[Pages S5121-S5125]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

MEDIA

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

[[Page S5122]]

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page S5123]]

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

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

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

(By Carla Anne Robbins)

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

cutting back on aid

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

taste of battles to come

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

[[Page S5124]]

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

republican internationalists

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Mar. 5, 2014]

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

(By Sabrina Siddiqui)

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

[[Page S5125]]

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

[August 15, 2018]

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

(By Joe Gould)

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

____________________