[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 163 (2017), Part 4]
[Senate]
[Pages 4923-4931]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




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

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  (The remarks of Mr. Flake pertaining to the introduction of S. 745 
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SASSE. 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the quorum call be rescinded.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. SASSE. Mr. President, I rise to comment briefly on Russian 
interference in the electoral processes in this country and across the 
West and governments of many of Russia's own neighbors.
  We are in the middle of a civilization warfare crisis of public trust 
in this country. This isn't about the last 2 months. This isn't just 
about the last Presidential election. This is fundamentally about the 
last few decades of declining public trust in a broad range of our 
institutions: the press, political parties, executive branch agencies, 
the Congress, and beyond.
  Russia is not unaware of our own distrust of each other. Russia is 
not unaware of our own increasing self-doubt about our shared values. 
Russia is today very self-consciously working to further erode 
confidence in our self-government by pulling at the threads of our 
public and civic life. Moscow's influence campaigns don't start by 
creating wholly new problems out of thin air, but rather by exploiting 
fissures that already exist in our civilization. The simplest way for 
Russia to try to weaken us is by trying to exploit the places where we 
are already weak, the places where we are already distrustful, and the 
places where we are failing to pass along a shared understanding of 
American values to the next generation.
  The sad state of modern politics and the explosion of digital media 
are proving to be ripe targets for many of our own internal doubts and 
our own discord. We--all of us, Republicans and Democrats, the 
legislature and the executive branch--are ill-prepared for the 
challenges that are already on our doorstep, let alone what comes next 
with the acceleration of these kinds of technologies.
  Today in the Wall Street Journal, we in this body were rebuked--
rightly rebuked, I think, and rebuked in a bipartisan way by former 
Congressman Mike Rogers. Chairman Rogers, a Republican, served as the 
Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee from 2011 through 2015. I 
am going to read his op-ed rebuke into the Record today, but I would 
humbly ask that all 100 Members of this body calmly and self-critically 
consider carefully Chairman Rogers' argument, for his argument is not 
fundamentally against Republicans alone. It is not against Democrats 
alone. He is offering double-barreled criticism of all of us in the 
Congress--criticism of both parties. Why of both parties? Because 
Russia's influence campaign is a really big deal. Are we Republicans 
listening? Also, because our response to Russia's influence campaign is 
not primarily about

[[Page 4924]]

who you supported last November in the Presidential election.
  Listening to the Democrats, it is sometimes hard to understand if 
that side of the aisle remembers that basic fact about what Russia's 
influence campaign was up to. Russia's goals in our most recent 
election were not initially about one candidate versus another 
candidate. We need to underscore this. There are particulars that those 
of us who spend time reading classified intelligence know we can't 
discuss in this unclassified setting. But the big, broad point is 
simple and needs to be shouted, and that is that Putin's fundamental 
goals are about undermining NATO. Putin's fundamental goals are about 
making us doubt our own values: freedom of speech, freedom of religion, 
freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, the right of protest or 
redress of grievances.
  The Kremlin isn't attempting an influence campaign to make Americans 
believe that the sky is green or the grass is blue. He is trying to 
undertake an influence campaign to make us doubt our own First 
Amendment values. The Kremlin wants us to believe that our society is 
as corrupt as the thugocracy that Putin and his cronies are trying to 
advance. That isn't true, but if you listen to us in this body, we 
regularly do very little to restore the kind of public trust that Putin 
is actively working to undermine.
  So I ask that each Member of this body would humbly and carefully 
consider Chairman Rogers' rebuke to the Congress this morning. This is 
from the Wall Street Journal, Chairman Rogers; headline: ``America is 
Ill-Prepared to Counter Russia's Information Warfare.''

       When historians look back at the 2016 election, they will 
     likely determine that it represented one of the most 
     successful information operation campaigns ever conducted. A 
     foreign power, through the targeted application of cyber 
     tools to influence America's electoral process, was able to 
     cast doubt on the election's legitimacy, engender doubts 
     about the victor's fitness for office, tarnish the outcome of 
     the vote, and frustrate the new President's agenda.
       Historians will also see a feckless Congress--both 
     Democrats and Republicans--that focused on playing partisan 
     ``gotcha'' and fundamentally failed in its duty to gather 
     information, hold officials accountable, and ultimately serve 
     our country's interests.
       Whether or not the Trump campaign or its staff were 
     complicit in Moscow's meddling is missing the broader point: 
     Russia's intervention has affected how Americans now view the 
     peaceful transition of power from one president to the next. 
     About this we should not be surprised. Far from it.
       Propaganda is perhaps the second- or third-oldest 
     profession. Using information as a tool to affect outcomes is 
     as old as politics. Propaganda was familiar to the ancient 
     Greeks and Romans, the Byzantines, and the Han Dynasty. Each 
     generation applies the technology of the day in trying to 
     influence an adversary's people.
       What's new today is the reach of social media, the 
     anonymity of the internet, and the speed in which falsehoods 
     and fabrications can propagate. Twitter averaged 319 million 
     monthly users in the fourth quarter of 2016. Instagram had 
     600 million accounts at the end of last year. Facebook's 
     monthly active users total 1.86 billion--a quarter of the 
     global population. Yet each of these staggering figures 
     doesn't fully capture the internet's reach.
       In February, Russia's minister of defense, Sergey Shoigu, 
     announced a realignment in its cyber and digital assets. ``We 
     have information troops who are much more effective and 
     stronger than the former `counter-propaganda' section,'' Mr. 
     Shoigu said, according to the BBC. Russia, more than any 
     other country, recognizes the value of information as a 
     weapon. Moscow deployed it with deadly effect in Estonia, in 
     Georgia and most recently in Ukraine, introducing doubt into 
     the minds of locals, spreading lies about their politicians, 
     and obfuscating Russia's true intentions.
       A report last year by RAND Corporation, ``The Russian 
     `Firehose of Falsehood' Propaganda Model,'' noted that cyber 
     propaganda is practically a career path in Russia now. A 
     former paid troll told Radio Free Europe that teams were on 
     duty around the clock in 12-hour shifts and he was 
     [personally] required to post at least 135 comments of not 
     fewer than 200 characters each.
       In effect, Moscow has developed a high-volume, multichannel 
     propaganda machine aimed at advancing its foreign and 
     security policy. Along with the traditional propaganda 
     tools--favoring friendly outlets and sponsoring ideological 
     journals--this represents an incredibly powerful [new] tool.
       Now [let's] extrapolate that one step further: Apply 
     botnets, artificial intelligence and other next-generation 
     technology. The result will be automated propaganda, rapid 
     spamming and more. We shouldn't be surprised to see [more] of 
     this in the future.
       Imagine [if you will] an American Senator who vocally 
     advocates a new strategic-forces treaty with European allies.

  Pausing from the article for a minute--it is interesting to note that 
is the debate we are actually having in the Senate today. We are 
talking about expanding NATO to include Montenegro.
  Picking back up:

       Moscow, feeling threatened, launches a directed information 
     campaign to undermine the senator. His emails are breached 
     and published, disclosing personal details and family 
     disputes, alongside draft policy papers without context. 
     Social media is spammed with seemingly legitimate comments 
     opposing the senator's policy position. The senator's phone 
     lines are flooded with robocalls. Fake news articles are 
     pushed out on Russian-controlled media suggesting that the 
     Senator has probably broken campaign-finance laws.
       Can you imagine the disruption to American society? The 
     confusion in the legislative process? The erosion of trust in 
     democracy? Unfortunately, this is the reality the U.S. faces 
     [next], and without a concerted effort it will get [much] 
     worse.
       Congress is too focused on the trees to see the frightening 
     forest. Rather than engaging in sharp-edged partisanship, 
     lawmakers should be investigating Russian propaganda 
     operations and information warfare. They should be figuring 
     out how to reduce the influence of foreign trolls, and 
     teaching Americans about Moscow's capabilities. This would go 
     a long way [toward saving] the republic.

  That is the end of the op-ed. Again, this was Chairman Mike Rogers, 
who led the House Intelligence Committee from 2011 to 2015, writing an 
op-ed in the Wall Street Journal this morning.
  Here is what he is really saying. What he is saying is that America 
has a future in foreign policy and national security and global 
security that is going to have a lot more propaganda, and a body like 
this--the Congress generally, but the Senate in particular--has an 
obligation to help make sure the American people understand Moscow's 
capabilities and their intentions.
  Their intentions are to make us doubt our values. Their intentions 
are to make us doubt our investment in NATO, the most successful 
military alliance of last 2,000 years. Their intentions are to exploit 
the ways that we already distrust each other in ways that should be 
Republican versus Democratic policy, fighting about particular forms of 
government intervention and the economy, for instance, but that are 
subordinate to fundamental American beliefs about who we are as a 
people and the things that we believe together before we are 
Republicans and Democrats.
  But if you listen to this body right now, would you have much 
confidence that the American people hear people who come together and 
believe things that are prepolitical and prepartisan first? Do we have 
shared American values that we know how to trumpet? Do we have ways to 
celebrate the things that fundamentally make us Americans well before 
we are Republicans or Democrats?
  I worry that if you watch cable news any given night right now, you 
would not, as an American citizen, have that as a takeaway. Instead, 
you would hear Americans saying--American public listeners and viewers 
to those radio shows and cable shows thinking that the great divide in 
the world is between Republicans and Democrats. That is actually not 
true.
  By voting record, I am the third most conservative guy around here 
out of 100, so I care deeply about Republican versus Democratic answers 
to most of the policy fights we have. But those things are radically 
subordinate to the things we believe in common about the dignity of 
people who are created with rights. The government doesn't give us 
rights. God gives us rights by nature, and we come together as a 
government to secure those rights. The rights of free speech, press, 
assembly, and religion are fundamentally American things well before we 
get to any of our policy bickering.
  Yet, if the Americans listen to us in the Congress most days or most 
weeks or most months, I bet their takeaway is that Republican versus 
Democrat is the great divide, and we shouldn't trust anybody across 
that aisle.

[[Page 4925]]

  Well, guess what. That is exactly what Putin is trying to do. His 
fundamental objective is to make Americans doubt our own values and to 
doubt our own civilization so that we fight with each other first, 
instead of agreeing as Americans first then fighting about a bunch of 
important policy things--but first agreeing who we are as Americans.
  The future that we face is a future where there is going to be a lot 
more propaganda that tries to exploit our internal divisions to begin 
with. It makes it all the more critical that a body like this exists to 
help 320 million Americans with a lot of diversity and a lot of 
disagreement about really important things. They ought to trust that an 
institution like this exists to restore some sense of those shared 
values and exists to restore some of that shared trust. Right now that 
is not usually what they take away from us in the Congress. So I call 
on the 100 Members of this Senate to consider carefully Chairman 
Rogers' rebuke of us this morning in the Wall Street Journal.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hoeven). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, I am on the floor to speak in favor of the 
pending business before the Senate--to allow for Montenegro to join 
NATO as a new member. I have been a proponent of this move for a long 
time, having spent time in Montenegro and having chaired for a period 
of time the Europe and Regional Security Cooperation Subcommittee of 
the Foreign Relations Committee, now serving Senator Johnson as his 
ranking member.
  I am convinced that NATO will be stronger if Montenegro joins. I am 
convinced that our alliance will be stronger if Montenegro joins. It is 
a small country with a very small military, but it occupies an 
incredibly important space on the world map. It is the only part of the 
Adriatic coast that breaks up the current NATO map, and it will provide 
a strengthening of our alliance in that region.
  Montenegro is ready. It has made significant progress on internal 
reform, especially in the area of the rule of law and security sector 
reform. The Ministry of Defense has met all of the requirements for 
NATO membership. It is moving to modernize its military. It is moving 
to try to operationalize itself in a way that it can interact with both 
U.S. and European equipment. It is replacing its aircraft that 
previously had required Russian spare parts so that they are more 
compatible with European and American air equipment. There is still 
work that Montenegro needs to do, but now it can continue under the 
umbrella of the alliance.
  I am very happy that we are taking an important step here to signal 
that NATO's open-door policy is still in practice. I think there was 
some doubt, frankly, and some concern, after years and years of 
Montenegro's desire to join amidst the interest from Georgia and prior 
to the crisis in Ukraine, that some of these transatlantic institutions 
were closing down. This is a sign that NATO is not only viable but is 
still open to those countries that want to join, that want to find 
additional safety and security under our umbrella. I am glad we are 
going to have a bipartisan vote here in favor of Montenegro's joining 
NATO.
  I want to make a broader point about our future policy in the 
Balkans. It was not that long ago that it was a precondition, if you 
were a Member of Congress, to be an expert on the Balkans. The United 
States was at war in the Balkans, as were Russia and our European 
allies. It was the hottest spot on the globe. Thanks to U.S. military 
might as well as diplomatic might, the Dayton Peace Accords brought 
peace and relative economic prosperity to a region of the globe that 
has been, frankly, at the center of almost every major conflict in and 
around Europe over the greater part of the last 100 years. It is a 
moment to celebrate this period of political and security stability in 
the Balkans and to remember that we should not take it for granted. 
There are still festering ethnic and nationalist tensions that play out 
every day in the Balkans. We see them in small ways.
  When I was there, a drone with a map of greater Albania dropped down 
into the middle of a football match between the Serbian national team 
and the Albanian national team, which was a deliberate attempt to 
inflame the Serbians. It seemed like a small thing, but it resulted in 
the cancelation of a historic meeting between the Prime Minister of 
Albania and the Prime Minister of Serbia.
  Just recently, we have seen some breakdown in the progress Serbia and 
Kosovo had been making to try to resolve their differences, resulting 
ultimately, we hope--we believe--in the recognition of Kosovo's 
statehood by the Serbian Government, which is a reminder that bringing 
Montenegro into NATO is important for the alliance's sake, but it is 
also an important step in continuing to make investments in security in 
the Balkans.
  It is important for a second reason in that there is another player 
out there that is desperately trying to make the Balkans less stable, 
and that is Russia. For a very long time, Russia has had legitimate 
interests in the Balkans. They have relations with the people of the 
Balkan nations, as well as with those governments, but today they have 
an interest in trying to destabilize that region, to create a crisis 
for Europe, to create a crisis for NATO.
  As we all know, Russia fills vacuums of power better than almost any 
other player out there. Whether or not we like it, as Members of the 
Senate, there is an enormous vacuum in the world right now that is 
created by the withdrawal of America. Without a robust State 
Department, without coherent U.S. foreign policy, we are just not 
players in the world today like we were a year ago. Example A may be 
the Balkan region.
  The Balkans require attention because there are these simmering 
potential conflicts, and the United States has been a force for good 
but in ways that most Americans probably do not even know. It required 
the constant attention from Vice President Biden, Secretary of State 
Kerry, and Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland to make sure 
that the Balkans--in particular, the western Balkans--continued their 
move toward Europe and rejected offers from Russia for a different kind 
of alignment. Weekly big and small interventions allowed the Balkan 
nations to feel comfort in a future with Europe and with the United 
States. That intervention, that attention, has, frankly, just 
disappeared, and the Russians have filled that vacuum.
  There was a coup attempt in Montenegro. You do not see a lot of coup 
attempts these days in countries in and around Europe, but there was an 
attempt to storm the Parliament--an attempt that has been connected to 
Russian nationals. Those Russian nationals, according to Montenegro, 
have connections directly with the Russian Government. That has not 
been confirmed yet, but it is incredibly disturbing to know that 
Russian nationals were behind an attempted military coup inside 
Montenegro.
  We have seen a much tighter joining of the leaders of the Republika 
Srpska and Russian interests and operatives in a move toward a 
referendum for independence in the Republika Srpska, which is a 
component of Bosnia and Herzegovina. It looks suspiciously like the 
kind of independence referendums that have threatened to take place in 
parts of Ukraine and Luhansk and Donetsk.
  There are reports that the same players who are trying to fund and 
operationalize independent referendums in Ukraine are also at work 
inside Serbia--players with connections back to the Kremlin.
  There are reports of a massive increase in Russian media presence in 
the Balkans--more offers from Russian TV stations and radio stations to 
provide free content to cash-strapped Balkan media outlets.

[[Page 4926]]

  There are over 100 different nonprofit organizations in Serbia alone, 
according to one report, that have financial connections back in and 
through Russia.
  Russia is filling this vacuum in the Balkans. It is trying to win 
friends and trying to create an instability that ultimately would land 
at the doorstep of NATO, at the doorstep of Europe, and at the doorstep 
of the United States. They are filling that vacuum because we do not 
have a presence there today.
  Secretary Tillerson has no meaningful experience in the Balkans. He 
has no Deputy and he has no Assistant Secretary for the Balkans. When 
you pair that next to a proposal that Secretary Tillerson endorses 
cutting his budget by 40 percent, you will make America relatively 
feckless in that region because it is those funds that the 
administration is seeking to cut that are often our linkages to 
influence.
  In Belgrade, our Ambassador has made enormous progress with a small 
amount of money for exchange programs. You look at people in powerful 
positions in Serbia today, and many of them are close to the United 
States because they have participated in State Department exchange 
programs. They have spent time here in the United States getting to 
know our country, maybe getting educated here, and they have gone back 
to Serbia to be part of the government in order to represent Serbian 
interests but with a connection to the United States and to the West 
that is important. Those exchange programs are basically eviscerated by 
a 40-percent cut. They will not exist any longer. It is a very small 
program, but it has not only gotten us important results in the 
Balkans, it has contributed to our ability to argue for stability and 
to argue for the calming of tensions because it gets doors opened for 
the United States.
  Without anybody being on call for the State Department in the 
Balkans, without any funding in order to try to promote stability and 
economic connections between those countries, we cede ground to Russia 
every single day. Russia sees vacuums, and they fill them, and we have 
created them. We have created a vacuum globally, but we have created a 
specific vacuum in the Balkans. It is filled in part by this movement 
to join Montenegro with NATO.
  I do appreciate the fact that Secretary Tillerson, I believe, and 
Secretary Mattis have both recommended to this body that we take up 
this matter. I think that was important, and I applaud them for 
standing against the recommendations of the Russian Government and for 
the accession of Montenegro into NATO, but it is not enough.
  I wanted to come to this floor--and I see my great friend and 
colleague from Ohio, who is ready to speak--to make the case as to why 
this is so important and to make the case that as Russia tries to view 
Montenegro as an opportunity to establish a Kaliningrad on the 
Mediterranean, we can prevent its happening with this vote and with the 
vote of our European allies to join Montenegro with NATO, but it is not 
enough. We have to remember that stability in the Balkans is nothing to 
be taken for granted. The next global crisis may come from a small act 
of tension between neighbors that spins out of control, in part because 
the United States is not paying attention and because Russian 
intervention in the region, which is bigger and broader now than ever 
before, has an interest not in stability but actually ultimately in 
instability.
  I thank Leader McConnell for bringing this before the body. This is a 
chance for us to join together in supporting Montenegro as it joins 
NATO. Hopefully, there will be more opportunities for us to work 
together to make sure that this administration, to make sure that our 
country has a comprehensive policy to continue to build on the NATO 
peace accords and double down on the work we do to promote long-term 
stability and prosperity in the Balkan region.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, first I want to thank my colleague for 
coming to the floor today to speak about Montenegro and the importance 
of its accession into NATO, as well as for his focus on the Balkans and 
for his comment that right now the people of the Balkans and, for that 
matter, the people in Ukraine and other countries in eastern Southern 
Europe are feeling a lot of pressure. I applaud him for working on a 
bipartisan basis over the last couple of years to help us push back 
against some of the disinformation and propaganda that is primarily 
being promoted by Russia.
  In each of these countries--and I know my colleague Senator Murphy 
has visited these countries--the first issue I hear about when I go on 
a trip to Latvia, where I went recently, and certainly Ukraine and even 
Poland is concern about this sort of unrelenting campaign of 
disinformation, as we call it; maybe the other term would be 
``propaganda.'' We do need to stand up and be counted. The new 
department of global engagement at the State Department is beginning to 
do that. I know Senator Murphy has had some meetings recently--and I 
have, too--where they are starting to get their feet on the ground and 
being able to allow people to be able to see the objective truth; in 
other words, to sort of separate narratives from reality, to be able to 
ensure that we don't have an undermining of these great democracies--
these fledgling democracies, many of them.
  So we are talking today, as my colleague from Nebraska did earlier, 
about the meddling in our own election here and the effect it is having 
on the level of trust in this country, and this is true not just here 
but in other democracies. I appreciate Senator Murphy standing up and 
being counted on that issue and then today specifically being able to 
help Montenegro to have the opportunity to develop its own 
institutions. As I said, it is not perfect, but they have made 
progress, they have made reforms, and they have followed the directions 
many of us have given them to enable them to be responsible members of 
NATO. So I thank Senator Murphy for being here today and talking about 
that.


                            Read Aloud Month

  Mr. President, I am actually speaking out today about another issue, 
which is one that is a little closer to home, and that is about the 
importance of reading to our kids. It turns out that this month of 
March has been designated as Read Aloud Month, and this group called 
Read Aloud is doing fantastic work around the country. They actually 
started in my hometown of Cincinnati, OH, so I am a little biased about 
them, but what they are doing is incredibly important. It is about 
education, it is about the economy, and more importantly, it is about 
the lives of young people around the country and the ability to achieve 
their dreams. It is about child literacy.
  Here is the information. Elementary schools and libraries are talking 
about this more and more back home. If you read to your kids when they 
are young, they will have a much better chance of succeeding in life. 
According to a study that dates back to 1995--kind of a famous study--
by the time a child born into poverty reaches age 3, he or she has 
heard 30 million fewer words than his or her peers. Let me repeat that. 
A kid who is born into poverty is going to hear 30 million fewer words 
by the time he or she is 3 years old. Why does that matter? Why does 
this word gap, as they call it, matter? Well, it matters because it 
turns out these verbal skills, like other skills, develop as they are 
used, and if they are not used, they don't develop. So a lot of kids 
who already have the challenge of growing up in poverty are also 
burdened with the disadvantage of not developing these verbal skills. 
That makes it harder for them to get good grades, harder for them to 
develop social skills, and harder for them to get a good job and 
ultimately to be able to live out their dreams.
  I know Washington, DC, may be the only place on Earth where 30 
million sounds like a small number, but it is a big number. It makes a 
huge difference. This word gap leads to an achievement gap later in 
life based on all the studies. Experts tell us that a child's 
vocabulary is reflective of his or

[[Page 4927]]

her parents' vocabulary. It makes sense. Kids learn what they see and 
what they hear.
  There is a 2003 study by Elizabeth Martin and Tom Risley studying 
word gaps which found that by age 3, before even reaching school age, 
children's ``trends in the amount of talk, vocabulary growth, and style 
of interaction were well established and clearly suggest widening gaps 
to come.'' So having poor reading skills makes it harder to make a 
living, it affects self-esteem, and it makes life more difficult in so 
many small ways. Think about this: unable to read a manual when you buy 
something, unable to read a list of ingredients, unable to read a 
newspaper to understand what is going on, to be online.
  Millions of our friends and neighbors are struggling with these 
consequences every day. According to the Department of Education, about 
32 million adults in this country can't read. Think about that. That is 
a group nearly 3 times the size of the State of Ohio and maybe 25 to 30 
times the size of the Presiding Officer's State--32 million. Too many 
of these adults, of course, started off life with the disadvantage of 
this word gap, and they never caught up.
  That is why this Read Aloud Month is so critical. Parents and other 
caretakers need to know they can steer their child in a better 
direction--develop vocabulary skills and end the word gap just by 
reading aloud to them.
  Developing these skills, according to experts, affects the biology of 
the brain. Dr. Tzipi Horowitz-Kraus of Cincinnati Children's Hospital--
a great institution in my hometown and one of the top three children's 
hospitals in the country, based on U.S. News and World Report. Anyway, 
he is an expert on this topic, and this is what he said: ``The more you 
read to your child, the more you help the neurons in the brain to grow 
and connect.'' So it is physiological.
  Dr. Kim Noble, a brain scientist at Columbia University, has found 
that this word gap actually translates into a brain-sized gap in the 
areas dealing with language.
  Dr. Dana Suskind of the University of Chicago has found that more 
than 80 percent of a child's brain development occurs by age 3--80 
percent--and the effects of the word gap are detected in brain 
development in babies as young as 9 months old. These aren't children; 
these are babies. Doctor Suskind says that by reading aloud, every 
parent has the ability to grow their child's brain.
  So certainly before a child can read, before a child can even speak, 
it is important to be speaking to that child. Think about that. Think 
about the impact you can have. So get out a book and do some reading to 
a child, a grandchild, someone who is in the neighborhood, one of your 
kids. Do it tonight.
  Sometimes when I talk about this, people say: Well, Rob, parenting is 
pretty tough. Everybody is busy. Some people are working two shifts. 
Both parents are working. Where do you make time for this? Here is my 
answer to that: Fifteen minutes a day. That is the goal here. Fifteen 
minutes a day makes a huge difference to be able to close that gap.
  Others say: We can't afford it. How do you afford to buy these books 
if you are going to read all the time? To me, that is pretty simple. 
Buy a library card. They are free, usually. If not, they are cheap. You 
don't need a lot of new books, but you do need a library card, and that 
is very helpful. They helped Jane and me to be able to have books to 
read to our kids.
  Again, I am very proud Ohio has led on this issue. In 2008, this 
group Read Aloud was started in Cincinnati, OH. It has now become a 
national movement. It has more than 10,000 grassroots partners--
including daycare facilities, schools and libraries, and rotary clubs--
in all 50 States.
  So what can you do to help? I would say that this issue is not going 
to be found here in this body. It is not about Washington, DC, doing 
anything except encouraging people to do what makes sense, which is to 
spend time with your kid, to ensure that if you have a kid in school, 
that you know that kid gets the right start in life, to ensure that 
everybody has the ability to have a successful life.
  Senator Harris and I introduced a resolution about this recently in 
the U.S. Senate. It is called the Read Aloud Month resolution. It 
encourages parents and caregivers to read to their kids for 15 minutes 
a day. We are asking our colleagues on both sides of the aisle, 
Republican and Democratic, to sign off on that resolution. That would 
help raise the visibility of this issue.
  Again, I hope everybody listening today takes the opportunity to 
follow up, to read to a kid, to help ensure they can close that words 
gap in their lives and therefore have a better chance of getting better 
grades, getting a better job, and achieving whatever their dream is in 
life.
  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. JOHNSON. 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. JOHNSON. Mr. President, as chairman of the Subcommittee on Europe 
and Regional Security Cooperation, I rise today to support Montenegro's 
accession to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, also known as 
NATO.
  NATO is a defensive alliance founded in 1949 to provide collective 
security against the threat posed by the Soviet Union. Although the 
world had hoped that the threat had subsided with the collapse of the 
Soviet Union, under the rule of Vladimir Putin, Russia has become an 
ever-growing menace to its neighbors and to world peace and security. 
As a result, NATO remains as relevant today as it was in the year of 
its founding.
  As Defense Secretary GEN James Mattis stated in his January 
confirmation hearing, ``If we did not have NATO today, we would need to 
create it.''
  NATO has evoked article 5 of its charter--which states that an attack 
against one member shall be considered an attack against all--only once 
in its history, in response to the 9/11 attacks against America. Since 
then, our NATO allies have sent their sons and daughters to fight and 
die alongside our own in the generational war against radical Islamist 
terrorism.
  The accession of Montenegro to NATO is important for a number of 
reasons. Montenegro has shown that it is committed to NATO and to 
making the internal reforms required to remain a member in good 
standing. Because of that commitment, Montenegro's membership in NATO 
will enhance stability in Europe.
  Finally, Russia's alleged support of an attempted coup in Montenegro 
must not be rewarded by NATO turning its back on a country that 
exhibits such courage in resisting Russia's persistent aggression.
  Just a few days ago, I met with Montenegro's Foreign Minister and the 
Ambassador to the United States. They expressed their sincere gratitude 
that the Senate will be voting this week on their accession and that 
Montenegro would be one step closer to aligning itself with the 
freedom-loving nations of NATO.
  Montenegro is a small country, but it has already demonstrated its 
commitment to the international community in implementing internal 
reforms. Montenegro has sent members of its military to Afghanistan in 
support of the International Security Assistance Force and as a member 
of the coalition to counter ISIS.
  In the years leading up to its formal invitation to join the 
alliance, Montenegro has partnered with NATO members to make a wide 
range of changes to strengthen its military, its intelligence 
operations, and its rule of law. While it currently falls short of the 
goals stated in the 2014 NATO Wales Summit to spend 2 percent of its 
GDP on defense, Montenegro has committed to meeting this target by 
2024.
  Expanding NATO to include nations that desire to join the alliance 
and commit to meeting membership requirements contributes to a strong 
and

[[Page 4928]]

stable Europe. It wasn't all that long ago that the Balkans region was 
unstable and war-torn, but because Slovenia, Croatia, and Albania have 
joined NATO, the Balkans is a far more stable region. Montenegro's 
accession will further enhance the stability of the Balkans and greater 
Europe.
  Finally, I support Montenegro and NATO because it sends a clear 
message to Moscow that it cannot deter NATO from expanding the alliance 
and it cannot bully countries to prevent them from joining. Russia has 
warned Montenegro that it will face consequences if it continues to 
pursue NATO membership. As Russia continues its destabilizing actions 
throughout Eastern Europe and the world, it is imperative that we send 
an unwavering message of strength and resolve by approving Montenegro's 
accession to NATO.
  In an era defined by polarization, Montenegro's accession to NATO has 
been thoroughly bipartisan. I thank my ranking members on the European 
subcommittee, Senator Murphy for the current Congress and Senator 
Shaheen during the 114th Congress, for their strong support on this 
issue. I also thank Chairman Corker and Ranking Member Cardin for their 
continued efforts to move this legislation forward, Senator McCain for 
being an outspoken supporter of Montenegro's accession, and Leader 
McConnell for his willingness to bring the protocol on the accession of 
Montenegro to the Senate floor.
  It is time for the United States to approve Montenegro's accession to 
NATO. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee has twice unanimously 
approved this measure, and Secretary of State Tillerson has 
communicated this administration's full support for Senate passage.
  I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of Montenegro's accession and 
hope President Trump will soon sign the protocol on the accession of 
Montenegro.
  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. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Strange). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                       Nomination of Neil Gorsuch

  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, redundancy is often a virtue, so I am 
about to practice redundancy.
  Last week, I made a speech on the floor of the Senate about the 
upcoming votes in connection with the President's nomination of Neil 
Gorsuch to be Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United 
States, and I talked about the 230-year history of this body to always 
have Presidential nominations for judges--for Supreme Court Justices, 
for Federal district judges, and for circuit judges up to 2003 by a 
majority vote. Never in the history of this body has the Senate refused 
to allow a vote, an up-or-down vote on a Supreme Court Justice.
  Because I hear that may be what the Democrats are planning to do--
even though Mr. Gorsuch may be one of the most remarkably talented 
nominees in a long, long time--I want to make the address that I made 
last week again, and I am going to deliver it word for word in hopes 
that someone may actually hear it.
  President Trump's nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch to be a member of 
the U.S. Supreme Court will be considered on the floor of the Senate 
next week. Some have suggested that instead of allowing a majority of 
Senators to decide whether to approve the Gorsuch nomination, there 
should first be a so-called cloture vote to determine whether to cut 
off debate.
  Now, you can see what would happen. Cutting off debate requires the 
approval of 60 Senators. There are 46 Democratic Senators, so if 41 of 
the 46 Democrat Senators vote not to cut off debate, we would never get 
to a vote on Judge Gorsuch. We would never get to a vote. In other 
words, the 41 Democratic Senators would have filibustered to death the 
Gorsuch nomination to the Supreme Court of the United States, a 
partisan act that has never happened before in the 230 years of the 
Senate.
  Filibustering to death the Gorsuch nomination or any Presidential 
nomination, for that matter, flies in the face of 230 years of Senate 
tradition.
  Throughout the Senate's history, approval of even the most 
controversial Presidential nominations have required only a majority 
vote. For example, in 1991, President George H.W. Bush nominated 
Clarence Thomas to be Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. The 
debate was bitter. The vote was narrow. The Senate confirmed Justice 
Thomas 52 to 48.
  Although Senate rules have allowed any one Senator to try to 
filibuster the nomination to death, to insist on a 60-vote vote, not 
one did. In fact, Senate rules have always allowed Senators the option 
to filibuster to death a Presidential nomination, yet it has almost 
never happened.
  According to the former Senate historian, with one possible 
exception, which I will describe later, the number of Supreme Court 
Justices in our country's history who have been denied their seats by 
filibuster is zero. The number of the President's Cabinet members in 
our country's history who have been denied their seats by a filibuster 
is zero. The number of Federal district judges in our country's history 
who have been denied their seats by a filibuster is zero. I know that 
for a fact because an attempt was made to filibuster one--Judge 
McConnell from Rhode Island--and I voted against that, as did other 
Republican Senators, because we thought it was wrong to break the 
Senate's 230-year tradition of always considering judges by majority 
vote, and we prevailed.
  We could have done it, but we didn't do it. That is the point.
  Next week, the Democrats can filibuster Judge Gorsuch to death, but 
they shouldn't do it. They shouldn't do it.
  Until 2003, the number of circuit judges in our country's history who 
have been denied their seats by filibuster was zero.
  Senator Everett Dirksen did not filibuster President Lyndon Johnson's 
nominees. Senator Robert Byrd did not filibuster President Reagan's 
nominees. Senator Howard Baker did not filibuster President Carter's 
nominees. Senator Bob Dole did not filibuster President Clinton's 
nominees.
  During most of the 20th century, when one party controlled the White 
House and the Senate 70 percent of the time, the minority never 
filibustered to death a single Presidential nomination.
  On the other hand, there have been plenty of filibusters on 
legislation--so many that in 1917, the Senate adopted the so-called 
cloture rule as a way to end filibusters. The idea is, after you talk 
enough, you should bring it to an end, so they had a supermajority for 
that purpose. The rule was amended in 1949, 1959, 1975, 1979, and 
1986--always in response to filibusters on legislation, never on 
nominations. It was the 1975 change that established the current 
cloture standard of 60 votes to end debate, except on amendments to the 
Standing Rules.
  Filibustering a Presidential nomination has always been treated 
differently than filibustering a legislative matter. The filibuster of 
legislation is perhaps the Senate's most famous characteristic. It has 
been called ``democracy's finest show, the right to talk your head 
off.''
  As the actor Jimmy Stewart says in the movie ``Mr. Smith Goes to 
Washington'': ``Wild horses aren't going to drag me off this floor 
until those people have heard everything I've got to say, even if it 
takes all winter.'' That was Jimmy Stewart talking about his 
filibuster.
  The late Robert Byrd described the importance of a legislative 
filibuster in this way in his last speech to the Senate: ``Our Founding 
Fathers intended the Senate to be a continuing body that allows for 
open and unlimited debate and protection of minority rights. Senators 
have understood this since the Senate first convened.''
  In fact, the whole idea of the Senate is not to have a majority rule 
on legislation. Throughout Senate history, the

[[Page 4929]]

purpose of the legislative filibuster has been to force consensus on 
issues, to force there to be a group of Senators on either side who 
have to respect one another's views so they work together and produce 
60 votes on important matters. We did that last December in a piece of 
legislation that the majority leader called the most important 
legislation of the Congress, the 21st Century Cures Act. There were 
enormous differences of opinion about it, but because Senator Murray, 
the ranking Democrat and I, and the Democrats and Republicans in the 
Senate and in the House, and President Obama and Vice President Biden 
all wanted a result, we formed a consensus. We resolved our 
differences, and we agreed on this most important piece of legislation 
that will help virtually every American family by advancing cures for 
cancer, Alzheimer's, diabetes, and a variety of diseases.
  Nominations have always been treated differently from legislation. 
For example, under Senate rule XIV, any Senator can bring legislation 
directly to the Calendar of General Orders, bypassing committees. There 
is no such power for nominations. There is no rule XIV for nominations. 
Senate rules allow debate and, therefore, the possibility of filibuster 
on a motion to proceed to legislation. Debate is not allowed on a 
motion to proceed to nominations. So there can't be a filibuster on a 
motion to proceed to a nomination. In summary, while Senate rules have 
always allowed for extended debate or filibusters, the filibuster was 
never used to block a nomination until recently.
  As I mentioned earlier, it was never used to block a Cabinet 
nomination, never used to block a Federal district judge, until 2003, 
never used to block a Federal circuit judge, and never used to block a 
Supreme Court Justice, with one possible exception. The exception 
occurred in 1968 when President Lyndon Johnson sought to elevate 
Associate Justice Abe Fortas to be Chief Justice. There was bipartisan 
opposition to that idea. When it became clear that the Senate majority 
would not agree, President Johnson engineered a 45-43 cloture vote so 
that Fortas could save face and appear to have won something, according 
to the former Senate Historian. Fortas then asked the President to 
withdraw the nomination.
  Other than that, never has a Supreme Court nominee been filibustered 
to death in the Senate. Other than the Fortas nomination, the 
filibuster was never used to block any judicial nomination until 2003 
and 2004, when Democrats for the first time decided to use the 60-vote 
cloture requirement to block 10 of President George W. Bush's nominees. 
I had just arrived in the Senate. I remember it well. I was really 
outraged by it because, as for the nominees, it was the right of the 
President to name them and the right of the Senate to reject them. But 
throughout history it was always by 51 votes. This unprecedented action 
by the Senate Democrats produced a threat by Republicans to change the 
Senate rules to make it clear that only a majority is required to 
approve a Presidential nomination. There was a negotiation, and 
eventually five of Bush's nominees were approved, five were blocked, 
and the rules weren't changed.
  Then in 2011 and 2013, Republicans returned the favor. That happens 
around here--a precedent set by that side then becomes a precedent that 
this side, then, undertakes. In 2011 and 2013, the Republicans returned 
the favor by seeking to block five of President Obama's nominees for 
the circuit court by insisting on a 60-vote cloture on each. 
Republicans alleged the President was trying to pack the Federal 
Circuit Court of the District of Columbia with three liberal justices. 
To overcome Republican objections, the Democrats invoked the so-called 
nuclear option. They broke the Senate rules to change the rules. The 
new rule eliminated the possibility of 60-vote cloture motions for all 
Presidential nominations except for the Supreme Court, which is where 
we are today.
  There have been other examples of minority Senators filibustering 
nominations to death, all of them during the last three administrations 
and all involving sub-Cabinet nominations. Then, of course, there have 
been delays in considering nominations.
  My own nomination in 1991 as U.S. Education Secretary was delayed for 
51 days--I thought improperly--by a Democratic Senator. President 
Reagan's nomination of Ed Meese as Attorney General of the United 
States was delayed 1 year by a Democratic Senate. No one has ever 
disputed our right in the Senate, regardless of who was in charge, to 
use our constitutional duty of advice and consent to delay and examine 
and sometimes to cause nominations to be withdrawn or even to defeat 
nominees by a majority vote.
  But, as we approach the vote next week on Neil Gorsuch on the floor 
of the Senate, it is useful to remember that the tradition of the 
Senate has been to treat legislative matters one way and Presidential 
nominations a different way: to filibuster to death legislation, yes; 
to filibuster to death Presidential nominations, no.
  Should the Gorsuch nomination come to the floor soon, as I believe it 
will, overwhelming Senate tradition requires that whether to approve it 
should be decided by a majority vote and there should be no attempt by 
the minority to filibuster the nomination, especially of such a 
qualified man.
  I thank the Presiding Officer, and 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. COTTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Johnson). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that, 
notwithstanding rule XXII, all postcloture time on Executive Calendar 
No. 1, the Montenegro treaty, be expired; that all pending amendments 
be withdrawn, the resolution of ratification be reported, and the 
Senate vote on the resolution of ratification with no intervening 
action or debate; and that if the resolution of ratification is agreed 
to, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table 
and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments (No. 193 and 194) were withdrawn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the resolution of 
ratification.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       Resolution of Advice and Consent to Ratification of the 
     Protocol to the North Atlantic Treaty of 1949 on the 
     Accession of Montenegro, which was opened for signature at 
     Brussels on May 19, 2016, and signed that day on behalf of 
     the United States of America.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the resolution 
of ratification.
  Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  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. 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. 98 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

[[Page 4930]]


     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.
  Two-thirds of the Senators voting, a quorum being present, having 
voted in the affirmative, the resolution of ratification is agreed to.
  The resolution of ratification agreed to is as follows:

       Resolved, (two-thirds of the Senators present concurring 
     therein),

     SECTION 1. SENATE ADVICE AND CONSENT SUBJECT TO DECLARATIONS, 
                   AN UNDERSTANDING, AND CONDITIONS.

       The Senate advises and consents to the ratification of the 
     Protocol to the North Atlantic Treaty of 1949 on the 
     Accession of Montenegro, which was opened for signature at 
     Brussels on May 19, 2016, and signed that day on behalf of 
     the United States of America (the ``Protocol'') (Treaty Doc. 
     114-12), subject to the declarations of section 2 and the 
     conditions of section 3.

     SEC. 2. DECLARATIONS.

       The advice and consent of the Senate under section 1 is 
     subject to the following declarations:
       (1) Reaffirmation that united states membership in nato 
     remains a vital national security interest of the united 
     states.--The Senate declares that--
       (A) for more than 60 years the North Atlantic Treaty 
     Organization (NATO) has served as the preeminent organization 
     to defend the countries in the North Atlantic area against 
     all external threats;
       (B) through common action, the established democracies of 
     North America and Europe that were joined in NATO persevered 
     and prevailed in the task of ensuring the survival of 
     democratic government in Europe and North America throughout 
     the Cold War;
       (C) NATO enhances the security of the United States by 
     embedding European states in a process of cooperative 
     security planning and by ensuring an ongoing and direct 
     leadership role for the United States in European security 
     affairs;
       (D) the responsibility and financial burden of defending 
     the democracies of Europe and North America can be more 
     equitably shared through an alliance in which specific 
     obligations and force goals are met by its members;
       (E) the security and prosperity of the United States is 
     enhanced by NATO's collective defense against aggression that 
     may threaten the security of NATO members; and
       (F) United States membership in NATO remains a vital 
     national security interest of the United States.
       (2) Strategic rationale for nato enlargement.--The Senate 
     finds that--
       (A) the United States and its NATO allies face continued 
     threats to their stability and territorial integrity;
       (B) an attack against Montenegro, or its destabilization 
     arising from external subversion, would threaten the 
     stability of Europe and jeopardize United States national 
     security interests;
       (C) Montenegro, having established a democratic government 
     and having demonstrated a willingness to meet the 
     requirements of membership, including those necessary to 
     contribute to the defense of all NATO members, is in a 
     position to further the principles of the North Atlantic 
     Treaty and to contribute to the security of the North 
     Atlantic area; and
       (D) extending NATO membership to Montenegro will strengthen 
     NATO, enhance stability in Southeast Europe, and advance the 
     interests of the United States and its NATO allies.
       (3) Support for nato's open door policy.--The policy of the 
     United States is to support NATO's Open Door Policy that 
     allows any European country to express its desire to join 
     NATO and demonstrate its ability to meet the obligations of 
     NATO membership.
       (4) Future consideration of candidates for membership in 
     nato.--
       (A) Senate finding.--The Senate finds that the United 
     States will not support the accession to the North Atlantic 
     Treaty of, or the invitation to begin accession talks with, 
     any European state (other than Montenegro), unless--
       (i) the President consults with the Senate consistent with 
     Article II, section 2, clause 2 of the Constitution of the 
     United States (relating to the advice and consent of the 
     Senate to the making of treaties); and
       (ii) the prospective NATO member can fulfill all of the 
     obligations and responsibilities of membership, and the 
     inclusion of such state in NATO would serve the overall 
     political and strategic interests of NATO and the United 
     States.
       (B) Requirement for consensus and ratification.--The Senate 
     declares that no action or agreement other than a consensus 
     decision by the full membership of NATO, approved by the 
     national procedures of each NATO member, including, in the 
     case of the United States, the requirements of Article II, 
     section 2, clause 2 of the Constitution of the United States 
     (relating to the advice and consent of the Senate to the 
     making of treaties), will constitute a commitment to 
     collective defense and consultations pursuant to Articles 4 
     and 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty.
       (5) Influence of non-nato members on nato decisions.--The 
     Senate declares that any country that is not a member of NATO 
     shall have no impact on decisions related to NATO 
     enlargement.
       (6) Support for 2014 wales summit defense spending 
     benchmark.--The Senate declares that all NATO members should 
     continue to move towards the guideline outlined in the 2014 
     Wales Summit Declaration to spend a minimum of 2 percent of 
     their Gross Domestic Product (GDP) on defense and 20 percent 
     of their defense budgets on major equipment, including 
     research and development, by 2024.
       (7) Support for montenegro's democratic reform process.--
     Montenegro has made difficult reforms and taken steps to 
     address corruption. The United States and other NATO member 
     states should not consider this important process complete 
     and should continue to urge additional reforms.

     SEC. 3. CONDITIONS.

       The advice and consent of the Senate under section 1 is 
     subject to the following conditions:
       (1) Presidential certification.--Prior to the deposit of 
     the instrument of ratification, the President shall certify 
     to the Senate as follows:
       (A) The inclusion of Montenegro in NATO will not have the 
     effect of increasing the overall percentage share of the 
     United States in the common budgets of NATO.
       (B) The inclusion of Montenegro in NATO does not detract 
     from the ability of the United States to meet or to fund its 
     military requirements outside the North Atlantic area.
       (2) Annual report on nato member defense spending.--Not 
     later than December 1 of each year during the 8-year period 
     following the date of entry into force of the Protocol to the 
     North Atlantic Treaty of 1949 on the Accession of Montenegro, 
     the President shall submit to the appropriate congressional 
     committees a report, which shall be submitted in an 
     unclassified form, but may be accompanied by a classified 
     annex, and which shall contain the following information:
       (A) The amount each NATO member spent on its national 
     defense in each of the previous 5 years.
       (B) The percentage of GDP for each of the previous 5 years 
     that each NATO member spent on its national defense.
       (C) The percentage of national defense spending for each of 
     the previous 5 years that each NATO member spent on major 
     equipment, including research and development.
       (D) Details on the actions a NATO member has taken in the 
     most recent year reported to move closer towards the NATO 
     guideline outlined in the 2014 Wales Summit Declaration to 
     spend a minimum of 2 percent of its GDP on national defense 
     and 20 percent of its national defense budget on major 
     equipment, including research and development, if a NATO 
     member is below either guideline for the most recent year 
     reported.

     SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS.

       In this resolution:
       (1) Appropriate congressional committees.--The term 
     ``appropriate congressional committees'' means the Committee 
     on Foreign Relations and the Committee on Armed Services of 
     the Senate and the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the 
     Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives.
       (2) NATO members.--The term ``NATO members'' means all 
     countries that are parties to the North Atlantic Treaty.
       (3) Non-NATO members.--The term ``non-NATO members'' means 
     all countries that are not parties to the North Atlantic 
     Treaty.
       (4) North atlantic area.--The term ``North Atlantic area'' 
     means the area covered by Article 6 of the North Atlantic 
     Treaty, as applied by the North Atlantic Council.
       (5) North atlantic treaty.--The term ``North Atlantic 
     Treaty'' means the North Atlantic Treaty, signed at 
     Washington April 4, 1949 (63 Stat. 2241; TIAS 1964), as 
     amended.
       (6) United states instrument of ratification.--The term 
     ``United States instrument of ratification'' means the 
     instrument of ratification of the United States of the 
     Protocol to the North Atlantic Treaty of 1949 on the 
     Accession of Montenegro.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.

[[Page 4931]]



                          ____________________