efforts to 
undermine their progress every step of the way.
  I thank Senator Ben Cardin; the Europe and Regional Security 
Cooperation Subcommittee chairman, Ron Johnson; and my other colleagues 
on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for their support and 
constructive work during this process.
  We have moved this treaty ratification twice now--once in the last 
Congress and again in January--to demonstrate our commitment to NATO 
and to Montenegro.
  I also thank Senator McCain, both as a former member of our committee 
as well as the chair of the Armed Services Committee, for his 
unwavering support in bringing Montenegro into the alliance.
  Lastly, on behalf of the committee, I urge all of my colleagues to 
support this treaty amendment that serves American security interests 
for a strong NATO.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, President Trump said in his inaugural 
address that we have defended other nations' borders while refusing to 
defend our own. I think he was right. Today, the question is, Will we 
add another commitment to defend yet another foreign country?
  For decades, NATO has been an organization in which the United States 
disproportionately spends our blood and our treasure. The other NATO 
countries have largely hitched a ride on a U.S. train that subsidizes 
their defenses and allows them to direct their revenues to their own 
domestic concerns. In short, Uncle Sam is the Uncle Patsy for the rest 
of the world.
  The question today is, Will adding to NATO another country with fewer 
than 2,000 soldiers be in our self-interest?
  It has fewer than 2,000 soldiers and is a small country in a distant 
part of the world. Will they make you sleep safer at night? The answer 
is an emphatic no.
  There is no national security interest that an alliance with 
Montenegro will advance. If we invite Montenegro into NATO, it will be 
a one-way street, with the United States committing to defending yet 
another country and with you, the taxpayer, being stuck with the bill.
  Even the advocates of Montenegro's joining NATO admit as much. The 
Senate hearing on admitting Montenegro to NATO was really just a 
punching session about Russia. Not one word was said about allowing 
Montenegro into NATO or how it would advance our own national security. 
We were going to send a message to Russia. Even the citizens of 
Montenegro are divided on this. About half of them want to be in NATO, 
and the other half does not want to be in NATO.
  But it is not really about them; it is about us. Is admitting 
Montenegro to NATO good for us? Our national security is our national 
security. Is Montenegro going to defend the United States? Are they of 
any importance to our national security or, perhaps, will they entangle 
us in local, historic, regional conflicts in the area?
  We must ask: Is Montenegro an asset to the defense of the United 
States? That is the question at hand.
  The answer is a simple one. Admitting Montenegro to NATO will do 
nothing to advance our national security, and it will do everything to 
simply add another small country to NATO's welfare wagon.
  Advocates for expanding NATO believe that, unless the whole world 
joins NATO, Russia will conquer the world, but the truth is more 
nuanced. During the Cold War, the myth of Russian might was endlessly 
circulated here at home, and the effect was the production of endless 
munitions and ever-expanding debt. You are still paying the tab for 
that. The Cold War ended, and the Soviet Union failed, not because our 
military might overcame them but because our economic system outlasted 
them. They were defeated. Capitalism defeated socialism.
  If there is one message that Americans should get, it is that 
capitalism is stronger than socialism. We should not flirt with 
political leaders in our country who promote what caused the Soviet 
Union to fail.
  Now we are told we must fear Russia again--fear the Russian bear. 
Yet, if you look closely, you will see that Russian aggression around 
the world and particularly around the former Soviet satellites is an 
attempt to mask a weak economy that runs the same risk of overextension 
that caused the Soviet Empire to collapse. Russia is weak. Russia is 
weak because of corruption, oligarchy, and human rights abuses. If 
Russia continues on this path, it may well encounter the same cataclysm 
that brought down the Soviet Empire.
  Without question, Russia is an adversary, a country that ignores 
international norms, does not respect the territorial integrity of its 
neighbors. Yet someone must ask: Is it in our national interest to 
insist that countries of the former Soviet Union be in NATO?
  The debate today is not just about Montenegro. The same cheerleaders 
for Montenegro's being in NATO want Ukraine in NATO and want Georgia in 
NATO. This is about NATO's expansion in general, and this is a chance 
to have a real debate.
  If both Ukraine and Georgia were in NATO today, we would be involved 
in a world war with Russia. Shouldn't someone speak up? Shouldn't we 
have some sort of national debate before we commit our sons and 
daughters to war in a faraway land?
  One thing is for certain: Russia will always care more about those 
lands than we will. Does that make Russian aggression right? Absolutely 
not.
  Our decision--the decision at hand--is: Are we willing to send our 
sons and daughters to fight in border disputes over Montenegro? Most 
Americans couldn't find Montenegro on the map. Are you willing to send 
your kids there to fight?
  That is what this is about, and this is sluffed over. They are going 
to forbid amendments. I forced this debate. Nobody wanted to have this 
debate. They want to rubberstamp it. They want no debates, and they 
want to send your kids to war with no debate. Today, they will pass 
this over my objections, but they will allow no amendments. When I 
finish this speech, I will ask for an amendment, and it will be denied 
because they do not want to debate whether your sons and daughters go 
to war. I find that appalling. I am ashamed of a Senate that will not 
have a debate and will not have a vote.
  From the very beginning, our Republic was founded on a deep suspicion 
of entangling alliances. Our Founders wanted to do everything possible 
to avoid the endless, chronic wars in Europe. In Europe, for centuries, 
Kings from one nation fought their brothers and their cousins in other 
nations. This

[[Page 4855]]

meaningless fratricide continued even into the 20th century.
  The Founding Fathers were emphatic in their desire to avoid endless 
war. Washington wrote that our true policy was to steer clear of a 
permanent alliance with any portion of the foreign world. Jefferson 
echoed this when he famously wrote of peace, commerce, and honest 
friendship with all nations and of entangling alliances with none.
  Even in modern times, such military heroes as President Eisenhower 
opposed intervention in Hungary, even when the naked aggression of the 
Soviets was appalling. Eisenhower likely may have had no real 
opportunity, though, because the Soviet Union had rolled in with 
200,000 troops and 4,000 tanks.
  At least part of the decision not to go into Hungary in the fifties 
was not for a lack of sympathy for freedom, not for a lack of sympathy 
for self-determination of a country. It was the real politic decision 
of a nuclear confrontation with a nuclear Russia.
  Fast-forward to today. For 16 years, we have been at war in the 
Middle East--16 years. If I had been here, I would have voted for going 
after the people who had attacked us on 9/11. Our justified response, 
though, has drug on and on. There are people who are fighting in the 
war who were not born on 
9/11. The Congress voted after 9/11 to go to war. It voted to go after 
the people who planned and plotted the attacks on the World Trade 
Center. That vote from 15 years ago is used to justify all war that is 
everywhere on the planet.
  There has been no meaningful debate on the wars we are currently 
involved in in the Middle East. We currently fight illegally and 
unconstitutionally in the Middle East because your representatives are 
afraid to have a public debate. They will stifle debate at all costs, 
and they will broker no amendments. They will allow no amendments to 
occur.
  Our unrestricted, unvoted-upon involvement in war everywhere informed 
my opposition to expand NATO. Everyone likes to talk about NATO's 
article 5 obligation to come to the defense of any NATO allies that are 
attacked. That is in the treaty. If Montenegro is attacked, we will 
have to respond, but my concern is that many in Congress believe that 
article 5, in saying that we have to defend Montenegro, farms out to an 
international body this power to declare war, and they do not think 
they have to vote again.
  You don't believe me?
  They have not voted for 15 years for war, and we are still at war. We 
continue to go to new countries for war with no vote. Do you think that 
Montenegro will not be attacked and that there will not be a war 
without a vote? This is their history. Their history is one of not 
obeying the Constitution. David Fromkin puts it this way: ``If it is 
now agreed by treaty that an attack on a . . . NATO ally is deemed an 
attack on the United States, then it can be argued that the President 
is empowered without congressional authorization to send us to war.''
  Don't believe me? We have been at war for 15 years. We have been at 
war with dozens of new tribes, dozens of new countries, with no votes 
on war.
  The most important vote a legislator will ever take is whether to go 
to war. Yet today we will vote for an automatic war if somebody invades 
Montenegro. And mark my words--they won't obey the Constitution. They 
will say: We voted to put them in NATO. Article 5 says we have to 
defend them.
  That is not the law of the land, and we should have to vote in 
Congress. But nobody obeys the law. So if you are worried about whether 
your kids will be sent to the Balkans or whether your kids will be sent 
to Ukraine or Georgia, call your representative and tell them: Stop.
  This is the crux of the debate. Congress has abdicated its role in 
declaring war. For 16 years, we have been at war in the Middle East 
with dozens of different tribes and dozens of countries and yet no 
vote. People say: Well, we should fight ISIS. Well, let's vote on it. 
Let's declare war or not. But you can't tell me that ISIS has anything 
to do with 9/11. They don't. Many of their fighters weren't even born 
then.
  The authorization for war in Iraq was specific to a specific enemy in 
a specific place. So was the authorization after 9/11. The 
authorization for war in Afghanistan was specific. It says: necessary 
and appropriate force against those who planned, authorized, committed, 
or aided the September 11 attacks. It was actually put in the 
authorization for force that it was about 9/11. None of what is going 
on is about 9/11 anymore. They are not the same people. Some of the 
people we are fighting now didn't like those people.
  There is a whole confusing set of religious wars that have been going 
on for 1,000 years in the Middle East. Yet your representatives will 
say: Send me your son, send me your daughter, but we don't have time to 
vote on whether it should be a declared war.
  This vote is now used to justify a war around the globe, a vote from 
9/11--from 15 years ago. It is a lie, and it is a disservice to our 
young men and women to have them fight under false pretenses where the 
Senators don't seem to have time to have a debate. No active war 
anywhere around the globe that the United States is involved with has 
been authorized by Congress.
  We dropped more bombs the other day in Pakistan. We sent a man right 
into Yemen. Raise your hand if you know what the hell is going on in 
Yemen and who is fighting whom and who is our enemy. The one we killed 
the other day was al-Qaida--probably a bad guy. He was actually 
fighting against the Houthis, whom we are also fighting against.
  Who are the good guys? Shouldn't we have a debate? Shouldn't we 
decide whether we are going to war in Yemen? Should we be giving the 
Saudis bombs? They bombed a funeral procession. They killed 150 
civilians and 500 people. We just let it go on. We keep giving them 
weapons. I have tried to stop selling bombs to the Saudi Arabians, but 
the majority up here says: Keep giving them to them. Keep giving them 
the weapons, and let them indiscriminately kill whoever the hell they 
want.
  So NATO--should we expand it? Perhaps what we should do is make it 
clear that the NATO treaty is not a blind, open-ended promise to go to 
war anywhere, anytime.
  Before we go to final passage, I will offer one amendment. This 
amendment will be blocked because they do not want debate and because 
they will be embarrassed if they have to vote against this amendment. 
But realize what this amendment asks. My amendment states that nothing 
in the NATO treaty--particularly the article 5 promise to come to the 
rescue of anyone attacked--none of this can happen without an official 
vote to declare war. So what is my amendment stating? The 
Constitution--article I, section 8--says we don't go to war without a 
vote and a debate. Do you know what they will do to get around it? I 
think we can assume that they are against the Constitution because they 
are not going to allow the amendment. How long would it take? It takes 
15 minutes to vote around here. I am about done speaking. We could have 
one 15-minute vote on an amendment. I would grant back the time if we 
would have a vote, but they don't want to debate it because they are 
embarrassed that they are sending your sons and daughters to war 
without ever debating or voting on it.
  This, to me, is a tragedy. It is sad to me. It makes me ashamed of 
the body that we will do this. Probably what is worse is then they 
clamor to the floor, their mouths agape, ajar, calling other people 
traitors, acting as if I care less about your sons and daughters 
because I want to have a debate on war before we go to war, preventing 
an amendment from happening and then having the gall to come to the 
floor and accuse their philosophic opponents of being traitors and 
being allies with the Russians.
  Is this what we have come to? Is this where we are as America, that 
you can't take a principled stand against war; that you can't stand up 
on principle and say: Are we really going to go to war over Montenegro, 
over Ukraine? Are we really going to go to war over Georgia? And then 
you are accused of not being patriotic to your country.
  I care as much as anybody about our soldiers. When I talk to our 
young men

[[Page 4856]]

and women who serve, do you know what they tell me? They want someone 
to stand up and have a debate. They will do what they are told. Our 
soldiers are brave, and they will go where they are told, and they will 
obey orders. But the people here who are these mouthpieces for war, who 
think every soldier wants to go to war, I suggest they go out and meet 
the soldiers and ask them whether they want the civilian Senators to 
debate and have a formal declaration of war. That is all I am asking 
for--15 minutes and an amendment that says we will obey the 
Constitution.
  If article 5 says we need to go to war and Montenegro is attacked, we 
will do the proper thing. We will come to the floor of the Senate. We 
are not sending troops to Montenegro without a vote on the floor of the 
Senate. Is that too much to ask for? We will see.
  Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 199 that says we should 
obey the Constitution and that we should declare war before we go to 
war.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Johnson). Is there objection to setting 
aside the pending amendment?
  Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I reserve the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I work very close with my friend from 
Kentucky. There were some awfully strong things that were just said. I 
don't think they were directed necessarily at me.
  I think there has been a little bit of an evolution here. I know that 
the reason we are having to go through this process of filibustering a 
treaty is the fact that the Senator from Kentucky wanted a vote on an 
unrelated amendment relative to surveillance here in our own country. 
When he was unable to get that agreement, he decided to filibuster a 
treaty. So that is what is happening here.
  I am interested to hear this evolution of why we are having this 
debate. Let me just say, having dealt with this issue firsthand--and I 
know he knows this--this filibuster is about something totally 
unrelated to the amendment that is being offered right now.
  I know the Senator from Kentucky, my friend, knows that I have 
offered authorizations for the use of force. I did so against Syria, 
and I am glad to have a debate on authorizations for the use of force, 
and I think we should. I know the administration is developing a 
strategy around ISIS right now, and when they complete that, it is my 
hope that we will, in fact, update the 2001 AUMF.
  I think it has been stated by past administrations that the 
authorization they are utilizing as it relates to ISIS is legal. I 
believe them to be correct. But I will say that I agree we ought to 
have another debate on the issue of authorizing the fight against ISIS, 
and I hope we will do so as soon as this administration completes the 
process of laying out what their plan is. Then we can debate that and 
then hopefully update that authorization. I don't know what that has to 
do with a treaty with Montenegro. There has been a lot that has been 
said, and I don't know how it necessarily ties together. But the fact 
is, when you enter into an article 5 treaty--which has, by the way, 
passed out of our committee on two occasions--you are, in fact, saying 
under article 5 that a war against one is a war against all and that we 
will come to their defense. So the amendment itself, if we were to vote 
on it, would basically negate that.
  I think the Senator from Kentucky could have had this vote, but the 
fact is that 98 Senators wanted to have this vote--have wanted to have 
this vote for months, I might add--and we have had to come to this 
point of filing cloture.
  So, with that, with good will toward the Senator, with good will 
toward the other 97 Senators here who would like to pass this 
posthaste, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, it is important to know what just happened. 
We closed off the debate, and as far as a filibuster goes, we are 
having a debate and a vote. What they wanted was a rubberstamp and an 
easy passage without debate. We are having a bit of a debate, and that 
is good. Unfortunately, we will not be allowed to amend the bill.
  My amendment is germane to the bill. It has to do with what article 5 
means in the treaty we are signing. What it says is that we will not 
necessarily take article 5 to mean that we are going to war, that we 
would do the constitutional duty, and that is to vote about whether we 
go to war. So the amendment is very clear that we would obey the 
Constitution.
  By blocking the vote, we have to realize that those blocking the vote 
have decided that really it should be automatic, that your sons and 
daughters will be sent to war automatically without a vote, without a 
declaration of war. You say: Well, maybe they don't mean that. Maybe 
they would obey the Constitution.
  They don't now. So everything in evidence shows us that the chance 
that in the future they will obey the Constitution is about zero. But 
so ashamed are they of the fact that we will fight more wars without a 
declaration, without a vote--they won't allow a vote on the amendment 
because they would be voting against the Constitution. So, instead, 
they will block the amendment.
  That is essentially what this debate is about: Are we automatically 
obligated to go to war without a vote by Congress? That is what the 
vote is about. It is incredibly germane. It goes to the heart of the 
bill. It goes to the heart of the NATO treaty. Does article 5 mean you 
automatically go to war, or would you go through the normal processes 
of going to war? Now, some will say: Oh, well, we would never go to 
war. It might not be so bad, but it would be difficult.
  Do you know when we have gone to war? We have actually gone 
unanimously when we have done it the right way. When we were attacked 
on 9/11 and they came to Congress, do you know what the vote was? 
Unanimous. We are not about letting people attack us as a country, and 
I would have voted for that.
  When we were attacked in Pearl Harbor, what did FDR do? The thing 
that great leaders would do--and I am not a huge fan always of FDR, but 
he did the right thing. He came to Congress the next day. I think it 
was on December 8 that they voted unanimously to go to war. That is the 
way it was done once upon a time.
  When you are attacked, people do rally to the country and they rally 
to the flag, but we shouldn't have an automatic stamp that says: We are 
going to war anywhere without any restraint, without any control or 
separation of power.
  So I object strenuously to this, and I wish we were more open in this 
body and in our country to a debate about when we are going to go to 
war.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, before I suggest the absence of a quorum, 
I would like to say that the Constitution calls for treaties to be 
enacted by this body, which is what we are doing today. Everybody 
understands what NATO is and has understood it since the late 1940s. 
This is the kind of treaty that we would like for other people to be a 
member of, and today Montenegro, which has gone through the full 
process of accession, hopefully will be passed through this body.
  This is the last country, by the way--every other country that is a 
member of NATO has voted to cause Montenegro to join NATO.
  I know my friend from Maryland, the ranking member, Senator Cardin, 
has just arrived. I know he has a few words to say. He is a strong 
supporter of Montenegro's accession, as is the vast majority of this 
Senate.
  I will let the comments from the Senator from Kentucky lie. We are 
doing our constitutional duty by passing a treaty that we all 
understood. It has been debated fully in committee. It has been passed 
out twice. I am glad we are doing so. The fact is, this has been 
blocked by one Senator who wanted to vote on something totally 
unrelated to this and was using this as leverage. That is what is 
occurring here, nothing else. We are finally, through cloture,

[[Page 4857]]

having a vote on something that the majority of people in the Senate 
want to pass.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 
7 minutes prior to the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I thank Chairman Corker for the manner in 
which this resolution of ratification has been handled in the Senate 
Foreign Relations Committee. It has been handled in a nonpartisan way. 
We have had hearings, we have had votes, we have had a lot of 
conversations about it, and at last we are going to get a chance to 
vote on the ratification. So I come to the floor to speak in support of 
this resolution of ratification regarding the Protocol to the North 
Atlantic Treaty of 1949 on the Accession of Montenegro.
  I have been a strong supporter of Montenegro's bid to join NATO. It 
will enhance our security, it will strengthen the alliance, and it will 
send a strong message of resolve to Russia as it invades its neighbors 
and seeks to upend the international order. Montenegro's inclusion in 
NATO will have positive repercussions across the continent and will 
send an important message of hope to aspirant countries.
  Last week, I met with Montenegro's Foreign Minister, and he described 
Russia's persistent efforts to weaken support for NATO membership in 
Montenegro. Last October, Russia interfered in the Montenegrin 
elections. There was a plot to assassinate the former Prime Minister of 
Montenegro and take over the Montenegrin Parliament. The suspects in 
that case scurried back to Moscow, and the Russian authorities refused 
to turn them over to the Montenegrins or even make them available for 
questioning in Moscow. To this day, Russian-supported NGOs and media 
propaganda continue to rail against Montenegro's NATO membership.
  Russia does not get a veto over decisions of the alliance. We need to 
send a strong message of resolve. This is not an isolated circumstance 
with Russia. We have seen how they interfered in our elections. We have 
seen what they are doing in Europe today.
  We see all these different activities by Russia, and we have to 
protect ourselves. One way we protect ourselves is by making our own 
decisions as to who should be admitted into NATO. Another is that we 
should have an independent commission take a look at what Russia was 
doing in their interference with our elections and what they are trying 
to do in trying to compromise our democratic system of government. I 
think the events that occurred in recent weeks of additional contacts 
that Russia made with members of the Trump administration just 
underscore the importance for that independent commission to take a 
look at what happened.
  I stand here today in support of NATO enlargement. The Senate Foreign 
Relations Committee recently voted by voice vote in support of this 
bid--unanimously, Democrats and Republicans. This is not a partisan 
issue. We have had a request from the President to take up this issue. 
Nearly all NATO members have approved Montenegro's bid. We are among 
the last to ratify, and we must get the job done. Tonight, we can take 
a major step forward in that regard.
  What is the case for Montenegro's membership? Admission of Montenegro 
would mark another important step forward, fully integrating the 
Balkans into international institutions that have helped to contribute 
to peace and stability over the years in Europe. Croatia and Albania 
joined the alliance in 2009 and have been valuable contributors to 
accomplishing NATO's objectives since then. I hope that Montenegro's 
admission will help them motivate the reforms necessary for other 
Balkan countries to join.
  Montenegro has made outsized contributions to NATO missions, despite 
not being a full member. I understand that in Afghanistan, Montenegro 
has rotated 20 percent of its armed forces through the ISAF and the 
resolute support missions. Twenty percent of their force--that is a 
substantial contribution. It also contributed to the peacekeeping 
mission in Kosovo and other NATO missions.
  No country outside the alliance gets a veto over who gets to join, 
especially Russia. So we must send a strong signal. I urge my 
colleagues to pass this resolution and get it to the President so the 
President can deposit the instrument of ratification at NATO in support 
of Montenegro's bid. I urge my colleagues to support the mission.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.


                             Cloture Motion

  Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory 
quorum call be waived.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate the pending 
cloture motion, which the clerk will state.

                             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 K. 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.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the 
Protocol to the North Atlantic Treaty of 1949 on the Accession of 
Montenegro shall be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Georgia (Mr. Isakson).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Moran). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 97, nays 2, as follows:

                       [Rollcall Vote No. 97 Ex.]

                                YEAS--97

     Alexander
     Baldwin
     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Booker
     Boozman
     Brown
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cassidy
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coons
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cortez Masto
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Donnelly
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Feinstein
     Fischer
     Flake
     Franken
     Gardner
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Harris
     Hassan
     Hatch
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Johnson
     Kaine
     Kennedy
     King
     Klobuchar
     Lankford
     Leahy
     Manchin
     Markey
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Perdue
     Peters
     Portman
     Reed
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sanders
     Sasse
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Scott
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Stabenow
     Strange
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Udall
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden
     Young

                                NAYS--2

     Lee
     Paul
       

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Isakson
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 97, the nays are 2.
  Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in 
the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lankford). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

[[Page 4858]]


  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today in favor of the resolution 
of ratification for Montenegro's accession to the North Atlantic Treaty 
Organization, better known as NATO.
  Many of my colleagues are unaware of the fact that the State of Maine 
has a special relationship with Montenegro. It is through the National 
Guard State Partnership Program.
  I thank the majority leader, Senator McConnell, Chairman Corker, 
Senator McCain, the Democratic leadership, Senator Johnson, Senator 
Murphy, and all of those who were instrumental in bringing this 
resolution to the floor for consideration today.
  Montenegro's accession to NATO will serve the strategic interests of 
the United States, it will help to promote stability in the Balkans, 
and it will make us safer. Montenegro has already proven its support 
for American interests, having sent troops to Afghanistan in support of 
NATO- and U.S.-led operations there. Although not yet a member of the 
European Union, Montenegro also voluntarily joined the EU sanctions 
regime against Russia in response to Moscow's illegal annexation of 
Crimea and destabilizing actions in eastern Ukraine. Most important, I 
have great confidence that Montenegro will meet the collective defense 
obligations of NATO membership.
  For the past 10 years, with the assistance of the Maine National 
Guard through the State Partnership Program, Montenegro has worked hard 
to reform its military and to strengthen the rule of law to come into 
compliance with NATO requirements, as defined in NATO's Membership 
Action Plan. Even today, Maine National Guard members are deployed to 
Montenegro to assist its Ministry of Defense in furthering its 
integration into NATO standards and processes.
  I want to take this opportunity to express my appreciation to all of 
the members of the Maine National Guard who have participated in this 
operation, including the former and current adjutant general, GEN Bill 
Libby and GEN Doug Farnham, as well as our current guardsman stationed 
in Montenegro, Army CPT Nicolas Phillips. All of them have worked very 
hard during the past 10 years to help Montenegro get ready for this 
highly significant moment.
  We must be clear-eyed about the fact that the Russian Federation has 
undertaken an extensive overt and covert campaign to derail 
Montenegro's bid to join NATO. These efforts include a brazen plot to 
disrupt Montenegro's elections last October and to turn the public 
against the pro-NATO ruling government there. According to Montenegro's 
special prosecutor assigned to the investigation, at least two Russian 
intelligence officers actively participated in this plot, which 
fortunately was disrupted.
  Ratifying Montenegro's NATO membership demonstrates our firm resolve 
against Russia's efforts to deny other countries the opportunity to 
participate in NATO free from outside interference. That is why the 
Supreme Allied Commander for Europe and NATO testified just last week 
before the Senate Armed Services Committee that it is ``absolutely 
critical'' that Montenegro join NATO.
  As President Trump prepares to travel to the NATO leaders' summit in 
Brussels at the end of May, I can think of no better action for the 
Senate to have taken ahead of his visit than our action tonight to 
finally ratify Montenegro's membership in NATO. In the meantime, I also 
look forward to the continued special relationship between Montenegro 
and the great State of Maine.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  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. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________